Princess Royal University Hospital

Debate between Bob Stewart and Jim Dowd

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dowd]

I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clearly, financial management is an important part of running the NHS. Everybody knows that, whether it is in our part of south-east London or more broadly.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. My worry is that the Secretary of State negated the bill. It was wiped clean, and £44 million is a huge amount of money in the very short time that King’s has apparently been mismanaging the PRUH.

[Jim Dowd]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not think that would be King’s view. I hold no particular brief for King’s college hospital, other than the fact that I had a heart bypass there a few years ago, so I owe them my life. However, beyond that, I have no particular indebtedness to them. I know that there is a strong feeling that it was misled about what taking on the PRUH would actually mean, and the operational and financial consequences.

[Bob Stewart]

I accept that point.

[Jim Dowd]

That is very gracious—characteristically so—of the hon. Gentleman. I have four points to make briefly: three are questions, and I would also like an assurance from the Minister.

First, I would like an indication about the time scale. How long will Monitor take to report and what is the process following the report? Who will get to review it and how will it be taken beyond that? Secondly, what are the requirements/benefits and the consequences of what Monitor and the letter I received from King’s later that day—5 March—say, which is that the legal powers that Monitor possesses are needed to underpin the changes that are necessary to King’s foundation trust and the PRUH? Thirdly, how much consultation will there be with other providers and commissioners across south-east London outside King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust? Finally, I want an absolute guarantee that University hospital Lewisham and Queen Elizabeth hospital Woolwich, now the Lewisham and Greenwich trust, will not be adversely affected by any decisions that Monitor makes.

Primary School Places (Bromley)

Debate between Bob Stewart and Jim Dowd

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

As ever, I am indebted to the Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to raise an issue the like of which, in all my years as a Member and in the 20 years before that when I was a member of Lewisham borough council, I have never come across before. I have never encountered such a ham-fisted and poorly executed policy as the one I am about to describe.

The title seems quite broad, but I am going to be quite specific. I have given the Minister’s office an indication that I will be talking about the Harris primary academy/free school in Beckenham, which is located in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who I see in his place, but the school serves a large area in the north-west of Bromley, which both he and I represent.

I am not going to debate the merits or otherwise of free schools or academies; I am simply going to ask why such a colossal mistake was made in this case. There has been a huge increase in demand for places at both primary and secondary school level. That is certainly true in our part of south-east London and I think it is more broadly true across London generally and probably across the whole country. The pressure is considerable; finding places for all our children is no mean feat.

My principal complaint is how we can have a system in which parents who have been offered places at a school for their children and have bought the uniforms ready for their children to start, can then be told, six weeks before the school is due to open, not only that they do not have the place, but that the school will not be opening? As the Daily Mail had it on 24 July, taking its normally calm and balanced approach:

“Almost 60 families have been left without school places for their children after a council scrapped a new primary school just six weeks before it was due to open.

Furious families blasted ‘shambolic’ Bromley Council after offering them places at the brand new Harris Primary Academy in Beckenham, south-east London, in April—only for councillors to block the school from opening last week.

The school, which was hoped to meet the strong demand for primary places in the area, was due to be built on the site of an existing senior school in an exclusive residential street where the average house price is nearly £2 million”—

obviously the Daily Mail’s priorities came out in that last sentence. That report was not quite right, because it was not 60 families, but something fewer than 40. None the less, for those affected by the decision—the parents and their children—it was a huge and devastating blow.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I will call my friend—he is a very good friend of mine—regardless of House protocol. I totally agree with the thrust of what he is saying; the only thing I would point out is that most of the children have been found school places. However, I agree with him: it was a mistake of mega-proportions.

[Jim Dowd]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was going to come to that. The issue has been resolved in the short term, but its impact persists and it has exposed a severe flaw in the system by which the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency, local education authorities and local providers procure additional places.

Let me detail the chronology of this case. I am indebted to Doug Patterson, the chief executive of Bromley council, who I asked for a full briefing on the background to this issue. In order that I do not traduce or misrepresent anybody, I will read out significant parts of it. From May 2012 onwards,

“Bromley…changed its approach to school place planning, realising the benefit of securing of school places in line with the Government’s free school and academies agenda.

Based on local school place planning data, a shortfall of primary school places was identified across the local authority planning areas 1-4,”

in particular in Shortlands and Beckenham, which are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and in Penge and Anerley, which are in my constituency. The briefing continues:

“Bromley therefore sought discussions with Harris”—

that is, the Harris Federation—

“given Harris’s strong track record in Bromley and other London Boroughs. We were confident that they would be able to deliver within a relatively tight deadline in order to satisfy the shortage of primary school places.

Towards the end of 2012, two primary free schools were proposed: Harris Beckenham Primary (to be located on the already established Harris Beckenham secondary school site) and Harris Shortlands”—

again, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—

“(to be located on a new site provided by the Council). Harris undertook local consultation with groups of parents who identified specific areas where it was difficult to secure access either to their nearest school or the one of their choice. This was a necessary component of the DfE approval process.”

In May last year, the DFE

“announced their support for the two Harris Free Schools to open in September 2014…The new Harris Beckenham Primary Free School was planned to open on the existing Harris Beckenham Secondary site and Harris were responsible for securing all planning and other consents in a timely manner. The Education Funding Agency (EFA) were overseeing this development along with Harris; with the EFA responsible for the delivery of the capital scheme and the submission of the planning application. The Local Authority had minimal involvement.”

In June last year, the local authority

“were invited to give some comments on the proposed admission arrangements for the Free Schools prior to an open evening on 18 June 2013 where Harris were promoting the new Harris Beckenham Primary Free School. Harris had previously indicated a willingness to participate in the Co-ordinated Admissions Process, and this was included in the consultation document. It was felt that this would be easier for parents to understand, avoiding the need to make a separate application for the Harris free schools, and to demonstrate they were part of the Bromley primary offer…The Council had indicated willingness to work with Harris in this regard.

The EFA and Harris were driving this new Free School initiative and in this process it would appear that their emphasis at this stage was to engage local residents as potential parents rather than consider the wider planning and other issues which may have been of concern to the wider community. Indeed, no mention was made of the specific site in the consultation document and there was minimal engagement with the Council on this issue and Harris /EFA did not raise any concerns in this regard with the Council at this stage.”

I also got the submission from Harris that I asked for. It contests that, but I will come on to that in a moment.

“In a time when there is rapid growth in demand for primary places, it is often necessary to act quickly in order to provide additional places to meet the Council’s statutory duty…The EFA were under instruction from central Government not to engage with Local Authorities and therefore any opportunity for local knowledge to correct flaws in the local consultation process was lost.”

In April this year

“DfE ask Bromley to confirm that both Harris Beckenham and Shortlands would be included in offers made to parents for September 2014.”

In April the planning application was submitted, and on 17 July planning permission for the temporary arrangements was refused. Parents were offered Unicorn primary school which agreed to take a bulge class at short notice. I would say to the Minister that Unicorn primary school was able to do that because it is neither an academy nor a free school, but it is what is known as a community school under the direct control of the local education authority. If it had been a free school or academy, it could easily have declined such an invitation, in a way that a community school cannot.

In August this year, the London borough of Bromley was

“in series of discussions/meetings with the EFA to identify a way forward to ensure that there are sufficient primary school places for children in Bromley.”

A couple of days after the refusal of the planning application, the parents were informed that they would not be able to send their children to the school—clearly, as it was not going to exist.

Harris, tells largely the same story, but it has a slightly different emphasis. It states:

“Having been asked by Bromley Council to open the new school, we worked very closely with their education team, planning officers and councillors to establish it. We also worked closely with parents and met regularly with a group of local mothers and fathers who joined our steering group for the new school;

As with all new school buildings, the planning application was prepared and submitted by the Education Funding Agency (EFA). We are conscious that some within the political community in Bromley have questioned the timing of the application, which took place over the summer: however, particularly in London, this timing is normal and other schools opening in September 2014 including within our own Federation received planning permission at the same time of year;

Work on the scheme under the EFA’s Priority Schools Building Programme began in spring 2013 with a multidisciplinary team of architects, planners and building specialists. As you know, planning officers at Bromley had recommended the scheme for approval so the rejection…was not expected and came as a huge blow to parents, the Harris Federation, and, I am sure, many within Bromley Council who had worked with us to help make the new school a reality…

The application was for a school for 60 children plus up to 6 staff. This comprised of a temporary building of about 150 msq, including 2 classrooms for 30 children each…These plans were published to the public through a public consultation process run by the EFA, Bromley and Harris Federation. Through this process a group of neighbours and near-neighbours to the site expressed their concerns about the potential for increased traffic, strains on the site and whether there was a need for places in that locality. These concerns were taken seriously.

Detailed traffic impact assessments were undertaken and…after numerous meetings and correspondence working with the LA’s planning department to respond to their initial concerns, the planners informed the EFA that they fully supported the application and that there were no grounds for refusal. Because of this, at no point did we expect the councillors on the planning committee to overrule the considered advice of their officials, certainly not by six to two and particularly not for a new school that had been instigated by the Council.

We do not believe the”

refusal

“grounds to be substantive and have been advised by EFA’s planning advisors that we have a strong case for appeal.”

I have got a copy of the report that went to the planning sub-committee on 17 July last. The summary says:

“Taking account of the demonstrated need for primary pupil places in the borough for September 2014, the compliance with policy in relation to the designated Urban Open Space, the provision that has been made to accommodate existing and proposed staff parking, the assessment of the impact of additional cars related to the temporary use during the pupil drop off and pick up times, the limited impact of the use on the amenities of local residents and the character and appearance of the Manor Way Conservation Area, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to recommended conditions.”

There are 17 separate conditions; I shall not read them all out. They relate to landscaping, to trees and, in particular, to car parking, parking bays and car park management. There was also a recommendation for a temporary, rather than permanent, permission.

The members of the planning sub-committee refused to grant that planning permission, which they were fully entitled to do, provided that they believed in all conscience that that decision was correct and lawful. I would not have agreed with the decision, had I been there, because I do not think it is valid. The sub-committee was perfectly entitled to take that decision, however, and it did. The Department for Education, the EFA and Harris probably had no counter-argument, because everyone was doing what they were perfectly entitled to do. So how come we have wound up with such a debacle, which has caused such distress and inconvenience to the parents and children involved? Plans are going ahead for the school to open next year. Let us hope that it puts enough time and effort into dealing with the technicalities of the process.

I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 23 July to find out whether the scheme could be called in and to ask the Secretary of State to direct that it be approved. Unfortunately, despite speaking to helpful officials in both Departments, my efforts have been to no avail. I received a letter from Lord Nash, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, to tell me that that was the case. He expressed his disappointment at the difficult position that my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Beckenham had been placed in as a result of this farrago.

This is an example of a flagship Government policy being implemented by a quintessential Tory council in collaboration with one of the Government’s most favoured and, in fairness, most successful providers of academy schools and ending in a complete farce. This has happened because the Department’s procurement process is fundamentally flawed. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will undertake to change the process so that nothing like this can ever happen again, either in our part of the world or anywhere else? Will he also, on behalf of the Department and the EFA, which is responsible to the Department, apologise to the parents, to their children and even to Bromley council for the distress and inconvenience that they have been caused by this ham-fisted and defective process?

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Stewart and Jim Dowd

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd]

I accept absolutely the hon. Gentleman’s point. The wording of the clause is such that the powers are virtually unfettered—they are untrammelled. It does not say that an administrator can make recommendations about neighbouring trusts or nearby trusts; it says that they can make a recommendation about any trust anywhere in the entire health economy. It will be a threat to every single Members’ community willy-nilly, because it will be the new norm.

I will come on to what Lewisham experienced previously, but there used to be clinically led reconfiguration panels. This Government seem to have eschewed them. They are difficult and complicated, but they need to be so because this is a premier public service that matters so much to people in every part of this country. They are eschewing that in favour of an administrative route that will give them untrammelled powers.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Jim Dowd]

I give way to the gallant hon. Gentleman.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the equally gallant hon. Gentleman and a neighbouring Member of Parliament. I, too, have never understood why Lewisham hospital had to be involved in this exercise, and I still fail to see why it has to suffer as a consequence of the failure of other hospitals that, although they are outside my constituency, affect my constituents deeply.

[Jim Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have discussed the impact of this on our constituents many times.

I will try to shed some light on why Lewisham was put in the firing line, and why such administrative vehicles are so dangerous and antithetical to good health care. On 24 July 2012, the then Secretary of State invited the Members for Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich to a meeting in his office. That is entirely logical, because South London Healthcare Trust covers Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich. Strangely, he also invited the Members for Lewisham. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) was unfortunately unable to attend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and I did attend.

Hospital Services (South London)

Debate between Bob Stewart and Jim Dowd

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I will attempt to be brief, Dr McCrea, given your exhortation and out of consideration for my colleagues.

I do not think that the Secretary of State for Health will proceed with the proposed plan, because it is so far off the rails. It is such a ludicrous proposition, so ridiculous in its scope and even its intent and such a shoddy piece of work, frankly, that the Secretary of State will not be so foolish as to proceed with it, even if he can blame his predecessor for lumbering him with it. We have to recognise the threat, however, and to do what we can to make the case against it. That is why, after 10,000 people turned up on the 24 November to march past the hospital to protest against the plan to downgrade—to eviscerate—Lewisham hospital, rather more will be out again this Saturday, marching past the hospital to Mansfield park in Catford, to express what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) described as anger, although I go beyond that.

My hon. Friend was kind enough to mention that I have been in this place 20—now almost 21—years, but I was also involved with Lewisham council for 20 years before I came here, and, without doubt, the hospital proposal has raised more fury than anger—more so than any other local issue in all the 40-plus years that I have been involved in public life in Lewisham, even more than the madcap scheme of the Department for Transport under the now Lord Parkinson to further the south circular assessment study. That scheme had recommended widening the south circular to six lanes throughout, with eight lanes in some parts, right the way through the middle of Lewisham. People thought that was mad enough, but that pales into insignificance compared with the public response to the proposals that we are discussing.

What fuels the fury is not the incoherence of the plans, or even the gross financial assumptions—I have heard people call them heroic, but some of the claims are lunatic, and in pursuit of so little—but the sense of injustice, the unfairness of the scheme. Lewisham hospital, as in the recent past, has a strong commitment to safety, quality and patient experience. It has been rated in the top 40 hospitals nationally by CHKS—for clinical effectiveness, patient safety and so on—and has a strong record in achieving national and local performance targets. It is operationally lean, the reference costs index making it the most efficient trust in south-east London, delivering financial surpluses in each of the past six years—Guy’s and St Thomas’s trust, King’s College trust and, obviously, the South London Healthcare NHS Trust have not done that.

Our hospital has achieved the successful integration of acute and community services, fostering strong links with social care, and the people of Lewisham are already reaping the benefits. It has the reputation for strong and successful partnerships, so much so that many of the people at the Queen Elizabeth look forward to Lewisham management taking over to build links with commissioners, local GPs, the local authority, patients and staff.

Lewisham hospital, or University Hospital Lewisham, now part of the Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust, with NHS London’s encouragement, was actively pursuing a foundation trust application when the process we are discussing interrupted and completely derailing that application. People are furious at the injustice precisely because Lewisham hospital has done everything in the services that it provides that could reasonably be expected of it by the Department and particularly by the people of Lewisham.

I want Lewisham hospital to survive as an institution, but I am not desperately keen on institutions for their own sake, important as they are. I am more interested in the services that they provide for the people they serve, and the hospital’s record is exemplary. To see that destroyed and devastated by the vandalism of the trust special administrator process is more than most reasonable people can stand or accept.

I have been inundated, as I am sure have my colleagues, with information from various quarters, and all has been hostile. One note from a constituent—I will not be too specific as I do not want to identify her, but she is a clinician at Queen Elizabeth hospital—who did not support the closure but does not want Lewisham hospital to be destroyed, said that the position at Queen Elizabeth hospital is dire, and needs strong leadership and a clear sense of direction and purpose, so that it too can provide the services that the people of Bexley, Greenwich and Bromley deserve. If the closure of A and E at Lewisham hospital goes ahead, 750,000 people in Bexley, Greenwich and Lewisham will have a single A and E department available. That would not be safe by any stretch of the imagination.

I can do no better than to quote an e-mail that I received just yesterday from the GP team in neighbourhood 4 of the Lewisham general practitioners clinical commissioning group that makes the case well. The group covers practices in Bellingham Green, Sydenham Green, Sydenham road, the Vale, Wells Park in Woolstone road, and the Jenner, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and just the other side of the south circular road on the boundary between our constituencies. It says that closing

“the A and E will hit the elderly, disabled…and children of single parents disproportionately”

and that

“although an urgent care centre…will persist, its use its use will decline significantly as neither patients nor clinicians will have confidence to use an UCC unsupported by acute medical and surgical care”.

My right hon. Friend made that point elegantly. The e-mail continues:

“Loss of obstetric service will result in women in labour having to attend a different provider from their antenatal care, few women will choose this option, as both patients and clinicians are aware of the increased risk of disjointed maternity care and find it emotionally unsettling.”

It also says:

“The projected flows of patients are inaccurate and therefore so are the costings, our Primary Care survey across Lewisham showed 80%+ of patients would attend Kings, 10% St Thomas, 6%”

Princess Royal university hospital, Farnborough, and that only 4% of those currently attending Lewisham A and E would go to Queen Elizabeth hospital at Woolwich.

[Bob Stewart]

The point about going to Farnborough is that it is a heck of a long way from Lewisham, which makes it difficult. Public transport to Farnborough is not acceptable for people who are weak, disabled or poor.

[Jim Dowd]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that many of his constituents attend Lewisham hospital, so the effect will be not just on people who are resident in Lewisham.

In view of the time, I will not go through the rest of my points, but suffice it to say that they are compelling, overwhelming and make sense. The problem with the trust special administrator is that he regards antagonism and opposition from local people, particularly clinicians, as a sign of his rectitude. One of our local football teams is Millwall, which is based in Lewisham, although the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) prefers to disguise that fact. It has an unofficial slogan, which is also a song to the tune of “Sailing” by the Sutherland brothers and was made famous by Rod Stewart. The words are:

“We are Millwall, super Millwall”

and

“No one likes us, no one likes us

No one likes us, we don’t care!”

I suspect that Mr Kershaw has taken that local aphorism as his inspiration because he could not have gone further out of his way to antagonise all the people of south-east London. The problem is that most Millwall football fans sing it as a joke, but Mr Kershaw clearly believes it. He has succeeded in antagonising and alienating not just the medical community, but everyone in south-east London, because the whole scheme is a shambles. He said that no one came forward with a viable alternative to his plan, which is why the final report is as it is. I can tell him that if they had £5.2 million and rising and the services of McKinsey, Deloitte, Ipsos MORI and other consultants, year 6 at Dalmain road primary school could have come up with a better scheme than his. I suspect that the Secretary of State has enough sense to reject it. Action needs to be taken to secure health services across south-east London, but this is not the way.