Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Neill and Jane Ellison(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
It is worth noting that the SDLT reforms in the 2014 autumn statement reduced the tax for the vast majority of homebuyers and that all transactions up to £937,000 now pay the same or less in SDLT. As a London MP, I am obviously aware of the phenomenon to which my hon. Friend refers, but from the available data we do not yet have a clear consensus on the market impact of the higher rates of SDLT for additional residential properties or those at the upper end. We will continue to look carefully at that.
Princess Royal University Hospital
Debate between Robert Neill and Jane Ellison(9 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I say now to colleagues who understandably are concerned about local health services and have rightly raised concerns on behalf of their constituents that if I cannot cover some of their questions in the next 12 minutes, I will undertake to write to them in the remaining days of this Parliament, or to ask someone else to write to them, so that we can try to give them some reassurance.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on raising her concerns. Taking my cue from what was said previously, I start by paying tribute to all those working in London’s NHS—in those hon. Members’ constituencies, in mine and right across London—for their dedication and commitment to providing first-class services to those in their care at a time when we know that the system is, in places, under pressure.
As we have heard, after consulting with the trust, its commissioners and the London strategic health authority, the then Secretary of State instituted the special administration process at South London Healthcare NHS Trust in July 2012. He was guided in making that very difficult decision on the basis of the clinical interests of local patients, with advice from the NHS medical director, Sir Bruce Keogh. The decision was also based on the fact that there was no clear option for restoring the trust’s finances while maintaining the quality of services to patients. It was clear at the time that doing nothing was not an option. Not resolving the issues at the trust would have carried a high degree of risk. It would have meant that the trust would not meet the London-wide clinical quality standards and that £1 million a week would continue to be diverted from front-line patient care into funding an unsustainable deficit.
The trust special administrator looked extensively at whether there was an option within South London Healthcare NHS Trust to solve the problem. He invited expressions of interest from other people who might run the hospitals in the group, but no one was able to come forward with a proposal that would solve the problem within the existing footprint of the trust. Indeed, there were no proposals that would not have involved neighbouring health care economies.
The long-standing clinical, operational and financial problems at South London Healthcare NHS Trust led the trust special administrator to recommend that Princess Royal university hospital be acquired by King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The associated hospital sites in Bromley—Beckenham Beacon and Orpington hospital—were part of that transaction. I must say for the record that the transaction agreement was signed by all parties and no information was withheld from any organisation.
At the time, South London Healthcare NHS Trust was the most financially challenged in the country, with a deficit of £65 million per annum. Repeated local attempts to resolve the financial crisis at the trust had failed. Millions of pounds were spent on paying for debt rather than improving patient care for the local community in south-east London. The trust special administrator was clear that long-standing problems at South London Healthcare NHS Trust must not be allowed to compromise patient care in the future. That is why, after careful consideration, the Secretary of State accepted his recommendations, including that the PRUH be transferred to King’s.
The new expanded trust is one of London’s largest and busiest teaching hospitals and plays a key role in the education and training of the next generation of medical, nursing and dental students. King’s has acknowledged that it has been facing a number of pressures that have had a bearing on its performance. The challenge of integrating and transforming the performance of the PRUH, combined with a significant increase in emergency in-patient activity, has, as the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge described, adversely affected the trust’s operational and financial performance. A key aim of the trust’s five-year strategy is to restore its traditional high levels of performance, in particular by returning to achieving its emergency department and referral to treatment waiting time targets.
Monitor has concerns that some patients are waiting too long for A and E treatment and routine operations and that the trust is predicting a deficit of more than £40 million in this financial year. The regulator is undertaking its investigation to find a lasting solution to long-standing problems at the PRUH. Monitor is concerned that the trust’s operational and financial performance issues post the acquisition of the PRUH have not improved in line with expectations. In particular, some long-standing financial and operational performance issues at the hospital have continued post acquisition.
Robert Neill
May I say this on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who cannot be at the debate? He and I would want to put on the record the fact that there have been areas of improvement at the Princess Royal and at Orpington, particularly in terms of patient experience scores, which have picked up considerably. On the point that my hon. Friend the Minister just mentioned, we are especially concerned at the prospect that has been raised that the full financial picture may not become available to King’s until after the acquisition. It is very clear—I hope that the Minister can assure us on this—that the Monitor investigation is intended once and for all to get to the bottom of, the root of, the financial difficulties that this trust suffers. May I also say that I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord Kerslake as chairman of the King’s trust? He will bring considerable credibility and rigour to that process.
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will say more about Monitor’s role, but it is very much in line with what he said and I hope to give him the assurance that he seeks.
Monitor has been working with King’s, local clinical commissioning groups, the NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England since the acquisition and has worked more closely with the trust recently to get a better picture of the challenges that it faces. However, Monitor has decided to take the new, formal action because King’s has not been able to tackle its challenges on its own. Monitor considers that continuing to work with the trust through more intensive and formal engagement will help to drive the necessary changes.
I want at this point to highlight the fact that, following a formal investigation into a suspected licence breach at a foundation trust, Monitor does not have the power to direct non-foundation trusts, nor does it have the power to direct neighbouring foundation trusts unless they themselves are in breach of their licence. The range of actions available to the regulator range from informal action—for example, requesting further information—to formal enforcement action, including the imposition of additional licence conditions.
Where appropriate, Monitor seeks to encourage the whole health economy to work together to reach a locally owned, consensual solution, which is very much in line with the NHS “Five Year Forward View”. Monitor has said that it recognises that King’s has been working hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has said, to improve the quality of care provided at the PRUH. However, through its close work with the trust, Monitor has discovered that achieving the necessary financial and operational turnaround at the PRUH will be a greater challenge than was initially anticipated. Therefore, the regulator has decided to open a formal investigation as part of the regulatory process, which will enable it to use its legal powers to underpin the changes that the trust needs to make. The investigation will help Monitor to decide what resources and support King’s needs to enable it to deal with its financial problems and reduce waiting times for patients. Monitor will announce in due course the outcome of the investigation and whether it will take any further action. There is no statutory time scale for the investigation, because it depends on the scale of the issues encountered. I am sure that all hon. Members would want those issues to be looked at thoroughly.
The Riots
Debate between Robert Neill and Jane Ellison(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Neill
Yes, the involvement of the business community, including the insurance sector, has been discussed. We are in contact with them, and I am sure that we will be able to take that forward. For example, the quality of shutters that are put up by way of replacement can be an enhancement. That is one thing that has already been very much on the agenda.
Hon. Members have talked about how the riots occurred. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail about that but concentrate on the response. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan, to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) referred, and whatever the circumstances that led to that, I think we all agree that what happened later had little to do with it and was fuelled overwhelmingly by greed, deliberate thuggery and opportunistic or sometimes—I have to say, having seen the videos from my area—planned criminality. There is no excuse for that. Sadly, lives were destroyed, along with homes and livelihoods. We have heard about instances of businesses that had been going for years being put out of business. The loss of life—five lives in all—can be fairly connected with that.
It is good to be able to say that a response is already taking place. The fancy dress shop in Battersea that was ruined in the riots is now trading next door to its original building. Duncan Mundell, the proprietor, is opening an additional outlet in the Debenhams store opposite. He is building up his Hallowe’en trade.
Robert Neill
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) here. I will certainly give way to her, because she has been instrumental in galvanising her community to try to achieve an holistic response.
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend the Minister is too kind. I am very pleased that he has mentioned the Party Superstore, as I certainly wanted to draw attention to it. It is co-operating with Debenhams, which is a nice example of a small retailer and a big retailer working together. May I use this intervention to make one point and a plea? Wandsworth council has very successfully set up a one-stop shop for local businesses to go to for all the form filling, hand holding and so on. That has worked a treat, particularly for small businesses. It has enabled them to negotiate the minefield of forms and legislation, and is a model for how we should make our response.
My plea concerns the riot funds that the Department for Communities and Local Government controls. We need the deadline to be extended beyond Christmas, so that we can use the run-up to Christmas to let imaginative ideas for using some of that funding to regenerate high streets take root.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is right about the first point; I shall come to the second point in a moment, if I may.
A tribute has already been paid to the emergency services. For reasons of time, I have not repeated it in detail. The strength of it is none the less undiminished. Remarkable bravery and professionalism were shown. In terms of specific Government activities, the DCLG and Business Link have set up web pages providing advice and information. Wandsworth and many other councils have taken the steps that have been referred to.
To look on the positive side, and perhaps to put things in perspective, for every person arrested, 15 people followed the “Riot Clean Up” Twitter feed. There is a good side to this, which we should not forget. We have ensured that the faith communities have been closely involved throughout. Reference has been made to appropriate and condign sentencing. That will continue. It is a matter for the courts, but the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice are also looking at the means of increasing the rate of recovery of fines for those who are not sentenced to custody; I think most people think that right and proper.
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is of course an important route for compensation. That has been referred to. We extended the claims deadline from 14 to 42 days. There is a helpline and website linked to a claims bureau at the Home Office to give further advice. Thus far, there have been 775 calls and more than 1,000 claims, in addition to claims made by insurers direct to police authorities.
On the same day as the Prime Minister’s statement, the Government announced a £10 million recovery scheme to help local authorities with their immediate costs. That operates on a similar basis to the Bellwin scheme, but does not have the qualifying threshold of 0.2% of revenue budget. That makes it easier for local authorities to receive support. Above the threshold, the Bellwin scheme has been activated.
We have offered advice and support to all the local authorities affected; they have dedicated contact officials at the Department. Some 35 local authorities have registered for the £20 million high street support scheme, which was set up specifically to support small and medium-sized enterprises affected.
We have listened to local partners and extended the payment deadline to 3 January, and extended the deadline for local authorities to submit claims to 31 January. That seems appropriate, so that local authorities can try to get going in the run-up to Christmas. It is also worth paying tribute to the business community. A £3 million charitable “High Street Fund” has been set up by Sir William Castell and the Wellcome Foundation, with a £500,000 donation from the Mayor of London, to offer immediate recovery grants. Business in the Community and the British Retail Consortium have also played an active part.
Inland Revenue has handled some 1,286 calls and agreed to some 162 time-to-pay agreements for customers whose cash flow is affected, worth about £3.4 million. We have also set aside £1 million for a homelessness support scheme to deal with the immediate re-housing costs of those who were directly made homeless. Every household that approached their local authority for assistance has either been re-housed or provided with advice and assistance. In Haringey, we have provided £35,000 for two caseworkers to support families in the River Heights estate. I, along with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), held a recovery advice surgery for MPs from affected constituencies, which a number of hon. Members present attended.
We have set up the Riot Communities and Victims Panel, chaired by Darra Singh. I will check whether it has been to Hackney, but it is carrying out a number of visits around the country. I am sure that its objective is to meet as many authorities as possible. The panel will publish an interim report in November and present a final report to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in March 2012.
It is worth highlighting the community response, such as the “Love” campaigns in Manchester and Salford, “Liverpool Clean Up”, and the work done by Haringey’s community assistance centre, Tottenham Green leisure centre, and the volunteers in Vauxhall. In the medium term, we are providing £20 million through the London enterprise fund for the regeneration of Tottenham and Croydon, which will be administered alongside the Mayor of London’s £50 million recovery fund.
Urban Supermarkets (Planning)
Debate between Robert Neill and Jane Ellison(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) on securing this debate about planning regulations on urban supermarkets and convenience stores, which is a concerning area of policy for many of his constituents. The debate seems quite well attended compared with some I have seen in the past.
The debate has raised important issues around balancing sustainable development with community needs, so I am pleased to be able to respond. My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about problems that might arise in the planning process, where planning permission is not required to change the use of a building. First, however, it would be helpful if I set those issues in context.
To achieve the aim of balanced and sustainable communities, we need homes, jobs, leisure facilities and places to shop in locations where they can be accessed by all. That is why we focus new development and activities in the cities, towns and villages in which we live. However, we understand the tensions that occasionally arise from locating different types of development and land uses next to one another. That is why it is important to have a planning system that balances the need to allow businesses to grow with protections for the community from the negative impacts of some development. The planning process seeks to ensure that our communities get the right type of development, located in the right locations, to maximise benefits for all, and to prevent, as far as possible, negative impacts.
Where proposed developments are likely to cause problems for neighbours, local planning authorities already have powers to attach planning conditions to permissions. Those conditions are aimed at preventing the problems from ever occurring. For example, a local planning authority may impose a condition that can specify time limits within which deliveries to a shop may take place, to avoid traffic congestion or noise sensitivity issues in the vicinity of the development.
Of course, local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to restrict certain uses to particular sites. Where a local planning authority thinks that problems may occur, it can restrict planning permission for a shop to non-food A1 use class only. That could be used, for example, to prevent a hairdresser’s becoming a convenience store. By using those powers properly, local planning authorities can prevent the types of conflict that my hon. Friend has mentioned, particularly in residential and more sensitive areas. Similarly, planning permission is still required if a change of use of a building needed significant structural alterations: for example, if the change of use required changing the street frontage of a shop. Those are all important safeguards of the interests of local residents.
Having set that context, let me move on to the specific subject of this evening’s debate—the problems that can arise when planning permission is not needed, because the use class order allows one type of shop to be converted into another type without planning permission. Let me explain the background to the use classes order, because its purpose is often misunderstood. The order was introduced to remove unnecessary planning applications from the planning system, and, therefore, to speed up the system. The use classes order groups together uses that have similar land-use impacts and characteristics into classes. Changes of use within a class are not considered to be development and therefore do not require planning permission. Relevant to this discussion is the A1 use class, which includes a range of different shopping types including corner shops, supermarkets, retail warehouses and post offices. Of course, I accept that two developments, even if categorised in the same use class, may not have exactly the same operating characteristics. Shops, for example, can have different opening or delivery times.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the planning system grants further flexibility by allowing some changes of use between classes without the need for planning applications. That applies when the impact of the proposed use is considered to be less than that of the existing use. Obviously it did not happen in this instance, but it is an important aspect of the system. Hot food takeaways, pubs, restaurants and financial services such as banks can all convert to shops without requiring planning applications if the impact on neighbours is regarded as being less than that of the existing use. The key difference in this instance is that local authorities have the power to remove that freedom of movement and require planning permission if there is local concern about such a development.
I take the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents seriously, and I recognise that at times there will be tensions between businesses and their neighbours. However, we must not forget that the planning system cannot deal with all community tensions. The system is often criticised for being slow and bureaucratic. It can create a significant amount of work for local planning authorities; it can also act as a disincentive to development, thus stifling economic and physical regeneration. That can frustrate the legitimate development that we all need. Planning controls should be introduced only when there is a strong case for doing so.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
In a case in my constituency, the fact that there was no need for a change-of-use permission removed the trigger mechanism that sometimes acts as an early warning in the planning system. A shop that has invested several hundred thousand pounds is three doors from what is about to become a local branch of a chain of supermarkets. Will the Minister comment, or at least reflect, on the fact that the ease with which change of use was allowed, enabling a pub to become a Sainsbury’s Local, removed the trigger mechanism that might have informed other local shops, as well as residential neighbours, of what was in the pipeline?
Robert Neill
I will reflect on that, and explain the ways in which we propose to deal with such issues in a moment. The example given by my hon. Friend highlights the balance that must be struck between competition and trading opportunities between different operators in the same area on the one hand, and legitimate planning considerations on the other. Sometimes there appears to be an overlap between the two in the minds of the general public, which is not so easy to translate into planning law.
Let me return to the issue of the impacts of changes of activity that do not require permission. In general, we would expect businesses to operate responsibly, and to be sensitive to the communities within which they operate. When neighbours raise legitimate concerns about development, it is in the interests of businesses— particularly those with a strong community presence, such as supermarket chains—to take them seriously and respond positively.
Local authorities also have wider responsibilities and powers to investigate complaints about problems such as noise. Authorities must take “all reasonable steps" to investigate any complaint in relation to noise. I have no doubt that the local authority cited by my hon. Friend is diligent and well aware of those powers. Authorities are expected to raise the issue with the person or organisation causing the nuisance, giving the details of the complaint and asking for steps to be taken to reduce the noise. If the local authority believes a statutory nuisance is occurring, or is likely to occur or recur, it must take action.
That is where we are at the moment and we do not want to dismiss my hon. Friend’s concerns. There may always be individual cases where the balance between avoiding bureaucratic overload by requiring permission for a simple change of use and guarding against unacceptable impacts gives rise to unintended consequences. With more and different types of retail activity and means of dealing with storage, for example, one must be alert to changing circumstances that may not have been anticipated when the regulations were drafted. I have a lot of sympathy for this situation and, as I have indicated, I would hope that the local authorities use powers against nuisance if that is the appropriate route.
The point raised by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) relates rather more to the case of the operation of the rules in relation to temporary permission rather than use classes, but it is a legitimate area of concern. I do not doubt that.