Why the case of Ashya King should trouble us all greatly

When the news first broke that his parents had taken Ashya out of Southampton hospital, the predictable media storm erupted. Armed with only one side of the story, such emotive terms as “snatched” and “abducted” were tossed around with gay abandon.

Ashya King and his father, Brett

The batteries for Ashya’s essential feeding equipment, we were told, were shortly to run out and he would surely starve to death. We were then told that the family were Jehovah’s Witnesses, and with it the suggestion that the family had refused to allow Ashya to be treated – an inference demonstrably false as Ashya had recently undergone major brain surgery.

As public pleas by the police – instigated by Southampton Hospital – for the Kings to get in touch went unheeded, a European wide manhunt was launched. Chris Shead, the assistant chief constable of Hampshire police, took to the airwaves to tell us that a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) had been issued for the arrest of the Kings based on the vague suggestion of “neglect”. (The Spanish police have since publicly stated the investigation centres upon equally vague “child cruelty” allegations.

As the days went by, the Kings’ side of the story gradually became known. With their son suffering a stage four aggressive brain tumour and given just four months to live, their only ostensible crime was to love their son and to have the audacity to disagree with doctors on how he should be treated. For this, they have been pursued like dangerous fugitives to Spain where they currently languish in a prison cell, prevented from seeing or speaking to their possibly terminally ill son.

In desperation, the Kings wish their son to undergo proton beam treatment.  This treatment is perceived to be a ‘kinder’ form of radiotherapy as it’s believed to cause less damage to the healthy cells around the tumour, making it particularly suited to children. Unfortunately, this form of treatment is not the best treatment available for every cancer patient and is not currently available in the UK. Whilst the NHS has in the past paid for some patients to receive the treatment abroad, this is only possible with the consent of the patient’s oncologist – something which would not appear to have been forthcoming in Ashya’s case.

Now it may well be the case that proton beam treatment would not be effective in Ashya’s case, and the NHS was right not to pay for the same when the cost of a treatment seems to play an ever more important role in the clinical decision making process.

What is troubling about the situation is when we hear from Ashya’s grandmother that his parents had been threatened with the prospect of a protection order being made, simply for disagreeing with doctors how Ashya should be treated. That when they decided to privately seek their preferred means of treatment abroad – at not insignificant cost – they were pursued by police forces across the continent.

With horrific stories of child abuse in Rotherham, and particularly the collective failures of various public bodies to tackle this, still dominating our newspapers, Hampshire Police have gone to the other absurd extreme. When the Kings should have been permitted – if not helped – to explore every possible avenue of treatment which may be available to Ashya, they are locked up in a Spanish prison cell; their son in a hospital hundreds of miles away prevented from seeing anybody he knows.

Clearly in the first instance a lot hinges on exactly what the police were told by Southampton hospital, but that Hampshire police leapt into action as the enforcement arm of the NHS in the event of a disagreement over medical advice is profoundly unsettling. It should be a matter of public debate as to where the balance of decision making should lie in cases like this – with patient or their guardian(s), or with the doctors.

More worrying is how the police have handled this matter. Public confidence in the police, particularly here in the north east, still bears the scars, rightly or wrongly, of their actions during the miners’ strike, when they were perceived to be the state’s enforcers. The police, as is widely and repeatedly stated, police with and by consent in the UK. Any perception they are merely the establishment’s heavy-handed, ham-fisted hired muscle is profoundly worrying. More so given an European Arrest Warrant was applied for and issued in the absence of any prerequisite ongoing criminal proceedings (a decision the police and CPS have hitherto refused to explain or justify).

As the CPS inexplicably continues to wrestle with the decision whether to charge and seek the extradition of the Kings, they should immediately take the only right and decent course of action available to them – to rescind the arrest warrant, call on their Spanish counterparts to release Ashya’s parents immediately, and make arrangements for the family to be reunited with their son as soon as is humanly possible.

I don’t doubt the ramifications of this sad case will be felt for some time to come. What they will transpire to be should be of great concern to all of us.

Did Tory MP breach the Data Protection Act in courting Muslim voters?

Concerns have been raised that Conservative MP for Stockton South James Wharton may have breached the Data Protection Act by sending a letter about the current conflict in Gaza, but only to Muslim voters .

I have been passed the letter sent on 22 July by a number of Muslim residents who are concerned that they have been singled out to receive the letter on the sole basis of having an 'Islamic-sounding' name. Their concerns are borne out to a degree by the fact a number of friends and constituents with non-Islamic names who frequently receive such unsolicited correspondence from Mr Wharton have not received this particular letter.

The case bears remarkable similarities to that of Labour MP Karen Buck who a fortnight ago admitted her staff trawled the electoral register singling out people with 'Islamic' names in order to send cards celebrating Eid - a practice Miss Buck was warned by the Information Commissioner's Office back in 2010, following a previous complaint, was probably in breach of the Data Protection. Correspondence should not be sent to selected voters 'merely on the basis of an assumption about their names' chided the ICO.

The strong pro-Palestinian sentiments expressed in Mr Wharton's letter, criticising Israeli military action as being "out of all proportion" and the consequences "horrifying", will doubtless anger many of his Conservative supporters. Indeed, there can be no doubts as to where Mr Wharton's sympathies lie, with his helpful inclusion of a photograph from 2011 of him shaking hands with the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Mr Wharton himself recognises his position will be widely unpopular, stating: "I know this is a matter which divides opinion and that my stance will not please everyone." His actions are somewhat less principled than he seeks to portray, however, when he attempts to court the votes of those he presumes will agree with him (i.e. those with 'Islamic' names) whilst hiding his position from everybody else.

It is such opportunistic cynicism that has become Mr Wharton's hallmark since 2010, and does so much to erode voters' confidence in their elected representatives.

In criticising Miss Buck, Tory MP Philip Davies said: 'The idea that you can win elections by this kind of vacuous, politically correct, cynical tactic is wrong." Mr Wharton would be well served to heed his colleague's words.

In the next day or two I expect we will hear an ardent denial of wrongdoing by Mr Wharton; maybe even some letters ostensibly received by local party members residents will be helpfully presented. Should such a situation remarkably transpire, I trust Mr Wharton will be helpful enough to clarify to whom the letters were sent and, more importantly, on what basis those individuals were singled out. For some reason, I very much doubt he will...

'Free' school meals leave schools facing funding crisis

Ever since its announcement at last year's Liberal Democrat party conference, the government's decision to grant every child aged 5-7 a free school meal has been dogged by controversy.

Aside from it being questionable that in excess of £600million of taxpayers' cash should be spent feeding the offspring of very affluent families (children from the poorest families have long received free school meals, irrespective of the child's age), this politically motivated gimmick has been beset with eminently foreseeable difficulties from day one.

From councils across the country (though thankfully not in Stockton) having to dip into their own education budgets to pay for kitchen improvements (the grant from central government proving insufficient) to thousands of schools unlikely to have the work completed by the first week of term in September, the implementation of the policy has been shambolic. So much so, faced with the number of schools who will be forced to provide meals cooked off-site and then re-heated, or even unable to provide a hot meal at all, the government has quietly dropped the obligation on schools to provide a hot meal.

But whilst these issues could be argued to be temporary, and relatively easily remedied, one enduring problem with the policy will continue to impact schools for years to come.

One of the Lib Dem's proudest - dare I say rightly so - achievements in government is the introduction of the Pupil Premium.

The Pupil Premium is additional funding given to publicly funded schools throughout England to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils hailing from the poorest families. During the financial year 2014/15, primary schools will receive an additional £1,300 for each eligible child. These payments soon add up to sizeable sums of money.

Here in the borough of Stockton on Tees, our primary schools registered anywhere up to 74.1% of pupils being eligible for the Pupil Premium - nearly three times the national average. Rosebrook Primary School, to give but one example, received £203,942 in 2013/14 (when the premium was set at just £953 per pupil).

The difficulty such schools face going forward is that eligibility to receive the pupil premium is based on whether a child has been eligible for free school meals at any point during the past 6 years. Given all pupils aged 5-7 will now automatically receive a free meal, their parents will no longer have to apply and prove their eligibility to the local authority, and by extension the school.

The upshot of this is that primary schools throughout the country will not necessarily know which or how many of their Year 1 pupils are eligible for free school meals, and without any previous record of them having been eligible, thereby leaving the school unable to apply for the additional pupil premium for those otherwise eligible pupils. This could easily see primary schools losing tens of thousands of pounds of additional funding.

Upon asking the question of Stockton Council last week, I was pleased to hear that the council has been working with the governing bodies of local schools to encourage parents to still register their eligibility for free school meals and the pupil premium irrespective of the fact their child(ren) will receive a free meal nevertheless. Whilst it's pleasing the council is ostensibly ahead of the curve on this issue, it is ludicrous they have been put in this position in the first place.

Councillors from all across the country will be aware of eligible families who haven't previously registered for free school meals, be it through ignorance of their eligibility or embarrassment at having to do so. Indeed, this was used as one of the justifications for the expansion of free school meals to all infants.

But how many more families will fall into this category when there is no tangible financial benefit to them in them doing so? It seems inevitable that we will see the number of infants recorded as eligible for the Pupil Premium fall as a direct consequence of the new free school meal policy.

It is impossible to say whether this looming crisis was foreseen by the government or simply overlooked, although given I wrote a blog last September highlighting the problem (here) it simply isn't plausible to claim nobody in government saw this coming.

What seems for more likely is that George Osborne did indeed anticipate these difficulties but saw reduced Pupil Premium payments to schools as a means of contributing to the cost of the additional free school meals. Once again it seems the Conservative part of the government is happy to take away from the poorest in society to the benefit of their more affluent core vote.

If you have children attending any publicly funded school within Stockton Borough, you can check eligibility and register for free school meals / the pupil premium online here or by ringing the Free School Meals Team on 01642 526606.

Forest Giraffe moves in to Yarm's Leven Park!

Earlier today, Leven Park welcomed a new resident - a Forest Giraffe!

In recent months, Yarm councillor Andrew Sherris and I have sought feedback from residents on the new play area at Leven Park.

Almost without exception, residents replied they wanted to see equipment suitable for younger children.

Responding to this we drew up a shortlist of potential new pieces of equipment and asked youngsters at Levendale primary school to select their favourite. Their overwhelming favourite was the Forest Giraffe which Cllr Sherris and I agreed to order, paid for from our Community Participation Budget.

With work having commenced earlier today, it is hoped the new equipment will be 'bedded in' and open for use well ahead of the school holidays.

With Yarm Town Council having wasted over £40,000 of the council's reserves on a futile judicial review grossly mishandled by two Conservative councillors (and then a further £13,000 spent on the cost of the by-election forced by the two councillors' resignations), the council is sadly no longer in a position to replace, renew or add to the town's facilities in the coming years.

It therefore makes it all the more pleasing we have found room within this year's budget to provide this welcome addition to Leven Park.

Although there remains little scope for further schemes this year - with funds having been set aside to replace many of the small, post-mounted litter bins throughout the town which are not fit for purpose - please feel free to contact me with any suggestions for further projects.

Post by Cllr Mark Chatburn.

Yarm Residents Association - Missing in Action

At last night's Yarm Town Council meeting, the so-called residents' association demonstrated that all their talk is exactly that - talk.

In readiness for Yarm Gala held each June, Yarm Town Council is obliged to fence off the part of the High Street the Gala occupies. This work has previously been undertaken by volunteers, although numbers have dwindled in recent years.

So much so that last year only two other town councillors in addition to myself (cllrs Andrew Sherris and Bob Wegg) turned up on the day to erect the barriers, and the following day to remove them. (It's worth noting that there were more relatives of Mrs Milburn, the council's clerk, helping out than there were councillors!)

Concerned at the lack of volunteers, Yarm Town Council sensibly asked Stockton Borough Council to quote how much it would cost us to pay them to do the work for us. The answer: a staggering £580 plus VAT.

Given Yarm is still licking its financial wounds incurred in the disastrously mishandled Judicial Review (mishandled by disgraced ex-cllr Jason Hadlow, the 'brains' of Yarm's so-called residents' association no less), it was out of the question that we inflict this additional cost on our town.

So, as last year, I suggested that we undertake the work ourselves, and as last year councillors Sherris and Wegg readily offered their services.

However, when I asked for further volunteers from the members of the public present - including the three candidates in this month's by-election standing under the banner of the so-called residents' association - I was greeted with a stony silence. Not one of them was prepared to give up just a couple of hours of their time for the good of our community.

In stark contrast, I am delighted to confirm that all three of UKIP's candidates in the by-election have confirmed they will be helping out on both days. Unlike others, we recognise that talk is cheap, and that actions speak louder than words.

YRA? MIA.

Yarm footpath maintenance schemes - some good news

It isn't often I have had the opportunity to share good news regarding Yarm in recent times, but today is an happy exception.

I have now received confirmation of the areas which will have new footpaths laid throughout Yarm and Kirklevington during 2015/16. These are:

- Carew Close (full length)

- Forest Lane (various areas)

- Ryedale Close (full length)

- Larun Beat (from Lympton Gate to The Slayde).

These works are in addition to the resurfacing of Challoner Road (between Skirlaw Road and Meynell's Walk) already scheduled for this financial year.

Whilst we have a number of paths throughout the ward in need of resurfacing, Larun Beat has been in a serious state for disrepair for many years and is one of, if not the, worst in Yarm. This was one of the first issues I raised as a councillor, and I know councillors Andrew Sherris and Jennie Beaumont worked hard to raise this several times prior to my own election. Whilst it is sadly not the done thing for the old political parties locally, it would be wrong not to thank the aforementioned equally for their work in this regard.

Although no dates have been finalised for the work to be undertaken as yet, I will notify residents as soon as they are agreed.

If you believe any other areas are particularly in need of resurfacing - or at the very least some remedial work - feel free to drop me a line at mark.chatburn@stockton.gov.uk so we can endeavour to include them in future work programs.

Tory MP inadvertantly admits Tory planning policy to blame for planning approvals

This week saw the latest controversial planning application to hit our area approved, with permission granted to build 330 new homes on the site of the iconic Tall Trees hotel (read the Evening Gazette report here).

The initial determination was deferred in December to allow the council the opportunity to take legal advice on the suggested grounds for refusal. At this week's meeting, enough councillors changed their mind to see the application approved, after the opinion of Alan Evans QC stated "...the merits of the Council’s reasons for refusal are weak and that they would be very unlikely to be defended successfully on appeal."

Furthermore, Alan Evans QC continued: "I also think that the Council is in territory where it would be at significant risk of an award of costs on the basis of unreasonable refusal". (You can read the full legal opinion here).

Whilst I have been a critic of the Tories' new planning rules from their inception, and indeed they were one of the major reasons for my resigning from the Conservative party (see here), hitherto our local Tory MP has refused to criticise the new rules.

However, in today's Darlington and Stockton Times, the mask slipped.

Although Mr Wharton, Tory MP for Stockton South, "refused to respond" to my call for him to speak out against the damaging planning reforms his government has introduced, he did comment:

"The reason Stockton Council keeps passing planning applications is because of the failure to meet its five-year supply."

Even on the face of it, Mr Wharton's comment is laughable - the idea that Stockton Council is solely to blame for approving the recent planning applications because it hasn't been approving enough planning applications is absurd and contradictory. Perhaps Mr Wharton can tell us which applications received were not eventually granted permission because, in nearly three years on the planning committee, I cannot recall a single one.

More seriously, whilst we do not know if it is ignorance of the detail of the Tories' NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) that led to his remark, or whether it was a genuine Freudian slip, it was the NPPF which deliberately tied councils' hands when a five-year housing supply cannot be demonstrated.

Although councils have long had to publish a five-year housing target, it was only with the advent of the NPPF that a failure to meet these targets had any repercussions.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan are "absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date", the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

As Alan Evans QC makes perfectly clear, it was the fact that the council's policies were 'out-of-date' which was the overriding factor in reaching the opinion he did.

So how about it Mr Wharton? Why don't you put aside your blind party loyalty, stop taking local residents for fools, and call on the government to immediately amend, or abandon, its catastrophic NPPF?

It can bully its planning committee, but Stockton Council can't bully me

On 11:19 on Christmas Eve I received an e-mail (below) from Stockton Council's legal services department notifying me that they were investigating a complaint that I had breached the Members Code of Conduct by highlighting the council's attempts to bully and manipulate those councillors who sit on its planning committee (see my blog post here).

Back in June, Stockton Council's planning committee voted overwhelmingly, and somewhat surprisingly, to reject a controversial application to build 159 properties on land at Urlay Nook, Eaglescliffe.

As is now par for the course, the developer lodged an appeal whilst simultaneously submitting another planning application which was virtually identical to their previous failed bid.

The week before the committee was due to hear the second planning application, back in November, officers at Stockton Council circulated a legal brief to members of the planning committee which advised if councillors were to approve the revised application it "would probably result in the withdrawal of the appeal". Not only that, it claimed it would make "good sense" to approve the application in order to "extricate the council from the very difficult position it now faces". (read the report in the Evening Gazette here).

Now, there are only two possible reasons for council officers circulating the legal opinion it its entirety as they did - a move they concede was "unusual" and which they admit they couldn't give another single example of when they had done likewise. It was either a display of quite breath-taking incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the result of the forthcoming vote.

I had no hesitation in publishing the legal brief in its entirety, and would do so again without a moment's thought.  Too many council officers seem to have forgotten that the only reason they have a job at all is to serve the residents of the borough. To my mind, such a job description does not include trying to rig votes in favour of wealthy landowners and developers contrary to the wishes of residents.

But what irked me the most about the letter I received last month regarding the investigation was not its content - which hardly came as a surprise - it was the timing.

Nearly 7 weeks had elapsed since I published the brief without a single word from the council that any investigation would take place, or was even being considered. Then, on Christmas Eve of all days, and at the instigation of David Bond, the council's Director of Law and Democracy, the letter was e-mailed to me.

Not only that, when I replied to the e-mail just 10 minutes later, both David Bond and Jonathan Nertney - the principal solicitor who signed the letter - were both out of the office until the new year, at least according to the automated messages I received back.

Now, I suppose it's possible sending me the letter by e-mail was Jonathan's last act of the day before, very quickly, setting his out-of-office and skipping out of the office? Or perhaps he and/or David Bond are so utterly spiteful that they thought it a good idea to delay sending it until Christmas Eve, irrespective of the fact they weren't even working that day? Who knows? It doesn't matter.

Stockton Council might have been successful in its bullying of the planning committee - the revised application being approved in November as officers wished (see here) - but they are making an huge mistake if they think they can bully me in the same way.

I will always stand up for residents, acting in their best interests, saying what they want me to say and doing what they want me to do. If Stockton Council have a problem with that, then they will just have to find a way to learn to live with their disappointment.