Short Let Deregulation (London)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity at the 11th hour to explain to the Minister the concerns that I am picking up from constituents, residents, community associations and local authorities about the impact, particularly in inner London, of the proposals to deregulate further the rules on short-term lettings.

Residents in my local communities that are particularly affected—in areas where there is already a substantial proportion of private rented accommodation that is very much at the front of this kind of problem—are already under a number of pressures; I will develop that point later on in my speech. They are very anxious about how much that will be extended with further deregulation. I believe that measures can still be taken that can offset those problems for my local residents.

The Government’s logic in extending deregulation is that home owners should be free to take decisions about what they do with their own homes, within some continuing limitations. Of course, no one wants to put in place petty, bureaucratic restrictions. If a home owner wants, for example, to do a home swap when they go on holiday for two or three weeks, or to take advantage of their absence to let their home out for a week or two, they should not be subject to severe restrictions and enforcement action. However, what local authorities will say—particularly the central London authorities—is that they do not seek to enforce against that kind of casual and holiday use, but they do seek to use the existing law to enforce against the significant and growing problem of abuse of short-term lets. What seems reasonable when viewed as cutting red tape for the individual can feel very different when it is scaled up and applied to the residential economy of central London neighbourhoods. That is certainly the conclusion of the residents and amenity societies in Westminster.

Even before the deregulation, those neighbourhoods have been facing this pressure, and local authorities have been feeling the cost of enforcement, as residential neighbourhoods increasingly resemble an extension of the hospitality industry. That can be confirmed by spending a minute or two on home-letting websites such as Airbnb. The simple fact is that there is a strong economic incentive for inner London property owners in particular to turn over their properties to commercial use. Data collected by Westminster council a few months ago demonstrated that hospitality rents are far higher than those that apply to longer-term residential properties. It found that a one-bedroom flat would earn almost £800 a week in the short-term let industry, compared with £440 on average for a longer tenancy—and prices are rising proportionally.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. She mentioned Airbnb, one of the more aggressive marketers. Not a day goes by without constituents writing to me having been asked by this organisation to give their flat or house over. They are worried because they feel that residential areas are effectively turning into hotels, and as a consequence, there are fewer properties in an area where there is already great pressure, and there is also a lot of disruption to their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is very generous. She has identified clearly the problem. It is with mansion flat blocks, and her constituency has even more of those than mine does. Many long-term residents, a lot of whom are now elderly, simply want the quiet enjoyment of their own home, but find themselves living in a highly disruptive atmosphere, often with groups of young people who do not take care of the property because they are there for days or weeks at a time and who are making their lives a misery.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a common theme. This often, but not exclusively, affects older residents, who describe their experience as one of being completely stranded in what used to be a neighbourly block, where they knew people, felt a sense of security and had the quiet enjoyment of their homes. Now, they find the constant movement of people in and out very bewildering and alienating, and find that it causes or is linked to a number of practical problems.

Another resident wrote to me to say that

“this will increase problems related to noise and nuisance for Westminster residents from the short-let tenants. It’s already happening within my own apartment block, and I’ve had to complain to Westminster Council 24-hour noise hotline due to loud parties and excessive noise every week from short-let tenants in my block. This is making me want to sell my home and move to a safer, quieter neighbourhood outside of Westminster.”

Of course, none of this means that all visitors cause problems or that all landlords, whether professional or casual, are careless of the consequences of their letting. That is far from the case. It is the cumulative impact and the nature of the high turnover in the visitor and tourist economy that is often the problem; it is not the behaviour of any single person or group of people. These blocks of flats—the properties are largely flats—were not designed to be part of the hospitality economy; they were designed to be part of a residential community, and they have changed.

In addition to the impact on residents and neighbours, Westminster council—I am sure that this is also true of other local authorities—is investigating some 1,600 properties for violations of the short-term-let rules with a staff of four, at a time of massive reductions in funding and staffing. Some councillors are having to use ward budgets for this purpose—I do not think that is what ward budgets were intended for—as complaints have risen. There have been 360 complaints in the last 12 months.

If resources were going on enforcement action against the home owners renting out their home for a few weeks while they are away—against the very people whom the Government claim the deregulation is aimed at helping and relieving the pressure on—money could be saved, but of course that is not the case. Enforcement action is aimed at the de facto commercial landlord, and the new deregulated environment will make that harder and costlier to pursue, with a requirement to meet a higher burden of proof. The reality is that a bigger burden will fall on councils that are increasingly ill equipped to deal with it.

The Government seem to accept the need to limit the extent to which professional landlords can take advantage of the opportunities offered by higher incomes from inner-London lettings; otherwise, presumably, they would abandon all restrictions, rather than simply change the limit to permit 90-day letting under the Deregulation Bill. Unfortunately, that is likely to work better in theory than in practice. As the Covent Garden Community Association explained to me:

“Some amateur landlords are causing just as many problems. Not only will it be very difficult to prove who is a genuine resident but short lets even by genuine residents can be very disruptive and insecure...we are hearing complaints about this sort of thing all the time now, with an estimated 200 flats in Covent Garden alone available to rent by the night on Airbnb at any one time.”

I say to the Minister that there is still an opportunity to use the Deregulation Bill to meet the legitimate and indeed cross-party concerns raised by civic and amenity societies and local authorities in central London. By amending it to give individual London boroughs the right to override any relaxation of planning requirements for short lets that the Secretary of State might introduce, and by making it clear that local authorities could restrict lettings in respect of residential properties that were not the sole or main residence of the lessor, many of the risks could be offset. The Minister should take that opportunity.

We think that it would also be useful to consider the findings of the review of property conditions in the private rented sector before proceeding. It would be useful if the Minister could provide further information on that. Finally, we expect regulations to be tabled, and they offer greater scope for local flexibility in response to what are obviously varying pressures.

However, local authorities and the communities that make up their areas need to be listened to. In the spirit of localism, to which we all pay tribute, the Government need to understand that it is local authorities that understand their communities, and this is a particularly excellent example of where decisions need to be taken closer to the ground, balancing a wish to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy against the pressing need to sustain healthy, safe and vibrant neighbourhoods, even and perhaps especially when these are on the fringes of the hospitality heart of the world’s greatest city.

Palestine and Israel

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I think this will be exactly as the vote in Syria was last year.

As I was saying, Operation Protective Edge, Operation Cast Lead and Operation Pillar of Defence have all been, despite how the names sound, attacks by a major military power on a civilian community. I have heard two views in opposition to the motion. The first is from people who have no intention of ever recognising the state of Palestine—unfortunately they include the leadership of Israel at the moment. This view used to come just from people such as Ariel Sharon, but now it comes from Naftali Bennett, the Minister with responsibility for the economy, Avigdor Liberman, the Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister himself, Binyamin Netanyahu. Bennett has said, “I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state.” Those views are articulated publicly in Israel now because people are emboldened by their own actions and by the international community’s failure to do anything about them.

Who can defend settlement building—the colonisation of another country? We are talking about 600,000 Israeli settlers planted on Palestinian soil. I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who said that Gaza was no longer under occupation. It is under occupation; the life is squeezed out of it daily from land, sea and air. Anybody who has visited the west bank and not come back thinking that it is an apartheid system has their eyes closed. The daily indignities suffered by the Palestinian people there would make many people rise in rebellion, and what we have there is a strong movement for peace, led by President Abbas.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I went to Gaza together in 2009, in the immediate aftermath of Operation Cast Lead. Does he agree that, in addition to the staggering level of destruction wreaked on Gaza then, which has now tragically been repeated, one abiding story is the frustration and rage that the people feel about the peace process no longer being a realistic option and about how something needs to be done to break the logjam? I hope that we are starting to do that tonight.

[Mr Slaughter]

It is indeed, but who can doubt that the Palestinians think like that when they are subject to the arbitrary use of extreme violence against civilians, not just yearly, but often on a weekly basis?

The second voice I have heard against this motion comes from people who say they agree with it but place every obstacle in its way. I also heard that in the speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, when he talked about the Palestinians not yet being ready to have their own state. If that were true—I do not believe it is—it would be a direct result of Israeli policy. Just after Operation Cast Lead, I stood in Gaza in the ruins of the Palestinian Parliament, which was deliberately bombed. Every organ of civil society, of the economy and of democracy in that country had been systematically destroyed by the Israelis, and they have just done it again. Every concession given by the Palestinians is taken and then more concessions are demanded, and the remorseless colonisation continues. How long is this going to continue?

The motion is a positive step, but my constituents wish to see more. They would like us to stop supplying arms to the Israelis when those arms are being used for the occupation and to kill people in Gaza. They would like us to stop importing goods from illegal settlements—illegal under international law. They cannot understand why, if the settlements are illegal, the goods should not be illegal as well. The motion does not ask for any of that. It was supposed to be a consensual motion that simply proposes giving the same rights to the Palestinians as we extend to the Israelis. This is about equity.

Finally, this country has a special duty here. It is easy to try to duck that duty. We are the authors of the Balfour declaration and we were the occupying power. Anybody who goes to the middle east knows—I am sure that the Minister would agree with me on this—that the views taken by the British Government and the British people run powerfully in the region. We should set an example. Yes, 135 countries have recognised Palestine and yes, we are behind the curve in this matter, but it is not too late for us to set an example to Europe and the rest of the world and show that we believe in equality and fairness in international statecraft as much as we believe in our own country. That is all that this motion is asking for tonight. It is not asking for special privilege or treatment. It is not a provocative act. It is simply saying: lay the basis for peace and equality in the middle east and resolve this issue and much else will follow.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Buck]

I want briefly to reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) relating to concerns about the impact that the relaxation of the rules on short-term letting proposed by new clause 21 will have.

Most of the inner-London local authorities, across the parties, and the amenity and residential associations in Westminster have raised three main objections to the relaxation of the rules. The first relates to the loss of residential stock. As we have heard, the pressure on inner-London residential stock is already acute, and the amount of money involved in the hotel and tourism trade is such that the sector is already eroding extremely rapidly. A further relaxation of the rules is likely to lead to a further diminution of stock in areas such as Lancaster Gate, Bayswater, Maida Vale and St John’s Wood in my constituency and, of course, in south Westminster.

The second issue is the cost involved and the resources needed for enforcement. We already know from Westminster council that, as the rules stand, an average of about 500 enforcement actions have been taken against short-term lets. The Government’s proposed rule change is likely to make it even more difficult and even more expensive for local authorities to enforce the rules. They will have to demonstrate not that a property is being let short term, but that it is in habitual short-term use, which is a much more difficult and higher bar to overcome, and it is likely to lead to a burden on council tax and resources.

The third issue relates to residential properties such as mansion blocks, which are very attractive properties for the purpose of short-term letting. The rapid turnover of tenants resulting from short-term lets means that a sense of neighbourliness and community is being eroded. It also leads to a higher incidence of antisocial behaviour, such as problems with noise and rubbish collection. That is not necessarily because the tenants or holidaymakers are antisocial, but simply, in common with boarding houses, bed and breakfasts and hotels, because the situation generates more of that kind of behaviour. That will also lead to additional problems, and there are real concerns.

Of course, we do not want to have to take enforcement action. The classic example, raised on the back of the Olympics, is that people might want to do a home swap or let their property for a fortnight.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I think that all inner-London MPs will agree with my hon. Friend and her fellow Westminster MP, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). The consequences may be unintended, but they will put more pressure on the private and rented market, where at the moment nobody is able to get a property with decent rent. This will simply make things more difficult and more complicated in that market.

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—those are exactly what the consequences will be. No one wants enforcement action to be taken against someone who lets their home for a few days or a couple of weeks, or who does a home swap, but there will be unintended consequences in a high-value, high-turnover and high-pressured area such as central London. Kensington and Westminster councils have made it clear that it is not those sorts of letters against whom they would take enforcement action, but the persistent trade in short-term lets. I hope the Government will think very carefully when they draw up the regulations for the enforcement of this particular provision.

Health

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is often in the specific and the particular that we understand how public policy is most effective, far more than in mission statements, PowerPoint presentations and the sub-sections of the legislation that we pass. That is particularly true of the NHS. We have heard two striking examples of that already in the contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) talking about social care. It is also true of the reconfiguration and change in the health service, which I shall address in the few minutes available to me.

In many respects we understand across the piece what changes need to take place, yet we find that so many of the changes that have taken place at a higher level of public policy, particularly those implemented by the Government through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, have made it harder rather than easier to bring about the change that we need to deliver. In London in particular, an exceptionally complex environment, we saw that set out very clearly by the King’s Fund in its report last year, which made it clear that the Government’s reorganisation of the health service, carried out at considerable expense, had made it harder rather than easier to deliver the fundamental changes that we need by fragmenting its structure and undermining its capacity to introduce strategic leadership.

In north-west London, which we have already heard mentioned today, we are facing one of the most fundamental changes in the delivery of health care since the establishment of the national health service. The “Shaping a healthier future” agenda is rooted in a set of principles with which most of us could agree. We want to reduce the number of accident and emergency attendances and, in particular, to reduce the number of accident and emergency admissions when patients can be better cared for elsewhere, particularly within primary and community services, and we want to reduce the length of stay, particularly for elderly patients who would be better and much happier to be cared for with appropriate social care support in their own homes. Those are undeniable facts that are supported by the general principle that in many cases the higher level of acute care is more efficaciously provided in larger and more specialist units. Those things go together and they are worthy objectives.

It is in the detail of the implementation that we have a major problem. NHS England is apparently seeking to have a total of 780,000 fewer patients admitted to A and E over the course of the next two years. The “Shaping a healthier future” agenda translates into a reduction of 15% in the number of A and E admissions to be achieved in north-west London. As the King’s Fund’s health economist John Appleby has said, that is “not realistic or feasible”. The problem is not that it is not desirable or that we do not want to see it achieved over time, but that we are in the middle of a period of rising demand for A and E and the capacity simply is not there, either elsewhere in the acute hospitals sector or in community and primary care services.

Only a few months ago, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, at the heart of the “Shaping a healthier future” agenda, said:

“We are yet to see any impact of primary care and community Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention…schemes and therefore are planning to maintain the level of emergency care we provided”

over the course of this winter. So, a hospital is saying that it cannot rely on the primary and community services being in place to divert people from A and E, yet almost in the same week the Secretary of State’s letter confirmed that the closure of the accident and emergency units at Hammersmith and Charing Cross, as we understand them, will go ahead as soon as possible. We now have a date in September, and his letter stated that

“the process to date has already taken 4 years causing understandable local concern”.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend has written a devastating critique to the new chief executive at Imperial about the fact that Hammersmith A and E in my constituency as well as other A and Es are being closed before there is appropriate provision to replace them. I would not hold my breath for a reply if I were her. I am still waiting for one to the letter I wrote to the clinical commissioning group on 26 April on the same subject of failure to provide primary care.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces my exact point.

Since the Secretary of State’s letter and the decision to proceed with the Hammersmith and Charing Cross closures, it has been reported in the Evening Standard that Imperial is having to use winter pressure beds routinely to cope with patients displaced by the planned A and E closures, admitting that there are “risks” of over-crowding, and warning that ill patients will have to spend longer in ambulances. This is a demand for winter pressure beds in the middle of the summer. The expectation is therefore that there is already insufficient capacity years before the construction of a planned new and improved A and E unit at Imperial hospital. The closures are going ahead and Imperial clearly cannot cope. An Imperial official said:

“We have extra acute beds at St Mary’s Hospital, normally used during the busy winter period to ensure we can quickly admit those patients”

in need. That is fine, but what will happen if and when we have a winter crisis or simply during the additional winter pressures? That capacity will not be available to help deal with them.

None of this is meant to suggest that there are not fine people in clinical and managerial practice focusing their attention on ensuring that services are in place to assist with that transition, but the scale of the challenge appears to be beyond what can be achieved realistically within the timetable. In the middle of all this—and no doubt connected to it—there came halfway through the year a letter from the west London clinical commissioning groups announcing that they have

“made an important decision to put funding into a central budget…£139 million…which means CCGs with a surplus will be supporting those with a deficit…We also agreed to explore how to bring together commissioning of primary care services across organisational boundaries”.

That seems to me to be perilously close to the end of clinical commissioning groups as far as we understand them. My understanding was that clinical commissioning groups were designed to be rooted in their local communities, to work in effective local partnerships and to reflect the local service providers, particularly primary care service providers and patients, at a local level. That has all gone with the wind in west London and I am extremely worried about it.

I am all the more worried because the whole transition programme is predicated on the delivery of improved social care, and it is social care with which we are now struggling to cope. In my local authority area, 1,000 fewer residents are getting social care than in 2010, and there will be a further £2.9 million cut this year. It is no surprise that the chief financial officer at Imperial trust, Bill Shields, has said:

“The cynic in me says”

that the proposal to take money away from the national health service to fund social care

“is a way of taking money from the NHS and passing it on to the local authority…this will allow them to make good the cliff edge they have been through in the last few years and rebuild the local government public finances.”

It would also mean

“a significant real-terms reduction in NHS income…going forward”.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a point about this panicked attempt to find more money in the primary care budgets and slosh it around west London at any consultation, and that is exactly the issue on which I am still waiting for an answer. This is chaos in the health service and is a reaction to closure programmes that have been carried out on financial grounds and that have now reduced the health service in west London to a chaotic and dangerous state.

[Ms Buck]

It is extremely worrying because the whole thing is shrouded in a lack of transparency and a lack of effective communication about what is going on. The local authority is cutting its own social care funding and needs money to fill its black hole, whereas the trust at Imperial says that that is exactly what it is worried about. It says it is concerned about the transfer of money because that might not give it the increased local community services that would allow it to reduce emergency A and E admissions, which is what we want. In fact, those things are so far from being effectively integrated in a common purpose that the different sectors of the health service appear to be at war with each other financially, if not in any other way.

The problem is that the fragmentation and delay caused by the reorganisation in the national health service since 2010 have undermined what should have been a sensible method of progressing and building up community services to reduce the pressure on the acute sector. Meanwhile, today and in the coming weeks my constituents will find that their hospital is at capacity but is expected to deal with the extra demand from the Hammersmith and Charing Cross accident and emergency closures, whereas the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) face the loss of their accident and emergency units without any appropriate provision. It is a shambles, I am extremely concerned, and I hope it is not too late to ensure that we can put something in place to prevent a true winter crisis this winter that would be of the Government’s own making.

Health Services (North-West London)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some issues in this short debate, and I welcome the Minister to her role. It is good to have a London colleague here to respond to the debate, which deals with my serious concerns about the management of the delivery of health services in north-west London.

I asked for the debate with considerable sadness. I have been involved with health care delivery in north-west London for decades, on the community health council, when it existed, and as a member of the health authority for the same area; and for many years I enjoyed positive relationships with hospital management and primary care trusts, so it is of concern to me that I shall be describing a diversion away from such good relationships and communications, and the serious implications of that.

The debate is not about individuals, although I have concerns arising from the communication of some individuals’ views about health care delivery in recent months. The problem is structural, and it is not fixable just by improvements in the exchange of e-mails. It goes to the heart of trust and clarity in the way health care is provided. I am not alone in my concerns—I know other elected officials feel the same; but this is not just about politicians having our noses put out of joint when communications are not handled effectively. It is about some fundamental questions that have arisen, to do with how care is and will be provided to my constituents, and residents of the London borough of Westminster, where St Mary’s hospital is situated.

Because the challenges are so great in north-west London, as they are, indeed, in many parts of the health service, it is even more incumbent on those who deliver and manage health care to ensure that communications are clear, that there is a shared strategic approach to planning, and that there are common assumptions. As the Minister knows, the backdrop to the issue is important changes in the provision of hospital care and the “Shaping a healthier future” strategy for north-west London. That, of course, proposes the closure of several accident and emergency units in north-west London.

Fortunately, from my point of view—because it something about which we all care very much—A and E will not be closed at St Mary’s hospital in Westminster. It is good to see my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) here for the debate; I know that my colleagues have concerns about how emergency services will be provided in their areas when A and E units close.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend shares my pain. Four out of nine accident and emergency units are designated for closure, and two of those are in my constituency; but the point that she is making is that every MP in north-west London shares the pain, because there is simply no capacity in the system to cope with such a decline in emergency services. The sooner the Government and the NHS realise that, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, the proposed closures and the “Shaping a healthier future” strategy are themselves set against a financial context that puts extreme pressure on delivery. North-west London hospital services must accommodate a £125 million reduction in service between 2011 and 2015. At the same time—and this is pertinent to the core of my comments—local authorities have imposed dramatic cuts in their social care budgets. That is particularly germane to the issue, because the work of local authority care services relates to prevention and hospital discharge arrangements, and needs to be integrated with those areas, so that the highly pressured hospital service can work effectively.

Of course, another factor is the impact of the top-down NHS reorganisation that we were told would never happen, and the £3 billion that it cost, which has taken valuable resources and a great deal of energy away from the planned delivery of services. The slow death of the primary care trusts and the slow emergence of clinical commissioning groups during a time of massive changes has been part of the problem.

Colleagues such as my hon. Friend have legitimate concerns about the effect of the proposed A and E closures on their communities. St Mary’s hospital was not scheduled to lose its A and E unit, and we were pleased about that. I and others were briefed about ambitious plans for the development of a new, improved emergency care service, to be built at St Mary’s hospital. During the discussions and briefings there was no suggestion that there would be any specific consequential changes in the pattern of hospital services at St Mary’s. Therefore, when, at the invitation of my hon. Friend, I attended the independent review panel called to consider the A and E closures in other parts of west London, I was somewhat taken aback to be asked by the chairman how I felt about the closure of up to 200 beds at St Mary’s, and the movement away of most or all elective surgery, as part of the consequential changes resulting from “Shaping a healthier future”.

I immediately contacted the chief executive of the Imperial college health care trust, to ask whether that was accurate, what the implications were, and why I and others had not been told. That was not because I am automatically totally opposed to consequential changes in service delivery. We must be grown up about such things, and it is right that hospitals evolve and change. Things should not be, and never have been, set in stone. Good clinical reasons and financial necessity may drive change. However—and this is my theme today—to make that change work there must be clarity and partnership, and everyone must understand what is being proposed and how decisions are to be taken.

First, the Imperial trust referred me back to the “Shaping a healthier future” proposals, and to a slide pack that was shown to me and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in the spring. That set out very broad headings for how services at the three hospitals in the Imperial group—Hammersmith, Charing Cross and St Mary’s—would develop. There was nothing in it that would have led me to conclude that St Mary’s would lose the bulk—or all—of its elective surgery.

I checked with Westminster council, to see whether I was missing the blindingly obvious. I am grateful to the excellent health strategy officer at the council, who has been a model of clarity in explaining how things worked. He told me, with, I believe, the full agreement of local authority members, that the authority—a statutory partner, which there is a requirement to consult about major changes in hospital services—

“did not receive any indication that there would be significant consequential changes to elective surgery at St Mary’s Hospital as a result of Shaping a Healthier Future. Furthermore, Westminster City Council has not been informed of any proposals to re-locate much or all elective surgery currently performed at St Mary’s Hospital to Charing Cross and any developments in this area would be submitted to both the Cabinet Member and Chairman of Health Scrutiny to investigate.”

He said the authority would consider the assumption by the chief executive of the Imperial hospital group

“that these proposals were in the Decision Making Business Case to be incorrect”,

and continued:

“At Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust’s Board meetings on 24th July and 25th September, we were informed that Imperial were considering their options.”

Indeed, the chief executive of Imperial verbally, when I met him, and in writing indicated that no decisions had been taken and that the timetable for such decisions was for conclusion in the New Year. On 23 August, he wrote:

“I can assure you we are very much in the modelling and evaluation stages of any changes so are yet to consider whether we should propose moving any clinical services between our sites”—

note the use of “any”. That letter was widely circulated, so clarification could have come from other members of the local health service family, but no such clarification was received—to coin a phrase.

Meanwhile, a quick look at Hammersmith council’s website showed me that it was promising its community a reinvigorated Charing Cross hospital, but on a basis that did not appear to have been explained by Imperial to anyone in Westminster. Hammersmith announced in September:

“News that elective surgery is now on the list of possible future services would further boost the amount of expertise at the site, meaning patients in the local community benefit from the care it gives, and giving it greater status as a teaching hospital.”

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a good case for the second of our concerns, which is not the closures themselves, but the chaotic, shambolic and amateur way in which they are being carried out. In the past six months, I have been told that Charing Cross hospital will close and be a clinic, a local hospital, a specialist social care hospital—whatever that is—or an elective surgery hospital. The person who told me most of those things, the chief executive of Imperial, has just left, suddenly, after only two years in the job. That is typical of the utter chaos in the hollowed-out NHS in north-west London and, no doubt, elsewhere.

[Ms Buck]

I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s words.

To return to my point about how Hammersmith council is presenting its achievements in winning services for Charing Cross that no one in Westminster or at St Mary’s hospital knows about, Hammersmith continued:

“Charing Cross will also become a specialist centre for community services which means that the many thousands of older and chronically ill patients, who need regular visits to hospital, will have less far to travel. It will mean local people will be better supported to live independently at home”.

It was good of Imperial to share that vision with Hammersmith and around Charing Cross, but it is a great shame that it chose not to share a single word with Westminster city council.

Reinforcing my hon. Friend’s point about chaos, however, I am not sure that even that is the true picture, because when I showed the press releases on Charing Cross from Hammersmith council to the chief executive of Imperial in September, I was told that it was spin on Hammersmith’s part and that what was proposed was only a 23-hour ambulatory care model, with no new beds at all. It is hard to square that with Hammersmith council’s vision and harder still to know what is true.

I do not begrudge Hammersmith residents their hospital—quite the reverse—but I am concerned about any sense of deals being done to secure their future, at the expense of local residents in Westminster and, critically, without so much as an opportunity for Westminster council even to consider the matter or to think about support services or the community care dimension, which Hammersmith so rightly talks about as important in a local hospital context and which can be applied to Westminster. If Hammersmith council can proudly claim that its new hospital means that

“the many thousands of older and chronically ill patients, who need regular visits to hospital, will have less far to travel”,

surely that cannot mean that older and chronically ill Westminster residents, who also need regular visits to hospital, should have further to travel—with no debate and no chance to put in place social care support or travel arrangements.

Things get worse. Four weeks after my meeting with the chief executive of Imperial, all my follow-up questions about what that means, whether decisions have been made or what services will be located where still remain unanswered. That is no doubt partly a consequence of the unexpected departure of the chief executive, who has been replaced in what is clearly a holding operation, in a manner that does not indicate a smooth and planned transition.

Hospital Services (West London)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

rose—

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Slaughter]

I give way to my hon. Friend and will give way to the Minister in a moment.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He was with me when we met representatives of north-west London recently and were advised that the number of A and E attendances is rising by about 10% a year. Does he agree that, even for those of us who agree that in an ideal world, we would reduce unnecessary A and E admissions through the provision of quality care in the community, it is wrong to propose the closure of A and E units before we have a demonstrable improvement in the community facilities that would allow for that reduction in unnecessary A and E admissions?

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, and I will come on to that when I talk about the process and history of the closure of services.

Pay and Consultants (Public Sector)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

Oh, I do welcome the review. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be quoting from The Guardian article in the debate pack. It said:

“Treasury review of the extent to which civil servants channel salaries into tax-efficient private firms is to look at more than 4,000 postings across Whitehall and its quangos—and is expected to conclude that such schemes must end for full-time permanent staff, even if the arrangement led to a net financial gain for government departments.

The Department of Health is deciding whether to cancel contracts paid to at least 25 staff via private firms worth over £4m… The Guardian has been alerted to similar schemes operating in NHS trusts and primary care trusts. In one recent case, the Milton Keynes Hospital paid its acting chief executive Mark Millar via a partnership called Millar Management Associates. There is nothing illegal in staff being employed as consultants, especially if they are temporary.”

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of acting consultancies in the national health service, does he share my concern about the signal that was sent out by the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust last year when it appointed an interim chief executive allegedly on an arrangement of £2,000 a day for up to 200 days. Does he accept that, with a £35 million deficit, that sends out a very worrying message to the public? Moreover, does he not think that the fact that the chief executive has now been appointed the permanent managing director—I welcome that move and do not throw any doubts on his competence to do the job—implies that that consultancy arrangement was wrong?

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our constituencies share the world-renowned Imperial health care trust. When I was first introduced to the new chief executive, I assumed that he was just that—a paid chief executive. It was only when I read the articles in The Sunday Times that I understood that he was being paid £2,000 a day as a consultant. I do not know whether it was always the intention to regularise his position or whether it was The Sunday Times and perhaps my hon. Friend who acted as a prompt. I am, however, pleased that the chief executive, Mark Davies, applied for the job and has now been appointed to the full-time position. If that is a precedent in removing such anomalies and abuses, I hope that it will be followed.

Going back to the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), I do not object at all to the review. However, as he will have seen, the issue goes wider than Departments and non-departmental public bodies. It is my understanding—the Minister may want to correct me when she responds or even now—that that is the limit of the review at the moment. Even in the statement on 2 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) asked about local government—a topic to which I will return—and the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about the BBC. Will the Minister update us on whether the terms of reference of the review have been extended to cover those areas, what progress has been made so far and when will we see a report?

Social Housing in London

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Buck]

I am sorry; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).

All those speeches addressed, with slightly different emphases, the impact of the housing crisis on people—on families in overcrowded accommodation, homeless families and families forced into constant moves and changes of address. The statistics matter, but it is important that we should remember that people are at the heart of the issue. I suspect that most of us in the Chamber, on both sides, have sat in advice surgeries with people weeping with distress as they have talked about the conditions in which they live and the number of times they have been uprooted and forced to move. They crave only a stable home.

Opposition Members drew out something important about social housing policy—that it has come about as a consequence of market failure. It is precisely because the private housing sector could not meet the needs of low-income and vulnerable people that council housing came about—and before that, there were the great social housing developments of Peabody and Octavia Hill. Subsequently, the housing association movement grew up in response to the catastrophe of the private rented market, particularly in places such as my previous constituency, the home of Rachman and Hoogstraten.

As the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said absolutely rightly, most landlords are not bad landlords at all—I am happy to place that on the record. However, the grim truth is that a substantial minority are, which brings the entire sector into disrepute. We already know from the English housing survey that 40% of private houses are below the decent homes standard and the conditions in the private rented sector are worse across the piece; a larger proportion of them fail to meet that standard. That is a particular challenge if vulnerable people are in the part of the market that has failed. That is exactly why the housing association movement developed. It is sad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith how some housing associations seem to have strayed so much from their original purposes.

[Mr Slaughter]

I want to get something off my conscience; I promise that this will be my last intervention. Last Friday, I got a planning application—again, I am afraid, from Notting Hill Housing—for 41 high-quality houses, including four new five-bedroom houses on St Peter’s square. They go for about £3 million each. Not one of those 41 houses will be an affordable home because there is not enough equity in the scheme. That is what some of our housing associations have descended to.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is extremely sad. In some cases, there appears to be a deliberate straying away from the original aims and objectives; in others, the kind of thing that he describes is a response to the constraints under which housing associations now operate.

All my right hon. and hon. Friends critiqued aspects of Government policy. A number of them drew particular attention to the risks inherent in the cuts to the local housing allowance. We heard from Government Members extreme examples of high-cost private sector tenancies. We agree. Indeed, the Labour manifesto stated that measures would be taken to deal with some of those extremely high costs. I completely accept that, but if it was the objective of Government policy why was it not confined to tackling the relatively small number of high-cost cases? I think I am right in saying that the Government have not even been able to tell us how many, if any, properties cost more than £100,000 a year, yet throughout the country—not just in London—nearly 1 million households will have their local housing allowance cut.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and for Edmonton raised concerns about what would happen when people are displaced, particularly from the central London broad market rental area where only 5% of accommodation will remain affordable, and a knock-on displacement moves those families to highly stressed, poorer communities on the fringes of London and beyond. Many Members talked about social housing investment and tenure, and I shall return to those issues briefly.

We heard thoughtful and reasonable contributions from Government Members. I single out particularly the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Battersea (Jane Ellison), not least because they are still here. They made good points. In some cases, there is shared understanding of the impact of the housing shortage, particularly in central London.

From the hon. Ladies and from the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr Offord), for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), we heard support for Government policy on market rents and the end of security of tenure, which it is asserted, without significant evidence, will deal with the shortage of social housing that we are all concerned about. Frankly, that assertion is a triumph of hope over experience, and I shall spend a moment or two deconstructing it.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hendon is no longer in the Chamber. He revealed a little of the attitude towards social housing and social tenants that permeates so much of the Government’s thinking about the problem—that secure and affordable social housing traps individuals in deprivation and unemployment, and the language of welfare dependency reinforces that belief. However, as several of my hon. Friends said, the fact that social housing is now such a scarce resource means that people with social problems are concentrated in it. Far from being the problem for many vulnerable and poorer families, it is an essential part of the solution.

We all agree that the problems facing social housing in London are complex, long term and difficult to resolve. Anyone who claims to have a magic bullet is lying. We know that the supply of social housing has been squeezed for decades, principally through the non-replacement of right-to-buy stock during the 1980s and 1990s, but in retrospect it is a shame that more properties were not built under the Labour Government, as several of us have pointed out. It would be hypocritical of me not to say that, as I lined up many times during the Labour Government to make exactly that point. However, as has been said, we can be proud of the substantial investment made during those years in the decent homes initiative, which brought millions of homes to a decent standard.

The decline in supply is not the only problem. London is a global city; foreign, national and business money distorts the market, and the fact that house prices have risen so much over the decades has its consequences. One striking issue about social housing is that between 10 and 15 years ago there was a steady outflow of tenants buying their home, sometimes through right to buy but often in the private market, which has effectively silted things up, as people on modest incomes are no longer able to afford a house. The relationship between the private housing market, owner-occupation and the social market must be properly understood. The Labour Government invested in decent homes and new buildings, so by 2009, the lead-in time for planning and investment led to a high of 16,000 starts in London. We now know that that was the golden age.

The coalition Government have a package of investment and policy suggestions, which are likely to combine to cancel out almost all the hoped-for objectives. They want more social homes—don’t we all?—but they have made, as we heard, a 63% cut in the affordable housing grant. Consequently, the 16,000 starts peaked in 2009-10 and will fall away to nothing, according to the Homes and Communities Agency, in 2012. The Government want housing benefit to take the strain—to fill the gap in the affordable housing grant—but they also want housing benefit expenditure to fall. Those two things are incompatible.

The Government want to improve work incentives—don’t we all?—but they propose 80% market rents, which will make work incentives much harder to achieve. If it is hard to make work pay when rent is £100 a week, how much harder will it be when rent is £400, £500 or £600 a week? They want more social homes, particularly, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said, more family-sized homes, but the overall benefit cap means that housing developers and housing associations do not want to build family-sized homes. The set of policies is completely incoherent. Something has to give.

The Government want mixed communities—don’t we all?—but they suggest throwing people out of their homes when they achieve a certain amount of income. What could be a worse work disincentive than saying, “If you earn a certain amount of money, you’ll be out on your ear”? What nonsense that makes of the concept of mixed communities. However, the Mayor of London proposes a £60,000-plus ceiling for access to socially assisted housing, which cuts across the stated objective of not allowing people with a decent income to be assisted with housing.

The Government want to tackle under-occupation—don’t we all?—but they are doing so in a way that possibly even some of my hon. Friends have not yet fully internalised. They propose doing so through a cut in housing benefit for social tenants who have one or more bedrooms more than they are deemed to need. That will hit 150,000 London households with an average of a £21-a-week loss in benefit. I do not have the London figures to hand, but I know that, nationally, if every single person affected by the proposed cut in housing benefit tried to avoid that penalty, it would mean that every one and two-bedroom property allocated in the social housing sector for the next five years would have to go to those households. That is clearly nonsense and would lead to a catastrophe of homelessness and overcrowding. Indeed, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) let the cat out of the bag by making it clear that the policy’s intention is not to tackle under-occupation, but to save money. As far as the Government are concerned, the fewer people who move, the better.

The Government also want to end security of tenure. When I, like my hon. Friends, was on the campaign stump last year, and warning people that a Conservative Government would mean a move to market rents and the end of security of tenure, we were howled down and accused of lying. Our only error in robustly defending that position was not realising how quickly it would happen.

I have been remiss in not making the point earlier, but shadow Communities and Local Government Ministers, who are out campaigning today, are rightly opposing those measures in the Localism Bill.

The Government’s policy is fundamentally flawed and deeply incoherent. It will have the opposite effect, almost across the board, to what it seeks to achieve. At the very least, we know that the Mayor of London’s re-election campaign is on a cliff edge as new housing supply drops to nothing. We therefore look forward to a campaign that will replace the Mayor, who has talked the talk, but is not walking the walk. He will not deliver new social housing; he is not standing up for London tenants or those who face a housing crisis.

Although the crisis has been long building and slow burning, it is reaching one of the most critical points that I have ever known. Whether for people in social housing, people in the private sector waiting to obtain social housing, those in the queue or those facing homelessness, it is clear that the Government’s policies will do nothing to resolve that crisis. It will take a Labour Mayor and a Labour Government to resolve the crisis of social housing in London.

Gaza

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Karen Buck

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Buck]

Yes, but this will be the last intervention for the moment.

[Mr Slaughter]

The general tone of the interventions so far seems to suggest that Palestinians have brought this upon themselves by electing a Hamas Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the political issues in the middle east, punishing the Palestinian people collectively for exercising their democratic right is entirely wrong?

[Ms Buck]

I agree totally and that is the main thrust of my contribution today. There are issues of proportionality and collective punishment. The 1.5 million citizens of Gaza should not be subjected to the impact of the siege because of the Government that they chose—or, in many cases, did not choose—to elect.

Israel has stated frequently that the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 with the withdrawal of 8,000 settlers. However, as it has at any time since 1967, Israel has remained firmly in control of Gaza’s sovereignty, controlling its borders, airspace and coastal waters and retaining the right to enter at will. Gaza is surrounded on three sides by a security fence, and a seam zone extending up to 1 km into the territory is enforced by snipers to prevent anyone from approaching the fence. Palestinian farmers entering the zone are liable to be shot at by border guards, while fishermen seeking to fish away from the highly polluted coastline are regularly fired on by the Israeli navy. Leaving aside the casualties of Operation Cast Lead in 2009, 31 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and 116 injured since the beginning of 2010 alone. On 7 June, six Palestinians were killed off the coast of Gaza.

Since 2007, the control of Gaza’s borders has tightened further, to the extent of its being an all-encompassing siege. The people of that grossly over-populated strip—measuring only 10 km from east to west—have been denied all freedom of movement, have extremely limited access to vital goods and services and, perhaps most crucial, have been denied access to construction materials needed to rebuild the many homes and facilities destroyed during Operation Cast Lead.

The agreement on movement and access stipulates that 15,500 trucks a month should be allowed to enter Gaza via the crossing points with Israel. Since June 2007, however, the actual volume has typically been about 20% of that number. Between May and June this year, only 400 trucks entered Gaza—one third of the pre-siege level. The trucks are supposed to contain everything that the 1.5 million people of Gaza need to survive, yet only 73 sanctioned items were permitted. Items that were blocked—there has been very recent movement on this—included pasta, powdered milk, jam, cooking oil, school books and textbooks and T-shirts.