Universal Credit Everything you need to no. Who.How.Why When.Labour have stated they will support these proposals.

Universal credit: the essential guide

The flagship policy in the government's welfare reform programme is being piloted from 29 April and is due to go live nationally this October. Study the issue in depth and learn all you need to know about what happens next with our essential guide

Protesters demand a cap on rents not benefits in Stratford, London. The overall benefit cap is part of the governments welfare reforms, along with the bedroom tax, changes to council tax benefit and universal credit. Photograph: Gail-Orenstein/Demotix/Corbis

1. What is universal credit?
2. How is the system different?
3. When does it begin? Is it on track?
4. Why is the government pushing for reform?
5. Does the reform tie in with the government's "strivers and scroungers" rhetoric?
6. Whose idea was it?
7. Which benefits does it replace?
8. Which benefits remain?
9. What will claimants be expected to do in return for universal credit?
10. What is all the talk of "digital by default"?
11. Has the development of the universal credit IT system gone smoothly?
12. What are campaigners worried about?

1. What is universal credit?

Universal credit (UC) is the flagship policy in the government's welfare reform programme (pdf), billed as representing the biggest change to the welfare system since the 1940s. It is designed to simplify the benefits system. The government wants the system to "ensure that work always pays and is seen to pay" and to encourage people to see work as the best route out of poverty.
The secretary of state for work and pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, has promised: "Universal credit will mean that people will be consistently and transparently better off for each hour they work and every pound they earn." The current system of means-tested out-of-work benefits, tax credits and support for housing will be replaced by a single income-replacement benefit.
The government hopes the reform will:
• Simplify the system.
• Reduce the financial and administrative barriers to taking up work.
• Make it easier for people to understand how much they will gain by taking a job.
• Create greater incentives to take up work.
• Prepare out-of-work claimants for their next job.
• Reduce the amount spent on administration and tracking down fraud and error.
• Reduce (in the longer term) the number of children and adults living in poverty.
• Reduce the number of workless households by always ensuring that work pays.
The changes will affect around 8 million households.
• Back to the top

2. How is the system different?

In theory, most claimants will apply online and manage their claim through an online account, making the system cheaper to administer. It will be available to people who are in work and on a low income as well as to people who are out of work.
It will merge out-of-work benefits and in-work support (pdf), so claimants should not feel they are taking a risk as they move from one system to another. Universal credit is intended to improve work incentives by ensuring that support is reduced at a consistent rate as people return to work.
Most claimants on low incomes will still be paid universal credit when they first start a new job or increase their part-time hours. Claimants will receive just one monthly payment, paid into a bank account in the same way as a monthly salary. Support with housing costs will go direct to the claimant as part of their monthly payment, rather than to the landlord.
• Back to the top

3. When does it begin? Is it on track?

Universal credit will go live nationally in October 2013. A pilot programme was due to begin in Tameside, Oldham, Wigan and Warrington from the end of April 2013. These pilots were designed to identify where changes needed to be made to "ensure the new service is robust and reliable when universal credit goes live nationally in October 2013", the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said.
But in March (in the news dead zone, on the Thursday evening before Good Friday) the DWP announced that three of the four pilots (Wigan, Warrington, Oldham) had been postponed until July, and only the Tameside pilot would happen on schedule in April (launching Monday 29 April).
Labour said universal credit was "on the edge of disaster", claiming that IT systems needed for it were not yet ready. The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, said: "This is yet another embarrassing setback for universal credit." A DWP spokesperson said there had been no delay, and that the pilots rollout needed to be gradual. The government has been deliberately vague about the precise timetable for rollout, allowing it to deny that there have been any delays.
The broad timetable states that universal credit will start to take new claims from unemployed people in October 2013. For people in work this process will begin in April 2014. The remainder of current claims will be moved to universal credit from 2014, with the process being complete by 2017.
• Back to the top

4. Why is the government pushing for reform?

The chancellor, George Osborne, said in his keynote speech on welfare reform in April: "The benefit system is broken; it penalises those who try to do the right thing; and the British people badly want it fixed. We agree – and those who don't are on the wrong side of the British public." He pointed to the development of universal credit as part of the answer.
Under the current benefits system, the financial gains of taking a job can be very small. Many workers have most of any increase in earning deducted from their benefits and tax credits payment, with some households facing deduction rates as high as 91%, the DWP says.
"This problem is compounded by the administrative complexity of the system. There are separate systems for out-of-work and in-work support delivered by different parts of government. A move into work therefore entails a recalculation of entitlement, multiple communications and possible delays and gaps in payment. As a result, many people are not prepared to take the risk of moving into work," the DWP says.
"In around 1.1 million households, a person would currently lose between 70% and all of their earnings if they move into work of 10 hours a week. The incentives to increase hours once in work are also very weak. Under the current system around 700,000 individuals in low-paid work would lose more than 80% of an increase in their earnings because of higher tax or withdrawn benefits.
"The current system of benefits provides targeted support to meet specific needs, but the net effect is a complex array of benefits which interact in complicated ways, creating perverse incentives and penalties, confusion and administrative cost. This has the effect of preventing many in our society from seeing work as the best route out of poverty. It also increases the risk of error and the opportunities for fraud."
The UC system introduces higher earnings disregards, a 65% taper rate, and more "conditionality" (introducing new responsibilities, such as mandated work placements, for claimants). There are new sanctions for those who do not comply with the regulations.
The DWP promises that UC will improve work incentives in three ways:
• Ensuring that support is reduced at a consistent and predictable rate, and that people generally keep a higher proportion of their earnings.
• Ensuring that any work pays and, in particular, low-hours work.
• Reducing the complexity of the system, and removing the distinction between in-work and out-of-work support, thus making clear the potential gains to work and reducing the risks associated with moves into employment.
• Back to the top

5. Does the reform tie in with the government's "skivers and strivers" rhetoric?

In the universal credit white paper (pdf), the government argues: "Welfare dependency has become a significant problem in Britain with a huge social and economic cost." The new benefit will be "leaner" and "firmer".
"The UK has one of the highest rates of children growing up in homes where no one works and this pattern repeats itself through the generations. Less than 60% of lone parents in the UK are in employment, compared to 70% or more in France, Germany and the Netherlands … Universal credit will start to change this. It will reintroduce the culture of work in households where it may have been absent for generations," the white paper argues.
In December, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study dismissing this notion of a "culture of worklessness".

Link to video: Skivers v strivers: the benefits debate explained | Animation • Back to the top

6. Whose idea was it?

All parties have talked about the need to reform the complex benefit system, but the concept of universal credit came directly out of work done by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), the thinktank launched by Iain Duncan Smith while in opposition in 2004.
"Too much of our current system is geared toward maintaining people on benefits rather than helping them to flourish in work; we need reform that tackles the underlying problem of welfare dependency," he said.
The CSJ produced a report in 2009 called Dynamic Benefits: towards welfare that works, which stated: "Work must be supported as the principal route out of poverty. We propose replacing the current confusing array of benefits with a 'Universal Credit' – a simpler, more cost-effective system that provides greater rewards for work."
It proposed a new system to taper the withdrawal of benefits so that claimants no longer faced a "cliff-edge withdrawal" when they go into work.
The new coalition government made UC the key element in its welfare reform programme in 2010.
• Back to the top

7. Which benefits does it replace?

The benefit replaces six income-related work-based benefits:
• Working tax credit.
• Child tax credit.
• Housing benefit.
• Income-related employment and support allowance (ESA).
• Income-based jobseeker's allowance (JSA).
• Income support.
• Back to the top

8. Which benefits remain?

Critics point out that universal credit is not entirely universal, given that it does not embrace all benefits into one simplified system. A large number of benefits remain, including:
• Contribution-based JSA.
• Contributory ESA (limited to 52 weeks for those in the work-related activity group).
• Attendance allowance (AA) and disability living allowance (DLA) for children.
• Carer's allowance.
• Bereavement benefits.
• Industrial injuries disablement benefit and war pensions.
• Maternity allowance; statutory sick/maternity/paternity/adoption pay (these will be treated as earnings for UC).
• Child benefit and guardian's allowance.
• Pension credit (PC) – unlike now, both partners in a couple will need to be over the prescribed age to get PC, which will also include allowances for children and rent, although in the short-term it appears claimants over PC age will be able to claim tax credits and housing benefit.
• Social fund maternity, funeral, winter fuel and cold weather payments.
• "Passported" benefits: additional benefits (such as free school meals or free prescriptions) to which claimants on certain other benefits and/or tax credits are automatically entitled.
• Back to the top

9. What will claimants be expected to do in return for universal credit?

According to the DWP: "At the heart of universal credit is a partnership between the state and the claimant. In return for receiving financial support, out of work claimants, depending on their circumstances, must look for work, or take steps towards it. This may include preparing a CV, attending training courses, applying for suggested vacancies or registering with a recruitment agency.
"In most cases they must also be available and willing to immediately take up work and attend periodic interviews to discuss plans and opportunities for returning to work (immediately or in the future)."
• Back to the top

10. What is all the talk of "digital by default"?

In theory, the introduction of universal credit coincides with a move to online claims, but there is much uncertainty about whether the necessary computer system will be ready in time.
The idea is that claims will be made online, and all subsequent contact between the DWP and claimants is meant to be conducted online. The only exception will be where the DWP authorises a telephone claim.
The government promises: "We want to make the process of claiming universal credit as simple as possible for claimants. Universal credit is being designed so that each claimant can make a claim online and then personally manage their claim directly through an online account.
"Wherever possible, we want claimants to notify us via their online account of any relevant information and changes of circumstance as soon as possible after the change occurs."
For those people who are working, UC will be calculated automatically, adjusting credit payments according to monthly income reported through an upgraded version of the pay as you earn (PAYE) system.
The government accepts that a "minority" of claimants won't have access to a computer with internet, or won't be able to claim online. Campaigners are anxious that the government has been over-optimistic about the number of people who are able to go online to claim.
The government is promising "digital champions" in every jobcentre "to help staff support and encourage claimants to take their first steps online and see the benefits of being able to use the internet".
There is industry speculation about whether a computer system capable of handling all the online claims will be ready in time for the launch.
• Back to the top

11. Has the development of the universal credit IT system gone smoothly?

The DWP has repeatedly claimed that the development is on schedule and on budget. Reports from within the IT industry have repeatedly indicated that this is not the case.
The white paper promised that UC "would involve an IT development of moderate scale, which the Department for Work and Pensions and its suppliers are confident of handling within budget and timescale".
Labour has claimed that work on the £500m IT delivery contract has hit serious problems, and has pointed to the departures of several key figures overseeing the development of the computer program.
Computer Weekly notes that there have been four people heading up the project in just six months, and reveals that there will be a new head – Howard Shiplee – from mid-May. "The changes in leadership succession have led to further speculation that the project has hit problems, with reports that the IT behind the project is not ready. However, the department insists that universal credit will be delivered on time and within budget," it reports.
Campaigners are uneasy about the capacity of the government's IT systems to deliver. The Child Poverty Action Group warns: "Predominantly IT-based administration represents a big risk, given the poor record of large-scale government IT projects. The assumption that the vast majority of claimants can initiate and manage their claims online seems unrealistic and may cause difficulties for many claimants. Administration by a single agency could reduce bureaucracy and duplication, but may not necessarily result in a better service."
• Back to the top

12. What are campaigners worried about?

• Monthly payments
The government thinks this will help promote good budgeting and more closely replicate monthly salary payments – arguing that 75% of all employees receive wages monthly. "This will help smooth the transition into monthly paid work, encourage claimants to take personal responsibility for their finances and to budget on a monthly basis which could save households money. For example, monthly direct debits for household bills are often cheaper than more frequent billing options," the government argues. Campaigners are worried that the shift from weekly and fortnightly payments to this new regime may push claimants recipients into debt. The Social Market Foundation says: "Most households in our sample opposed the idea of a monthly payment. This was the case for the majority of households, who tended to budget on a daily, weekly or fortnightly cycle."
• Direct payments
The prospect of stopping housing benefit payments to landlords and directly paying the claimant is causing a lot of unease. The National Housing Federation says the shift from paying landlords to paying claimants direct for the housing benefit element could trigger unprecedented levels of arrears and increased rent collection costs. "Of all the reforms, the introduction of direct payments to tenants is expected to have the biggest impact – more than 80% of housing associations say it will affect their organisations a great deal or a fair amount," an NHF report warns. "84% of associations believe that rent arrears will increase as a direct result of welfare changes. The average increase expected is 51%, which, if replicated across the sector, would mean an additional £245m of arrears."
The government has said that "vulnerable" tenants may be excluded (pdf) and has devised an "automatic switchback mechanism" – paying rent to the landlord when a tenant's arrears hit a threshold level – but there are currently very few details of what constitutes a vulnerable tenant.
There are concerns that more people could be evicted as a result. The BBC obtained figures that showed when the direct payments were piloted in six areas of the country there was a big rise in rent arrears as some tenants failed to pass that money on, with arrears rising from about 2% to 11%.
• Conditionality and sanctions
"Entitlement to UC is subject to a strict regime of 'personalised' conditionality (ie mandatory activity to prepare for and obtain work), backed by tough benefit sanctions (ie loss of benefit) for non-compliance," the government says.
The Child Poverty Action Group warns: "The need for more conditionality comes across as a 'moral crusade', rather than being evidence based … There are concerns that some vulnerable claimants could face repeated sanctions for failing to comply with the demands of the system and that personal advisers and the Work Programme (within a culture of 'payment by results') will have too much power and discretion to impose unreasonable requirements on claimants."
The charity warns in a UC training document: "Sanctions, in the form of loss of benefit, are designed to incentivise claimants to meet their work-related requirements and punish them for unreasonable failures. The regime is harsh, and there is concern that some claimants who repeatedly fail to comply with the system could be sanctioned and forced to survive on below subsistence income for long periods. This could include vulnerable claimants with mental health or social functioning problems, who find it difficult to comply with directions."
A high level sanction can be imposed if, for example, a claimant fails for no good reason to take up an offer of paid work. The higher level sanction is the loss of the standard allowance of 91 days for a first failure, 182 days for a second higher level sanction within a year, and 1,095 days (three years) for another failure within a further year (disregarding "pre-claim" failures).
Hardship payments will be available of 60% of the sanctioned amount for those who cannot meet their "immediate and most basic and essential needs for accommodation, heating, food and hygiene".
• Lone parents could lose out
The Institute for Fiscal Students (IFS) calculates that "because of the way the parameters of universal credit have been chosen, couples, and particularly those with children, look set to gain by more, on average, than single-adult families, particularly lone parents, who will lose on average according to our analysis".
You can Follow Ray  and People Before Profit campaigns on Twitter;@Raywoolford

Bedroom Tax , welfare advice Best site to use.

Best and easy way of getting help and understanding all welfare changes ;wwwbenefitsawareness.org.uk

If you live in Lewisham you  can secure one to one help and  advice from the new community advice centre run by Lewisham People Before Profit from the Office they have at the back of the Lewisham & Greenwich Foodbank 467 New Cross road SE14 6TA. You can book an appointment via email or call 0207 231 0535 office hours to book a spot.

 The Food Bank will book appointments if you drop by the food Bank opening Hours 11am-2pm Monday-Saturday.www.lewishamfoodbank.com

People Before Profit have a huge number of professional Lawyers, housing experts and Social and Educational as well as experts on Disability and welfare issues. They also have large number of supporters who can help with translation issues as well as help with private home visits.



Should you share our Politics, you can follow Ray Woolford on twitter@Raywoolford.

New Cross /Lewisham Food Bank Crises as record numbers of working people seek help

Food Bank Trussell Trust Sees Demand Go Up Five-Fold Since Coalition Came To Power

The number of people using food banks has increased five-fold since the coalition came to power, and nearly tripled over the last year, with almost 350,000 people receiving emergency parcels from the Trussell Trust, the largest food bank provider in the UK.
According to figures from the charity, 30% of people using their service over the last year were referred as a result of benefit delays and 15% because of benefit changes.
Overall, the charity helped nearly 100,000 more people than it had anticipated over the last 12 months, and expects to see many more as a result of the government's controversial welfare reforms.


Volunteers put a selection of tinned food together for a client at a depot at St Paul's Church, Brixton Chris Mould, chief executive of the Trussell Trust, told the Huffington Post UK that large numbers of people using food banks were not 'jobless scroungers' but were in work and "not earning enough in an economy in which prices are going up and incomes are flatlining."
He warned that the sheer volume of people needing help was a "wake-up call to the nation" saying "large numbers of people are going hungry and we can’t go on pretending it isnt happening. "
He said the Trussell Trust was expecting even more people using the food banks in coming months, as a raft of the government's welfare reforms come into force.
Claiming the benefit system is still not working, he told the Huffington Post UK: "With the decision to cap benefits, the government has taken a deliberate move to restrict the purchasing power of people vulnerable by definition: they are already eligible for tax credits and income support.
"Many millions of people are having to get by on incomes that are already precarious with no guarantee they can continue to afford food," he added.
"When rents and energy prices are going up and people have to make a decision between keeping a roof over their heads or going hungry, people choose to cut down on food.
"A large number of people are being thrown into crisis because there are problems with the benefit system, partly because there is lots of churn in the workforce and people are on benefits when they weren’t before.
"The system is not working well and large numbers of people are sometimes going weeks without any source of income at all."


Chancellor George Osborne has been asked not to add taxes to food or cut benefits Foodbank recipients are referred by doctors, social workers, schools liaison officers or advisers at the CAB and Jobcentre Plus.
Foodboxes contain at least three days' supply of non-perishable foods such as tinned fruit, vegetables, meat, tea and pasta. Mould said he saw working people coming in to visit food banks on their lunch-breaks, mums coming in to find help feeding their children and people who were unemployed who needed help.
"It's shocking that people are going hungry in 21st century Britain," he said.
In February the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier de Schutter told HuffPost UK that food banks must not be allowed to become a permanent fixture in the UK and Europe, or used by governments to "clear their conscience" and neglect their duty to protect the country's poorest people.
The emergency food banks are now accepted by governments as the norm, which they “absolutely should not be" said de Schutter.
It is the UK’s government’s duty to protect the poorest in society and part of their duty under human rights law, de Schutter said.
Oxfam's Director of UK Poverty, Chris Johnes, said: "These shocking figures show that a perfect storm of spiralling living costs, lack of decent, secure jobs and benefit changes are making it impossible for many people to feed themselves or their families. It's clear there is a massive hole in the safety net when so many more people are being forced to rely on emergency food handouts.
"We are worried this could be just the tip of the iceberg as changes to the welfare system already in the pipeline could rip apart the safety net with devastating consequences for those who rely on it.
"The government cannot ignore this situation any longer. Instead of taking money from people who can't feed themselves, the government should be targeting companies and wealthy individuals who are dodging the taxes which are their fair contribution to our society."
We Care the charity Food Bank set up People before Profit community activists Ray Woolford and Barbara Raymond has expanded to cover not just the whole of Lewisham, but also Greenwich. The New site has a furniture and charitie shop to raise funds, at present Food Bank is paid for by Housemartins estate agents , It also offers a Childrens cloths exchange and an Advice and support centre with Out reach work for People unable to get out.
We Care does not feed the homeless as many groups already do this, we opffer help to any resident that just has no money to buy food, they just need ID and £1 if they have it.
We feed huge numbers who work on low pay. Young people starting work that have welfare stopped and do not get paid until end og the month. disabled people having to restart welfare claims. small traders who due to poor cash flow have no funsds to buy food and pensioners hit with large energy bills leaving them with no money to buy Food.

Donations of all kinds urgently wanted.Our Bank account with the Co Op is We Care ;Sort Code 08 92 99 Account Number 65659328/ £10 helps us feed a family for a month plus pets. also helps to pay Office costs to run much needed advice and support servicvice. we are also seeking to raise money to buy our own Shop so every penny goes to local people in Greenwich & Lewisham in need.

www.lewishamfoodbank.com
Follow Ray on Twitter@Raywoolford.

PFI. Is this the worst Labour Financial cock up for Tax Payers Ever? Why PFI must be banned.

 Thursday 18 April 2013 12:00
A CONTRACT which costs the NHS £60 million a year has once again come under fire after it emerged that health bosses have only been able to impose fines of less than £30 per day when a PFI firm’s blunders left operating theatres out of action.

Patients saw operations cancelled last year when flies were found in the sterile operating suites and Consort, the company that built and runs the ERI on behalf of NHS Lothian and has responsibility for the building’s maintenance, was blamed.
The PFI firm was told penalties for causing the unavailability of the theatres last summer would be imposed as the health board considered the infestation, believed to have been caused when a pigeon accessed internal hospital areas and died, to be avoidable and prolonged.
But it then emerged that under the terms of the PFI contract, which was agreed in 1998 and is widely viewed as one of the most disastrous agreements of its kind ever signed, Consort would be liable to pay just £28.24 per day when it caused an operating theatre to close for four hours or more.
The revelations come after hundreds of emails between NHS Lothian, Consort and its partner Balfour Beatty around the issue of pest control at the Royal Infirmary were revealed for the first time.
Gordon Beurskens, who obtained the documents under Environmental Information Regulation laws on behalf of the Action to Save St John’s Hospital Party, said: “£28 is a pathetic figure. It won’t buy much theatre time from Consort, or the private sector where delayed patients might end up. If PFI was properly scrutinised, many of these absurd deals wouldn’t have been signed in the first place.”
NHS Lothian is now taking other measures to recoup cash by attempting to reduce the PFI firm’s rating of 98.668 per cent, which it awarded itself in November, meaning performance-related payments would fall.
The rating could be slashed by more than 10 per cent, which would mean NHS Lothian would be paid back up to £40,000, while a further £188,000 could be held and retained if the ongoing situation with flies is not resolved.
NHS Lothian has said the rating should be cut as netting and mesh put up to detract birds covered up faults in the ERI’s construction which allowed them to access internal areas. It has also said no significant repair work took place until November – five months after the original incident – and that roofing above operating theatres was not watertight.
It is understood that NHS Lothian expects to recoup a significant sum – but almost a year after two theatres were closed for a combined 11 days, a deal has not yet been hammered out.
Theatres were also shut in August and November after isolated flies were found in theatres, causing an infection risk and requiring deep cleans to be carried out.
Scottish Conservative health spokesman Jackson Carlaw said: “The fact operations had to be cancelled because of a pigeon infestation is humiliating enough. Now Consort’s refusal to take any kind of credible blame for the incident, and the toothlessness of the contract meaning the health board isn’t holding any aces, is making that even more stark.”
Flies and pigeons accessing the ERI are only the latest scandal to hit Consort.
A year ago, a patient was operated on by torchlight after the firm cut power to an operating theatre and previous issues have emerged with hospital cleanliness, staff criminal background checks and alarm systems. NHS Lothian bosses have privately expressed exasperation with their PFI partners, who they are tied to under a long-term deal that will not see the health board automatically take ownership of the hospital once it expires. By 2028, NHS Lothian will have handed over £1.26 billion.
But George Curley, director of operations in facilities, said working relationships had improved over the past 12 months and insisted NHS Lothian is currently happy with Consort’s performance.
He said: “This is a self-monitoring contract and Consort monitor their performance, however this is reinforced by our own internal checks. In this specific instance we felt that their application of the contract did not reflect our position on the matter.
“We are close to reaching an agreement with Consort around this issue. NHS Lothian believes this to be a fair and reasonable offer.”
No-one from Consort was available to comment.
List of unwelcome guests
In the e-mails, a series of concerning pest discoveries at the ERI are revealed.
As recently as February, a fly was found in a windowless room near operating theatres, causing a senior critical care boss to express serious concerns and ask why photographic evidence that work had been carried out had not been provided.
Pupae were found in a sterile storage room in December after ceiling screening was found not intact. Other incidents include “thousands” of flies seen above an assessment unit in August, beetles on a theatre windowsill and pigeons heard in a roof void. Some have blamed flies on windows left open,
but others maintain building fabric is to blame.

Please Sign the NUMBER 10 petition calling for a ban on. www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk

You can folow Ray on twitter@Raywoolford

 

Rate:

Redundant Retoric

1:46 PM on 19/04/2013

Who owns the ERI?

1 reply

(0) (1)

 

Rate:

Free2B

9:12 AM on 19/04/2013

Its a weird world of banking... did you know these 'PFI' deals involving 'cash' almost certainly used no money?

Research how 'money' is created, and you'll find the contract signed became a 'bank asset' which is then treated as cash... in effect 'we' - as signed for on our behalf, created the money...

This document (with wet signature) will have been bundled and sold on.. traded..

It was thought by many at the time that these 'PFI' and 'PPI' deals used investors cash.. well yes some... but there was always the feeling things were a bit stinky.. but people believe banking was our piggy bank experience - someone has to put some in to get some out. Deposits would have been created on the basis of the loan agreement in a bankers pen trick... and i have no doubt the trams would be the same... after all, who has the £1b to lend us?

No money moved from one account to another... yet we - the people of edinburgh - have years to pay back and not even ownership at the end... it was a monumental rip-off... but who cares.. x-factor will be on soon... move along

(http://www.positivemoney.org/videos/ for info on how banks create money they dont have)

(0) (0)

 

Rate:

Pan Roentgen

8:54 AM on 19/04/2013

Joe Owens was interviews on TV during an investigation into PFI. He was asked what Lothian Health should do, if, when the lease is renegociated that Consort doubles.triples or quadruples the current "rent" of £2.25 million/month(yes it is THAT much).

"Oh we would simply walk away from the deal" !!!!!

What ???? just walk away from NRIE ????
Yet, that is what he said, and the video still exists Joe !!!!

(0) (8)

 

Rate:

Sausageupaclose

8:47 PM on 18/04/2013

Blame the clowns that negotiated the contracts, name and shame!

(1) (4)

 

Rate:

Artemis

8:46 PM on 18/04/2013

UNISON did everything in its power to campaign against the PFI of the RIE and this newspaper refused to support the campaign. UNISON made it very clear what the outcome would be, and nobody wanted to know.

1 reply

(2) (3)

 

Rate:

Arkletten

6:53 PM on 18/04/2013

http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/OurOrganisation/KeyDocuments/Royal%20Infirmary%20of%20Edinburgh%20PFI%20Agreements/NRIE_Business_Case_1997.pdf See page 40.

The ERI PFI arrangements were first entered into in 1995 when Ian Lang, then later in 1995, Michael Forsyth, were in the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.

When Tony Blair got in in 1998 and Donal Dewar was Scottish Secretary, Labour just rubber stamped the Tory deal.

(0) (4)

 

Rate:

gus1940

6:29 PM on 18/04/2013

Surely once we win Independence after a YES vote in 9/14 and The Independent Scottish Government like all other independent countries will have normal borrowing powers legislation can be passed for compulsory buyouts and termination of not only The ERI PFI disaster but all the other PFI fiascos foisted on us by Labour and the Tories.

The PFI holders will be made an offer they cannot refuse in each instance and we shall not be held to ransom by these parasites..

1 reply

(2) (3)

 

Rate:

Arkletten

6:04 PM on 18/04/2013

Aren't Balfour Beatty the ones the current SNP- Labour coalition intend to give the contract to build the new Porty High school? If they get the private bill through?

(0) (4)

 

Rate:

Arkletten

5:50 PM on 18/04/2013

As I recollect it, the PFI discussions and deal were entered into around 1996. Before we even had a Scottish Parliament (or even a Labour government in London). I seem to recollect Winstanley, the former NHS Lothian high heid yin, saying he regretted signing the deal, but that it was impressed on him at tge time that it 'was the only deal in town' so it was either that, or nothing.

1 reply

(0) (14)

 

Rate:

The Genuine Mario Antionette

3:04 PM on 18/04/2013

Consort is an off-shoot of Balfour Beatty & Haden Building Management. Firms should be very wary of entering into any contracts with them. Once they get a contract signed, they save even more money by skimping on maintenance & then going cap in hand to the client seeking more money to rectify the "problem" which should have been covered by proper maintenance in the first place. After all, that's what a client pays for in such maintenance contracts. This shower of cowboys cheat the client & the public by not spending the money they receive for maintenance. They divert the income from these contracts to fund other less lucrative projects. They also get commission from any further work the client instructs them to do - & the contract usually stipulates that the client must give them the first opportunity to do such work. The client can't put this work out to tender, they have to go to Balfour Beatty, Haden, Consort first & if they can't do the work themselves, THEY put it out to tender & get commission from the job for doing nothing. They've got everything sewn up - & the client & the public meet all the costs.

(3) (4)

 

Rate:

Infirmary drone

2:55 PM on 18/04/2013

If SFT is so good why doesn't the nhs in the west of Scotland use it?

(2) (11)

 

Rate:

Norway has 600billion oil fund

2:55 PM on 18/04/2013

TIE which was set up by Labour negotiated the Trams contract and no SNP person was on the board of TIE unlike Tories, Lib Dems and Labour..

The only hospitals built using PFI / PPP were/ are Tory and Labour ones thus leaving local NHS Boards and Local Council having to pay out a fortune in never never instalments over the next 25 years.

PFI was a Westminster scam to get borrowing off the UK balance sheet.

1 reply

(1) (8)

 

Rate:

Infirmary drone

2:53 PM on 18/04/2013

Correct. Unlike Glasgow where everything NHS is public funded...

(1) (5)

 

Rate:

Infirmary drone

2:52 PM on 18/04/2013

This is a snippet from the article :

Royal Infirmary chief executive Joe Owens admitted last night for the first time that the developers stood to make a huge profit on the sale of houses.

Mr Owens also agreed there would be fewer nurses and fewer beds at the new infirmary

He said: "All manning levels have been worked out in detail and have been agreed by the health board, the Scottish Office and the Treasury.

"Nurses who are not fully qualified will be cheaper. They will do tasks nurses currently do but we will be asking the fully-qualified nurses to do complex tasks more appropriate to degree-qualified people.

"Numbers of beds were backed by clinicians in the hospital and are not a management decision."

Paul Brady, director of finance in the NHS in Scotland, said: "This PFI is good business practice. We are getting best value. They are putting money up front and taking the business risks of building the hospital.

"I cannot see any linkage between clinical budgets and this deal. The trust will set them."

(0) (11)

 

Rate:

Infirmary drone

2:51 PM on 18/04/2013

Pam your completely correct , Joe Owens should be brought to account for this shambolic deal. Wonder what envelopes where involved ?....

1 reply

Austerity/ Tax the Rich.. the Cartoon Film that says it all.....Almost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ZsXrzF8Cc&feature=player_detailpage#t=272s

Evelyn Ward Council By Election Victor De Selected

New Deptford councillor suspended from nursing over 'integrity and honesty' allegations

3:35pm Monday 15th April 2013 in News Exclusive By Sarah Trotter

Olufunke Abidoye with fellow Labour councillors after her election last month

THERE is a call for Lewisham’s newest Labour councillor to stand down after serious allegations of midwifery misconduct emerged.
Councillor Olufunke Abidoye was elected to represent Deptford’s Evelyn ward last month in spite of having been suspended from her nursing and midwife duties in October last year, News Shopper can reveal.
Her “integrity” and “honesty” are two qualities being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) who deemed she should be suspended for 18 months for public protection.

Yet it was claimed she was still a nurse in the run-up to her by-election victory – which came after Labour’s serial absentee councillor Joseph Folorunso jumped before he was pushed from his post.
Leader of Lewisham Lib Dems Councillor Chris Maines said: “It seems that the suspension is for public protection reasons and you would think the Labour party would have found a candidate that wasn’t in this rather difficult position at the moment.
“I would imagine decisions to suspend a midwife are not taken lightly and 18 months suggests a series of serious issues.
“I wouldn’t want to pre-judge anybody but I think it would be in her personal interest and those of her residents to concentrate on clearing her name and that would mean standing down.”

Mrs Abidoye, who was a midwife at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust, has been suspended while various unspecified allegations are looked into - she will either be formally charged or cleared pending the investigation.
The NMC Interim Order Hearing document reads: “The panel was informed that these are serious allegations that if found proved, could bring into question your honesty, integrity and competency.
“The panel considered that these are serious allegations which raise potential concerns about patient safety.
“The panel is of the view that based on the information before it there is a real possibility of repetition for the alleged behaviour and that this could put patients at risk of harm.”
Cllr Maines says the qualities under scrutiny are essential for a councillor and criticised the transparency of the Labour party in not making her position clear.
He said: “You would have thought they [the qualities] were a pre-requisite of the job.
“I think it is essential than anyone that seeks public office is open and transparent about their personal circumstances.
“They [Labour] obviously didn’t tell people that they were voting for someone who has been suspended. They claimed she was a midwife and nurse.”
When News Shopper contacted Mrs Abidoye for a comment on the issue she said, “I am sorry, I am not speaking on the phone,” and hung up.
The mother-of-four claimed more than more than 50 per cent of the votes in the polls held late last month – gaining 978 votes out of a total 1751.
Her predecessor Joseph Folorunso would have faced dismissal for not showing at council meetings for almost six months had he not stepped down to continue running an orphanage in Togo.
News Shopper previously reported how Mrs Abidoye’s election prompted claims of a Nigerian “ethnic mafia” dominating Evelyn ward from rival party People Before Profit’s campaigner John Hamilton.
- News Shopper is awaiting a response from Lewisham Labour
Labour under huge pressure have de selected  Cllr Abidoye for next Mays local Election as People before Profit who came second with a stunning 24% of the vote are expected to win this seat.

 

Deptford Lewisham Labour Councillor hit by Scandle over Honesty and Integrity & calls to resign just days in the job

New Deptford councillor suspended from nursing over 'integrity and honesty' allegations

3:35pm Monday 15th April 2013 in News Exclusive By Sarah Trotter

Olufunke Abidoye with fellow Labour councillors after her election last month

THERE is a call for Lewisham’s newest Labour councillor to stand down after serious allegations of midwifery misconduct emerged.
Councillor Olufunke Abidoye was elected to represent Deptford’s Evelyn ward last month in spite of having been suspended from her nursing and midwife duties in October last year, News Shopper can reveal.
Her “integrity” and “honesty” are two qualities being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) who deemed she should be suspended for 18 months for public protection.

Yet it was claimed she was still a nurse in the run-up to her by-election victory – which came after Labour’s serial absentee councillor Joseph Folorunso jumped before he was pushed from his post.
Leader of Lewisham Lib Dems Councillor Chris Maines said: “It seems that the suspension is for public protection reasons and you would think the Labour party would have found a candidate that wasn’t in this rather difficult position at the moment.
“I would imagine decisions to suspend a midwife are not taken lightly and 18 months suggests a series of serious issues.
“I wouldn’t want to pre-judge anybody but I think it would be in her personal interest and those of her residents to concentrate on clearing her name and that would mean standing down.”

Mrs Abidoye, who was a midwife at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust, has been suspended while various unspecified allegations are looked into - she will either be formally charged or cleared pending the investigation.
The NMC Interim Order Hearing document reads: “The panel was informed that these are serious allegations that if found proved, could bring into question your honesty, integrity and competency.
“The panel considered that these are serious allegations which raise potential concerns about patient safety.
“The panel is of the view that based on the information before it there is a real possibility of repetition for the alleged behaviour and that this could put patients at risk of harm.”
Cllr Maines says the qualities under scrutiny are essential for a councillor and criticised the transparency of the Labour party in not making her position clear.
He said: “You would have thought they [the qualities] were a pre-requisite of the job.
“I think it is essential than anyone that seeks public office is open and transparent about their personal circumstances.
“They [Labour] obviously didn’t tell people that they were voting for someone who has been suspended. They claimed she was a midwife and nurse.”
When News Shopper contacted Mrs Abidoye for a comment on the issue she said, “I am sorry, I am not speaking on the phone,” and hung up.
The mother-of-four claimed more than more than 50 per cent of the votes in the polls held late last month – gaining 978 votes out of a total 1751.
Her predecessor Joseph Folorunso would have faced dismissal for not showing at council meetings for almost six months had he not stepped down to continue running an orphanage in Togo.
News Shopper previously reported how Mrs Abidoye’s election prompted claims of a Nigerian “ethnic mafia” dominating Evelyn ward from rival party People Before Profit’s campaigner John Hamilton.
- News Shopper is awaiting a response from Lewisham Labour.
Barbara Raymond standing as Lewisham People Before Profit secured more votes than Lib Dem, Tory and UKIP combined and secured the best ever result for PBP. Should as expected a By Election be called. People Before Profit are clearly placed to win, as all there candidates are well known Community activists who get things done in Barbara they have a trusted and hugely popular life long Deptford Community Activist.

The Labour Party have issued a statement of Support for the newly elected Councillor saying they do not wish to prejudge the present investigation.
This makes it even more alarming, as it leads to the Centre of the Labour Leadership, were they aware? why was it kept secret? in light of the fact all Councillors by law have to sign a statement about code of conduct it is clearly at odds with the massive investigation under way which would not have been taken lightly, and having seen some of the aligations under investigation they are truly shocking.. By  the Labour Party refusing to suspend her from the Labour group, this could drag on until next March, whilst the investigation could report back well before March forcing a fresh by election and causing very real problems for the Labour party.
By allowing this Councillor to remain a Labour Councillor they are bringing  into question the integrity of Councillors across the political spectrum who work hard for the people they are elected to serve.

You can keep up to date by Following twitter@Raywoolford

Labour Party have de selected the Councillor for Evelyn Ward after huge public pressure lead by people Before profit, Barbara Raymond came a clear second  on 24% to Labour at the By Election and the party is expected to win these seats in next Mays local elections.

R

Bedroom Tax & Welfare reforms will take £19 Billion out of economy.

Welfare Reforms 'Will Take £19bn A Year Out Of Economy' And Hit Poorest Communities Hardest

PA/The Huffington Post UK  |  Posted: 11/04/2013 07:22 BST  |  Updated: 11/04/2013 07:22 BST

The government's welfare reforms will take almost £19 billion a year out of the UK economy and hit the poorest communities in northern England the hardest, researchers have warned.
Residents in the Lancashire resort town of Blackpool will lose out more than anywhere else in Britain when changes to the benefits system kick in, according to academics at Sheffield Hallam University.
Former industrial areas including Middlesbrough, Liverpool and Glasgow will also be disproportionately affected. Wealthier areas, predominantly in the South, such as Cambridge, Surrey and the Cotswolds, will see the smallest financial losses.
The reforms will widen gaps between the richest and poorest communities, researchers warned, after assessing the financial impact of coalition changes to housing benefit - including bedroom tax, disability living allowance, child benefit, tax credits, council tax benefit and several other hand-outs.
Professor Steve Fothergill, from Sheffield Hallam's Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, led the study, which was based on a range of official statistics.
He said: "Our figures also show the coalition government is presiding over national welfare reforms that will impact principally on individuals and communities outside its own political heartlands."
Generally, the more deprived the local authority, the greater the financial impact, Prof Fothergill found.
He said the three regions of northern England - the North West, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside - can expect to lose a total of £5.2 billion a year in benefit income. Much of the south and east of England outside London escapes comparatively lightly.
Researchers calculated the average amount that every working-age adult stands to lose in each region of Britain per year. This average figure allowed them to gauge how much each area would be affected.
Working-age residents in Blackpool will lose an average of £910 each through welfare cuts. Westminster, with its high cost of living, will be the hardest hit London borough. Residents will be £810 out of pocket on average.
Those in Middlesbrough will lose an average of £720, making it the worst affected part of the North East. People in Merthyr Tydfil will lose the same sum - the biggest average loss in Wales.
Prof Fothergill said: "Some individuals are relatively unaffected by the welfare reforms whereas others face multiple financial losses arising from different elements of the reforms."
However, the Department for Work and Pensions said the reforms will benefit the vast majority of working households.
A Government spokesman said: "Around nine out of ten working households will be better off by on average almost £300 a year as a result of changes to the tax and welfare system this month.
"Raising the personal allowance to £10,000 we will have lifted 2.7m people out of income tax since 2010.
"Our welfare reforms, including reassessing people on incapacity benefit, will help people back into work - which will benefit the economy more than simply abandoning them to claim benefits year after year.
"These changes are essential to keep the benefits bill sustainable, so that we can continue to support people when they need it most across the UK."

The following list shows which towns and cities in each British region will be hardest hit by government welfare reforms. Figures show the average amount that every working-age adult stands to lose per year.

• North East: Middlesbrough £720
• North West: Blackpool £910
• Yorkshire and the Humber: Hull £630
• East Midlands: East Lindsey £610
• West Midlands: Stoke £670
• East of England: Tendring £620
• London: Westminster £820
• South East: Hastings £690
• South West: Torbay £700
• Wales: Merthyr Tydfil £720
• Scotland: Glasgow: £650
• You can follow me on Twiiter these days.@Raywoolford

Privatisation, The Thatcher Years.Brief history People Before Profit oppose the Privatisation & cuts agenda of public services.

As Margaret Thatcher continues to divide opinion even after her death, the privatisation movement that she started also remains a controversial subject.

Here, we investigate whether privatising the public sector has had a positive or a negative effect on Britain today.

Know your rights

• How to complain
• How to make a compensation claim
• Top 10 consumer rights
• The latest rip-offs revealed

Related stories

• The best healthcare system in the world?
• Millions at risk in care crisis
• Some hospital meals cost just 86p
• How does the NHS compare to other healthcare systems?
• Crackdown on foreign NHS treatment

A potted history of privatisation in the UK
Privatisation began in the UK during the 1979 Thatcher administration, which introduced a degree of privatisation into British Aerospace and Cable & Wireless.

In the early 1980's, the movement gathered pace, leading to Jaguar, British Telecom, the remainder of Cable & Wireless and British Aerospace, Britoil and British Gas being sold off. And they were followed by British Steel, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce and British Airways, to name but a few.

These privatisations provoked serious opposition, perhaps sufficient to curb any tendency toward privatisation of the NHS at that time.

However, the Conservative government nonetheless proceeded with the final sell-off of British Coal, Powergen, National Power and British Rail - but not the Post Office due to even greater resistance from the electorate.

And when New Labour came into power under Tony Blair in the 1990s, it too continued the movement via the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which affected the London Underground, the NHS and schools.

Then came the credit crunch, which forced a reversal of policy that saw Gordon Brown nationalise a string of failing banks.

That was more of a blip, though, with the Coalition government currently in power once again stepping up the pace by privatising the Tote, selling off of Northern Rock and now plotting the demise of Royal Mail, as well as potentially large sectors of education and the NHS.

The impact of privatisation on the UK
There is no doubt that the privatisation of public sector institutions has made the government a lot of money over the last 30 years or so. It is thought that about £67 billion of revenue was raised between 19080 and 1997 alone.

The fact that the Labour Party even changed its constitution, which included a commitment to "the common ownership of the means of production" until 1995, to follow the privatisation path also indicates how important the movement was as a source of revenue.

But how has privatisation affected British consumers? Basically, it depends which company you look at.

BT, for example, is something of a privatisation success story, successfully moved into newer hi-tech markets and cutting broadband charges to compete with its private sector rivals.

However, while prices have - until recently at least - fallen in industries such as gas, electricity and telecommunications, the privatisation of British Rail is not thought to have been a success.

There are also serious concerns about the potential impact of privatisation on Royal Mail and, of course, the NHS.

How the UK compares to the rest of the world
The UK is not the only country to follow a policy of privatisation over recent decades. Many countries have followed the same path.

Argentina, for example, privatised its water, gas, electricity and telecoms companies, as well as the entire rail network, in the 1990s.

Other countries where privatisation has taken place include France, Italy, Japan, Russia and Australia. And even developing economies such as India and China are now embarking on privatisation programmes.

F