Police Funding: London

Debate between Rupa Huq and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

Before I allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene again, I will point out that we should remember that the Mayor of London took decisions. For example, he took a decision to freeze partially fares on the underground, the result of which is that my constituents will not now get upgrades on the Jubilee and Northern lines, and will suffer accordingly. That decision was a deliberate one by the Mayor of London. He can make it because it is political, but he cannot then complain about lack of funding. He made decisions—this is the key point—including a decision to increase the precept marginally. He could have decided to increase the precept and the council tax further, which would have brought in approximately £14.1 million extra. He makes the decisions about where the funding that comes from the Government—from the taxpayer—and the council tax and business rates is apportioned. That is his decision.

[Dr Huq]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Davey]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

It is not for the Government to determine that decision; it is for the Mayor to do that. Under the previous Mayor, decisions were taken to ensure that 32,000 police officers were kept in the Metropolitan police, and indeed crime was gradually falling in London. That is the reality.

I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Huq]

Is the hon. Gentleman not being a bit disingenuous about the Transport for London resource grant, £2.8 billion of which was cut—

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Rupa Huq and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

When I set out on this journey, I did not realise just how much work was going to have to be done. If Members are bringing legislation to this place to change the law, I believe they should go through a long process and ensure that their Bills are thoroughly tested before they present them.

The Select Committee recommended that clause 1, on the extension of duties to 56 days, should be retained—and the Bill has been kept in line with that recommendation. The Select Committee also found that the Bill’s original measures on the consequences of non-co-operation did not offer sufficient support to vulnerable households. As a result, this aspect was completely reworked, with the bar for non-co-operation during the prevention or relief stage raised to the level of

“deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate”

to ensure greater protection for vulnerable people. Further safeguards have been introduced to ensure that any household in priority need that is found to have deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate will be made an offer of a six-month tenancy. That change is supported by the homelessness charities involved.

The prospect of 56 days of emergency accommodation at the end of the prevention stage, regardless of priority need status, was criticised by the Communities and Local Government Committee. While it agreed with the idea in principle, it added:

“we also recognise the reality that it is not feasible for councils to provide accommodation to all homeless people.”

We heard evidence that suggested that there might be some unfortunate unintended consequences, such as the stimulation of the growth of a market in substandard temporary accommodation—warehouse-style accommodation, for instance—or the diversion of resources from vulnerable people.

Primary legislation is not a panacea. It is not always the best way of tackling an issue properly, especially an issue with a complex range of causes. I am therefore very pleased that the Government have now announced a package of measures—at a cost of £40 million—to tackle rough sleeping, with Manchester, Newcastle and Southwark becoming “trailblazer” councils for preventive work. I believe that that will be a far more effective and flexible way forward, and I commend St Mungo’s in particular for all the work that it does in this regard.

The Committee recommended that clause 2 include the words

“those who have experienced, or are at continued risk of, domestic violence and abuse”.

That has been duly done, and is covered by subsection (2)(d).

In respect of the proposed changes in the definition of a local connection, the Committee recommended that the definition in the original legislation be left unchanged. That too has been done, although a minor correction has been made to the original text to deal with a long-standing issue relating to care leavers, and to ensure that they are protected.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh), and his all-party group on ending homelessness, for all their support. I also commend the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee, for all his help and guidance during this process, and for ensuring that the pre-legislative scrutiny was conducted in a fair, transparent manner. As a result, we have ended up with a Bill which I believe has all-party support.

I am also delighted to have secured Government support. I took into account the views of many interested parties, and on Monday the Government finally announced that they would back the Bill. They will fund the additional costs in line with the long-standing “new burdens” arrangements.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my near neighbour in north-west London for giving way, and I, too, congratulate him on his Bill. He has referred to local authority funding and the Select Committee’s report. That report estimates that there could be 1,100 potential “extra duty” cases for the London borough of Ealing, which already has 677 statutory homelessness cases. I am encouraged by the news that extra funding is on the way, and we await the full details, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the revenue support grant? Ealing was a big loser last time round, whereas the grants for certain Tory councils such as Hampshire and Surrey went up. My borough estimates that our grant will fall by 65% by 2019-20, and it would be great if the Government would assist in that regard.

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Lady tempts me to start talking about the revenue support grant, but I will not be so tempted. I do not wish to digress from the main aim of the Bill, which is, after all, to help to prevent homelessness in this country.

Over time the Bill is likely to save money, because if local authorities act earlier households will receive help earlier, and people will be prevented from becoming homeless and requiring more expensive accommodation. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and his team of officials for working so hard to ensure that the Bill was in a suitable state to be passed.

I know that the Bill cannot do everything. It will not tackle issues relating to supply, and it will not be a magic bullet to clear the streets of homeless people overnight. What it will do, however, is introduce a long-term cultural change which will, over time, bring about a different way of working among local authorities that will stop people from getting into the terrible position of being homeless in the first place.

Let me relate just one story from my constituency. I will not name the individual concerned, but he had lived in west London and fallen on hard times. When he approached the local authority for advice, he found himself passed between various staff members before falling into an agreement with a housing association. He was evicted from that property, and moved further west. He approached the local authority there, and the local Member of Parliament. Again, he was passed between council staffers. He ended up sleeping rough sporadically, or in his car. After a while he was given a room by a support group, but he left the property shortly after beginning the tenancy as a result of a mutual agreement with the management. He then approached a third local authority.

It was at this point that the man contacted my office for help. That third local authority had told him that he could not be housed. No help was offered, despite his obvious need. My staff approached the office of an MP with whom he had had contact in the past, as well as a support officer who had helped him at one stage. There is a strong suspicion of an undiagnosed mental illness. Without a permanent address, it is difficult for the man to retain a single GP and obtain a diagnosis, and without a diagnosis, he is not considered vulnerable. The cycle just repeats itself. It is important to ensure that everyone is given help, advice and support from the start to prevent such situations from developing.

It is vital for Members, here and in the other place, to refrain from adding amendments to the Bill if it is to succeed. Private Members’ Bills are inherently vulnerable because they have a limited amount of time to get through Parliament, so amendments are likely to cause this Bill to fall in its entirety. I shall welcome short contributions from Members today, as well as volunteers to serve on the Bill Committee. Certain organisations have expressed concerns about the drafting of some clauses; if the Bill succeeds today, I shall undertake to investigate them fully in Committee.

The Bill has received the maximum possible pre-legislative scrutiny, so Members can be confident that it will be workable and has been properly costed. Homelessness is a complex issue, and no one piece of legislation can be the sole solution. The Bill is one part of a larger strategy, but it is a key part, and will produce a revolution in local authority housing offices.

I thank all those who have helped to guide and produce the Bill, but in particular I thank my long-suffering parliamentary assistant, who, over the past six months, has done virtually nothing except work on the Bill. The Government have proved their commitment to social justice in backing it, and, in doing so, have also demonstrated that the Conservative party, led by our current Prime Minister, is the truly reforming, progressive party that is delivering after 40 years of legislation that has prevented local authorities from offering a service to homeless people.

NHS in London

Debate between Rupa Huq and Bob Blackman

Thursday 24th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huq]

Yes, I certainly do. I do not know the St Helier hospital well, but I believe it is renowned as a teaching hospital. The business plans must account for such things; there is often too much short-termism.

The implementation of the closures listed is well under way. The A&E departments at Central Middlesex and Hammersmith shut their doors in September 2014, despite assurances from the Conservative party during the 2010 general election campaign that that would not happen. The closures have negatively affected waiting times at Northwick Park hospital in Harrow. That hospital is a considerable distance away from a lot of my constituents; as the crow flies, it is pretty far from East Acton to Harrow. I do not like to churn out loads of statistics, but Northwick Park does have the dubious distinction of the worst A&E waiting times on record in England—

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Huq]

May I just finish this sentence? The partial sentence might not make as much sense as if I am allowed to complete it. In six out of the 15 weeks that immediately followed the closure, Northwick Park had the worst record in the country. There were anecdotal stories of ambulances backing up at that hospital.

[Bob Blackman]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, but we must get to the facts of the matter, particularly when we refer to specific hospitals, their standards of performance and what they are achieving. It is true that before the opening of the new A&E at Northwick Park hospital, it had the worst record in London and one of the worst in the country, but since the new A&E opened in November 2014, it has had the best record in London and one of the best in the country.

[Dr Huq]

There is a target of 95% of patients being seen within four hours. Immediately following the closure, at that hospital the proportion was 53%. We should not just brush that away.

[Bob Blackman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Huq]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to finish because a lot of Members want to speak, so I shall crack on for the moment. We should not just brush these things under the carpet and say that they did not happen.

The Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London was set up because of the public distrust of the “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme, known among locals as “Shafting a Healthier Future” because it does not do what it says on the tin. One reason why it was further discredited by the Mansfield commission is that it was based on demographic forecasts from 2012 that massively underestimated the population in north-west London, which has increased at a much faster rate than was foreseen. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this, but there has been no clear indication that the programme has been adjusted to take account of those demographic changes.

Reforms have to make sense economically as well as clinically. Last week, we heard in the Budget about the continuing drive to control expenditure, but this ill-advised reorganisation seems to have been given a blank cheque. The Mansfield report states:

“There is no completed, up-to-date business plan in place that sets out the case for delivering the Shaping a Healthier Future…programme”.

There is nothing that demonstrates that the programme is affordable or deliverable, so serious question marks remain regarding its value for money. We are told that we are living in a time when every pound of taxpayers’ money spent has to be justified. Initially, the programme was supposed to deliver £1 billion of savings and cost £235 million, but the costs are ballooning. So far, there has been £1.3 billion of capital investment. Lots of that money has gone to external consultants such as McKinsey and on people’s jollies to America to see how it works there—quite a scary idea. The independent commission concluded that the likely return on the investment is insufficient, based on the strength of the existing evidence.

On the subject of finance, The Independent reported last year that London North West Healthcare NHS Trust warned its staff to limit their use of stationery and stamps, as it is aiming for a £88.3 million deficit this year, and it might miss even that target. Some 95% of NHS acute trusts, which run hospitals, were in deficit in the second quarter of this financial year. The hospital sector is heading for an overall £2.2 billion deficit this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has warned that the £3.8 billion of extra funding for the NHS next year that was promised in the spending review is going to get lost in the black hole that has emerged in NHS finances; it will be swallowed up in all that debt.

I am a new MP, but since my election I have seen the maternity unit at Ealing hospital join the list of closed departments. That was one of the “Shaping a Healthier Future” recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I am going back not 10 years but to 2009 when a report was produced under the previous Labour Administration that would have decimated us in north-west London in terms of A&E. The incoming Health Secretary froze that and said, “No, we’re not going to implement this. We want a clinically led review of what provision should be provided.” In certain instances, it is clear that some of those areas have been led in that way. I am going to talk about Northwick Park hospital because through better investment and better provision it has been transformed and it treats people better.

[Dr Huq]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way briefly to the hon. Lady, who made a very long oration.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the most recent Care Quality Commission report on Northwick Park hospital says that it requires improvement. Several shortcomings were found. Does he appreciate why Northwick Park strikes fear into the hearts of many of my constituents?

[Bob Blackman]

I will come on to a CQC report on the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency in a minute. The reality is we can pick and choose from CQC reports, but I want to ensure that the brilliant doctors, nurses and support staff who work in Northwick Park hospital are recognised for the work they do and not the fear, uncertainty and doubt created by Opposition Members about the performance of an outstanding hospital.

I will move on to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency. The Minister knows about this subject extremely well. The reality is shown in the most recent CQC report, which I will quote directly. It said that the hospital has

“Outstanding clinical outcomes for patients”

in premises that were—and are—

“not fit for purpose—it does not provide an adequate environment to care and treat patients.”

I could not have put it better myself. The reality is that, over the past 30 years, under Governments of all persuasions, we have heard promises to rebuild the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. The medical and support staff there do a brilliant job; if I took you to that hospital, Mr Turner, you would see for yourself. They are treating patients in Nissen huts created during the second world war. It is an absolute disgrace that staff have to operate in such dreadful facilities. They do brilliant work to rehabilitate patients who come in crippled and leave much better able to live a decent-quality life.

That is why I am concerned about national health service bureaucracy. Previous Governments have committed to funding. The Chancellor stood up at the Dispatch Box during the emergency Budget in June 2010 and agreed and confirmed funding to rebuild the hospital. None the less, we still drag on. It is nothing to do with the Government; it is NHS bureaucracy. I will not go through all the details of everything we and the board have had to do to get to the point where the hospital can be rebuilt.

We have a plan. The hospital will be completely rebuilt. We will have a private hospital alongside the NHS hospital, so that consultants and medical staff will not have to leave the site to do their excellent work. We will sell off part of the land for much-needed housing. Instead of selling it off as a job lot, we will sell it off in tranches to ensure that we get the best value for money, and then the money can be reinvested in the national health service, in the hospital itself.

One would think that, if someone came up with a plan like that, the NHS bureaucracy would be leaping to say, “Yes, let’s get on with it.” Instead, we have had report after report, and business case after business case. I will not, as I did once in the Chamber, describe the 11 stages of the business case that a hospital must go through to get approval for finance. More money is spent on management consultants producing reports than on hospital consultants delivering health services.