Housing: Long-term Plan

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that point in a minute.

As I was saying, the response to the consultation has been significant. I pay tribute to the neighbourhood development group, Rawdon and Horsforth councils and other community groups that have been helping local people understand these complex matters. What frustrates local people is that these valuable green sites are up for grabs while the brownfield sites in other parts of the city are just left abandoned.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman who is my neighbour for giving way. He and I agree on the Leeds City Council targets, but does he not accept that there is a real disconnect between what he would like and what Ministers say, and the reality of the Conservative Government’s planning system and what it delivers? Does he not agree that our constituents are frustrated about that? Does he not acknowledge that, and is he raising it with Ministers?

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have raised those issues on a number of occasions. Of course the plan must go before the inspector, and we will be making it very clear that much of what Leeds City Council is advocating goes against Government advice. We will make that point very strongly again during the inspection period.

While I am talking about the brownfield sites, let me say that the Leeds City Council plan goes against the advice from Ministers on brownfield development first. Releasing green-belt land should happen only in exceptional circumstances, and those circumstances have not been proved by Leeds City Council.

What also frustrates people is that there are already 17,000 planning permissions in existence in the Leeds area, and not one single brick of those schemes has been built. We need to get the developers building. They cannot be allowed simply to say that they cannot afford to do so. We need far more help in this regard. Building on those sites with the 17,000 permissions would go a long way towards helping to deal with our housing crisis.

We have suffered significant floods in the Leeds area recently. It is easy to attack the Government on the flood defences project, but Leeds City Council must look at the plans that it is putting in place. Building on those important green-belt sites in my constituency will add to the amount of water coming off those new estates and into the rivers that serve the city further downstream.

We need to get some of those 17,000 houses rebuilt and implement the powers that already exist to bring empty houses back into use. We must regenerate the brownfield sites to create the housing that people need so that the residents who live there now can enjoy a much smarter area to live in. I welcome the fact that the planning process now involves more neighbourhood planning, and I hope Ministers will look carefully at the plan to see whether Leeds City Council has properly engaged with groups such as the Aireborough neighbourhood development forum, which has some strong concerns.

I am proud of our Government’s achievements. Yes, 260,000 affordable houses have been built. The right to buy offers opportunities to families like mine and allows more young people to become homeowners. Some of us never had the bank of mum and dad, so I thank the Government for the initiatives that will help those 86% of people who aspire to own their own home, because my experience shows that the best social mobility can start when we give people the reality, not just the dream, of owning their own home.

Leeds Bradford International Airport

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of giving my speech for me. He is absolutely right that new services would mean that more people used the airport. I will give the projections shortly.

Leeds Bradford airport is already one of the UK’s fastest growing airports, and it already supports more than 2,600 local jobs. All those people have to travel, of course, so they would need to use the rail link. The airport contributes more than £118 million to the city region economy. The Department for Transport has forecast that there is potential for the 3.3 million passengers to increase to 7.3 million by 2030, and to more than 9 million by 2050. Just this afternoon, the executive board of Leeds city council is discussing the potential for growth at the airport, and how it might be managed.

It is therefore imperative that instead of talking about the need to improve surface access, we start to do something about it and plan ahead. In my constituency, many of the old mills and factories have been replaced by new residential estates. Thousands of new houses are being built with barely any improvements to infrastructure. What is the result? We have caused real problems for my constituents. In a sense, we put the cart before the horse. We built the houses and caused a lack of school places and GP surgeries, and our road networks have become increasingly congested. I do not want us to make the same mistake with the airport.

As we have heard, passenger numbers are already increasing. The airport is working to increase the number of services, and its representatives are going to shows across the world to encourage new airlines to use its facilities. In the past two years, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, British Airways has introduced domestic flights to and from London. Aer Lingus is about to introduce flights to Dublin and on to the United States. The airport is encouraging more business travel, with flights to more European cities, such as Frankfurt, Brussels and Madrid. That, coupled with the huge success of the Tour de France, is seeing Yorkshire take its rightful place as a wonderful tourist destination.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The airport is in my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine, and the links will be built in our constituencies, but it is great to see colleagues from across the region here, because this affects the whole region. I fully support the rail link. My hon. Friend has mentioned our delivery of the Tour de France. We do not want talk on these issues; we want action. Does he agree that, with the Leeds city region having an economy worth more than £50 billion, we should be able to take such decisions for ourselves, including on whether we have light rail in Leeds, rather than having to go cap in hand to Whitehall? We need to make such decisions in Yorkshire, so that we can get on and have this rail link and the kind of modern, 21st-century transport system that we deserve.

[Stuart Andrew]

I could not agree more. We definitely need the system that we want. We know our local areas and the benefits that a rail link would bring. I hope this is the start of a joint mission to give a loud Yorkshire clout to securing the investment that we need. My hon. Friend is right about the increase in tourists and business passengers. We can see how quickly the passenger numbers could rise to those predicted by the Department for Transport. The airport could become one of the largest airports down the east side of England, and it could be bigger than the airports in Liverpool, Newcastle, Doncaster and the east midlands.

I am aware that the current study considers a range of options, one of which is a new link road from the ring road at Horsforth through the fields that are the natural border between Horsforth and Rawdon, past the airport and joining the A658. The West Yorkshire transport fund is carrying out further studies into that solution, but it will not solve the problem. In fact, it could make the situation a lot worse for my constituents, because passengers arriving at the airport by car will still have to use the roads through Apperley Bridge, Rawdon and Horsforth to get to the link road. The increased traffic that the new road would bring will make a bad situation much worse. Additionally, I fear that the road could become a new rat run for drivers wanting a short cut from the M62 to the A1 heading north. If we are serious about coming up with a long-term solution that will provide better connectivity to the airport while improving the experience for passengers and, more importantly, reducing the impact on my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members, the only option is to create a new rail link.

health

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I cannot resist the opportunity in the time available to raise the same issue as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has just addressed, particularly given the fact that we now have a new ministerial team. I am delighted to see the new Minister on the Front Bench.

I realise that the Safe and Sustainable review is independent of Government, as the former Health Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), told me on many occasions. It is clear, however, that there is a problem with the decision, particularly in the north-east of England, and I hope that we can try to find a solution today.

It is worth restating the issue. Despite claims by some, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, parents, the charity and clinicians are fully supportive of the review’s objectives. It has never been in doubt that safer and more sustainable units are the way ahead, but we are concerned that the outcome does not meet the review’s objectives. It goes against logical health planning, patient choice and clinical preferences. The fact is that patients in Yorkshire, Humberside and north Lincolnshire will simply be offered a poorer service.

Patient choice has been totally disregarded. A survey of patients showed that those in the major postcode areas would go not to Newcastle, but to Liverpool, Birmingham or, indeed, London instead. At the decision-making meeting, it was said that those patients would be influenced by referring doctors. The assumption was made that they would be pointed towards Newcastle, but no justification has been given for that assumption. Indeed, all of the 20 referring clinicians in the Leeds network, whose views were never sought by the Safe and Sustainable review, have said that they would not refer patients there for surgical treatment.

[Greg Mulholland]

It is a pleasure to carry on campaigning with my hon. Friend on this issue and we will continue to do so. Does he still agree with what we have said before, namely that the reason the Leeds unit is to be closed is the flawed assumption that that will allow Newcastle to reach the target of 400 operations, even though it will not? The unit is being sacrificed for something that will not even happen.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me on to exactly that point. The review’s decision said that 25% of Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster and Sheffield patients would go to Newcastle, when its own evidence said that they simply would not. Funnily enough, if 25% of those patients go to Newcastle, guess what? Suddenly, 403 patients a year will have surgical operations in Newcastle, which is just three more than the magic figure of 400. I do not believe that that 25% will exist, so Newcastle will miss the target of 400 operations, which is a key plank of the whole review.

We have heard about how public opinion has been discounted. A petition signed by more than 600,000 people was brought down to Downing street. That is an enormous number for one region, yet the review counted it as just one response. On the other hand, 22,000 text messages received in support of Birmingham were counted as 22,000 separate responses, which is blatantly unfair.

One of the most important issues is the co-location of services. What has impressed me about the Leeds unit is that it is part of the Leeds children’s hospital. All other surgeons get there within minutes, if needed. We are asking our patients in our constituencies to go to Newcastle, where all other services are some 3 miles away from the heart surgery unit. That is simply not acceptable and goes against the advice of the key recommendation of the Bristol inquiry, which was backed by the British Congenital Cardiac Association. The inquiry said:

“For these services at each centre to remain sustainable in the long term, co-location of key clinical services on one site is essential.”

It is important that we do not forget that.

The fact is that, allowing for patient choice and without the flow of patients from the populous areas of Yorkshire, as evidenced by the PricewaterhouseCoopers research, Newcastle will not reach the target of 400 surgical procedures. In 2010-11, Leeds delivered 336 procedures against Newcastle’s 271.

The impact assessment also showed that the options that included Leeds would have fewer negative impacts and that option B, which included Newcastle, would be particularly damaging for paediatric intensive care in Yorkshire and Humber.

It is also important to ask why Birmingham was chosen because of its density of population and Leeds was not, given the fact that we have a high south Asian population who, statistically, are more likely to need the service. As we have said time and again, doctors should go where the patients are, not the other way around.

Sheffield parents whom I have met at the unit travel three times a day to visit their children in hospital, because they have other children at home. We have to think about the impact this has on families.

Health

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that that is the case for constituents across Yorkshire and the Humber.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am happy to be working so closely with my hon. Friend on this matter. When all the evidence is considered, is not the reality that Leeds is being sacrificed simply to allow Newcastle to achieve a level of operations that it might not even achieve? That is no reason to close a good unit.

[Stuart Andrew]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.

The decision flies in the face of a fundamental aspect of the NHS constitution: patient choice. The JCPCT asserts that Newcastle could reach the minimum number of procedures if parents are “properly managed” to go to there. That is simply unacceptable. The whole point of patient choice is that people decide where they want to go.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) said, the review ignored a petition of 600,000 people, counting it as only one response, when 22,000 text messages in support of the Birmingham unit were counted as 22,000 separate responses. Why was that?

The scores in the review were allocated to four bands. Each of the points from one to four were multiplied by the weighting. That gave 286 points to Newcastle and 239 points to Leeds. However, there was no clarification of how the figures had been arrived at. Also the figures were not definite, but were rounded up or down, which may have made a huge difference to the outcome.

As has been mentioned, clinical experts at the BCCA, the Bristol inquiry, the Paediatric Intensive Care Society and the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists all say that surgical centres should be chosen on the basis of their having paediatric services all on one site. That is something that we enjoy in Leeds, which has a wonderful children’s hospital with all the services that are needed. On meeting such children, it is clear that they need the support not just of heart surgeons, but of other experts. In Newcastle, the extra support will be some 3 miles away. There will therefore be a worse service for people who live in and around Yorkshire, not the world-class service that we all want.

There is much more detail that I would like to go into. I sincerely hope that we will have a Back-Bench debate on this issue when we come back in the autumn, because it is of grave concern to hundreds of thousands of people in the Yorkshire region. We will not give up our fight to save our unit.

Congenital Cardiac Services for Children

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

That is a very good description of the meeting. I agree with my hon. Friend. If nothing else, it is good that this debate got the review board to come to Parliament and speak to MPs so that we could express our concerns.

On the case for Leeds specifically, as I said a moment ago, co-location of services is considered crucial by the BCCA. In Leeds we have one of the largest children’s hospitals in the country. A considerable amount of time has been spent bringing all the children’s services under one roof at Leeds General infirmary. The centre serves a population of 5.5 million. I cannot understand why the option has not been considered for Leeds when it has been considered for centres in Birmingham and Liverpool. Yorkshire has a growing population and a growing BME community. As I said, 20% of the patients come from that community. It is crucial that we take account of population numbers when considering the review.

How we care for all those families is also important. When I worked at Martin House children’s hospice, it was not just the care of the poorly child, but the care of the whole family, that was important. When people have a very poorly child, they want their family to be together. It has been said that parents will travel anywhere. Of course they will, but does that mean that we should make them travel when there could be alternatives?

The Yorkshire and Humber congenital cardiac network board has a well-established network model, is regarded as an exemplar in this country and is held in high regard across the region by both the professionals and the patients involved in the service. Although this was recognised by Sir Ian Kennedy’s expert panel and Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust was awarded the maximum score for networks in that assessment, the JCPCT, as part of the scoring of options for future configuration of centres, gave all potential networks the same score. It is unclear why a proven track record of delivering an exemplary network model was not considered an important factor in the ability to deliver this across a larger population and greater geographical spread in the future.

On the requirement for a minimum of 400 operations, Leeds delivered 316 cardiac operations in the 0 to 16-year-old group in 2009-10 and 372 in 2010-11. The process of recruiting a fourth surgeon is under way. By the time the review’s recommendations are implemented, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust will deliver the minimum number of operations, which is 400, and it will have the minimum number of surgeons, which is four, that the standards require from within the current population base. Equally, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust has provided detailed information to the Safe and Sustainable team for expansion of the current service, should it be required to deliver a change in capacity to support patients from a centre that does not get designation.

The review said yesterday that the debate is not about current services. It is about what will be provided in the future. The figures that I have cited show that Leeds’ case for being a centre caring for more than 400 patients is strong. Many patients and particularly clinicians have pointed out to me that it seems odd that we are having a review of children’s heart services without referring to adult services. Many of those patients will be the same: those children will grow up, and the doctors who perform the operations are often the same people caring for both groups, so why are we not looking at adult services now? It has been suggested that that review should come later, but if we have made decisions about children’s heart surgery, surely we have pre-empted what might happen in the future.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Going slightly further on his last point, does he realise that if those surgeons are no longer there, they will not be able to perform operations on adults? Adult surgery would be very detrimentally affected.

[Stuart Andrew]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is right; if we have a review of children’s cardiac services, surely we must consider what will happen to adult services. We should be talking about that now.

I could go on much longer and talk about the cases of various parents whom I have met, but I know that other hon. Members will do that, probably far more eloquently than I could. I am keen that the motion is supported because I want it to send a clear message to the review team that we are asking it to consider all the points that will be made today and all the points that have been made by the campaigns across the country. It was a privilege to go to Downing street the other day with children, patients and clinicians from the Leeds centre to present a petition of more than 500,000 names. That is a significant petition by anybody’s standards and a credit to that campaign.

I am concerned that after consideration of the consultation responses, it will be difficult to respond to all the evidence by pigeon-holing them into the four options in the review. That is why our motion today urges the joint committee not to restrict itself to those four options and instead to think outside the box, as they say. Let us look at a different proposal that delivers the services and the quality that we want and also takes account of all the responses that we have received.

Finally, I want to pay a personal tribute to all the families and campaigners, especially in Yorkshire and the Humber. In all the campaigning that I have ever done, I have never seen such a well-organised and dedicated campaign. The subject is sometimes emotional, but the responses that have come from patients across Yorkshire shows that there can be an alternative that delivers the services that we want. I hope the House will support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

It would be very worrying if the extraordinarily overwhelming views expressed by people were ignored, but of course the clinical view is vital, and, as I have said, many clinicians have a problem with the flaws—clinical flaws—in the review.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend mentioned the co-location of services. As I said in my speech, Leeds has spent considerable time ensuring that all children’s services are under one roof. If we lost the heart unit there, might not other services be affected as well?

[Greg Mulholland]

I have not yet had a chance to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has co-ordinated our campaign. It has been a pleasure to work with him so closely, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and other colleagues. He is right: one of those serious flaws is the failure to consider the impact on adult heart services, which would be a huge problem.

There is real concern out there, as has been demonstrated not only by the petition in Yorkshire and petitions in other parts of the country, but by the views expressed by many respected practising and retired clinicians. The concern about the closures is understandable, but there is also concern about the review itself. There is concern about the process, about the conclusions reached so far, about the lack of consistency in the recommendations, about the lack of logic in relation to the premise of the review, and, I am sorry to say, about a lack of impartiality.

That is why it is right for the House to have an opportunity to express that concern on behalf of all the areas concerned, and why it is fitting that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is present. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with us, and I urge Members in all parts of the House to support the motion, so that we can address the concern that has been expressed outside and inside the House by considering the possibility of other configurations.

I wish to echo three points that have been made about the wonderful Leeds unit. The first is about the co-location of services. The unit is a case of true co-location, which is what the British Congenital Cardiac Association has called “gold standard” care. Leeds is currently one of only two hospitals shown in the review to have such a type and level of service. Mr Joe Mellor, a consultant anaesthetist at Leeds, says:

“What is particularly upsetting about the proposals is that our patients from Yorkshire would leave the Leeds unit and have to travel to Newcastle or Leicester. Leeds has centralised all its children’s services onto one site. Neither Newcastle nor Leicester have come close to achieving this. Congenital cardiac surgery is a very complicated form of medical treatment. If in Leeds we encounter a problem where the child needs the help of an intestinal surgeon, or a neurosurgeon, or need renal therapy, or a host of other possible therapy, then we get it immediately in our own children’s hospital.”

Jonathan Darling, a consultant paediatrician at the Leeds General infirmary, states:

“To lose heart surgery from the Leeds Children’s hospital would be a huge blow, especially when we have just centralised services precisely to realise the benefits of having all paediatric services co-located on one site. The Review process does not seem to give sufficient weighting to this true co-location.”

I am afraid that it simply has not done so, which is worrying and quite extraordinary.

The second point that I wish to make is on the issue of population, which colleagues from the region have already raised. It simply makes no sense to close a wonderful unit that is already performing almost the number of operations that it must, when there are so many people in the area and the population is growing. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) when I say that of course we do not want to see the Newcastle unit close. We do not want to see any unit close, because this is about getting things right. However, I say to him and others that it would be absolutely perverse to close Leeds simply to enable Newcastle to perform a sufficient number of operations. If we stick to the number in the review, Newcastle can only perform that number of operations if Leeds closes. That is absurd.

Pubs (Planning Policy)

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Yorkshire MP for making that point. It is easy for people in planning applications—I have seen it as I am sure have other hon. Members—to present the pub as something that is of the past and that is no longer wanted by communities. They deliberately ignore points such as employment opportunities. They suggest that a business that has served a community for 50 years or even 100 years and contributed to the economy should be replaced by a set of flats that will make a one-off profit for a business, or a supermarket that will do things in a different way. It is so important that we do not lose sight of that point.

Let me outline the framework for pubs in planning law and why, sadly, pubs have so little protection. Planning policy statement 4, which applies to villages and local centres—already it is rather ambiguous because there are pubs that are in areas that do not qualify—replaced planning policy statement 7. That was a change made by the previous Government in December 2009 and was a cause for concern. PPS 7 was stronger and made direct reference to supporting the retention of local facilities such as public houses. The new policy simply refers to planning applications affecting shops and leisure uses, including public houses or services in local centres.

The Government are thinking of replacing that planning policy statement with a new framework. I urge the Minister, who is a genuine supporter of pubs, to ensure that when that statement comes out it includes a direct reference to the importance of public houses so that councils can take that into account. Without such a reference, councils will not do that.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that in a former life, I was on the planning panel of Leeds city council. That was exactly the problem that the panel faced with a pub in his constituency that was closed down. Does he not agree that to give councillors that extra power, such a reference is exactly what is needed in legislation?

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that point. I was coming on to that exact case. To some extent he is right, but the unfortunate reality is that councils can, as things stand, adopt pro-pub planning policies. The scandal of that case is that Leeds city council did not even seem to realise that it could and should have adopted such a policy.

Localism Bill

Debate between Greg Mulholland and Stuart Andrew

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, although I have been somewhat taken aback by some of the comments from the Opposition, particularly on the need for savings in local government. The collective amnesia about why the savings are needed in the first place is one thing, but there is also the complete hypocrisy, when it was the previous Labour Government who reduced millions and millions of pounds of neighbourhood renewal funding to Leeds, which has some of the most deprived wards in the country, yet continued to give millions of pounds to Sedgefield—surprise, surprise.

For far too long, we have lived in a system that fails to trust people to get on with their own lives and to run their own lives. Instead, communities up and down our country have had diktats from on high telling them what is best. The Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will, at last, enable a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to local people. Having been a local councillor for about seven years—maybe not as long as some of my colleagues—I know how frustrating it has been to realise that so little power is given to the local council and councillors, because they have had to adhere to the legislation that has come from this place.

The one area that I am particularly interested in, and which I would like to talk about, is planning and housing targets. I am sure that many constituencies have suffered because of the top-down targets that have been imposed on them. Time and again, when local people in my constituency are given the opportunity to ask what issues concern them most, the overwhelming response is always overdevelopment, and there is little wonder why. Many of the towns that make up my constituency of Pudsey were once mill towns and factory towns. Sadly, those industries have gone, as have companies such as Silver Cross and Greenwoods and, over the years, the industry in those areas has been replaced by residential estates.

Of course brownfield development is a good thing, but the two specific problems that these areas suffered as a result were top-down targets for density, which saw small houses being built on large sites, and the huge housing targets contained in the regional spatial strategy that left local people feeling completely powerless to oppose them.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I concur with the thoughts of my hon. Friend and Leeds colleague. Does he agree that it is extremely welcome and hugely important for an area such as ours that the regional spatial strategies are being abolished? Does he also agree that it is disgraceful that developers such as David Wilson Homes are trying to get forthcoming developments such as the one at Adel in through the back door before the new guidance comes in? Does he not agree that the people of Adel should have the power to stop such a development now?

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Communities in his constituency and mine have faced these problems time and again.

In Leeds, the previous Government’s regional spatial strategy doubled the target for house building from around 2,500 a year to more than 4,500 every year. At that level, we would have created the equivalent of a new parliamentary constituency within a decade, which would have been completely unsustainable. These targets resulted in not only the brownfield sites in our communities being built on, but a significant threat to the greenfield sites. Time and again, developers came forward with plans for more building. In recent years, permission has been granted for thousands of new homes in Guiseley, but little investment has been made in the infrastructure to cope with so many new residents.