Junior Doctors’ Contracts

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Heidi Alexander

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The problem with how the Government have handled the negotiations is that they have provided absolutely no clarity to junior doctors about what the proposals would mean for them individually. Everyone thinks that they are going to lose out.

The Government say that they want to reduce the number of hours defined as “unsocial” and thereby decrease the number of hours that attract a higher rate of pay. They say that they will put the rate of pay for plain time up to compensate, but there is no guarantee that the amount by which basic pay goes up will offset the loss of pay associated with fewer hours being defined as unsocial. Does the Secretary of State understand that those who work the most unsociable hours, the junior doctors who sacrifice more of their weekends and nights, feel that they have the most to lose?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

That is exactly the point, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is exposing the misleading comments of the Government, who are defending the indefensible. It is exactly those doctors—in maternity, in paediatrics, in emergency medicine—who will lose out the most and will see their pay cut by up to a third.

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right. His concern is shared by the President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, along with 14 other leaders of medical royal colleges and faculties, who point out that as currently proposed, the new contract would

“act as a disincentive to recruitment in posts that involve substantial evening and weekend shifts, as well as diminishing the morale of those doctors already working in challenging conditions.”

It cannot possibly be right.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Heidi Alexander

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The schemes that he describes, which are collectively known as SUDS—

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Sustainable urban drainage systems.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that prompt. Local authorities have woken up to the possibility of SUDS, albeit perhaps somewhat late in the day. Many are now insisting in planning applications that there should be no more paving over, while many are rightly taking enforcement action where those conditions are disobeyed. However, it is quite wrong to think that SUDS on their own will be a solution to the problem; rather, they offer additional assistance. The idea that we can suddenly convert road surfaces and pavements into permeable surfaces across London is highly impractical—look at the problems we had with simply replacing the water mains—and it would also cost four or five times more than the highest estimated cost for the tunnel. However, we must use SUDS, and indeed other measures

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his intervention, because he brings me back to the point that I was making. I was pleased to receive an invitation from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark to attend a meeting on 6 March in this place. This perhaps draws attention to the point that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) raised, because although probably 140 to 150 MPs would have been invited if the right hon. Gentleman had asked all those with an interest in Thames Water, I think only three turned up—me, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord), who is in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who was here a moment ago. That perhaps shows a certain lack of interest among some of our colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster would have been there, had he not had a more pressing engagement—I am sure that it was not the Campaign for Real Ale reception that was on at the same time, but there we go.

The invitation asked us to come and listen to Chris Binnie, the engineer who served as the independent chair of the Thames tideway strategic study steering group, which recommended the full tunnel solution. He was going to be present to explain

“why he now believes the costs have exceeded the benefits, and why there are quicker and cheaper solutions that should be considered urgently.”

I am familiar, as many Members are, with Mr Binnie’s proposal, which is what he has called the “Binnie Bubbler”, It is designed to aerate the Thames in a way that prevents the death of the fish and other livestock—if that is right phrase—in the Thames. I have read the arguments for and against the “Binnie Bubbler”, and I have always been rather sceptical about it, because I am not sure that it is suitable for the tidal Thames—it has apparently worked in Cardiff bay in a lagoon area—and also because I do not think it acceptable to allow raw sewage into the Thames at current levels and then simply to try to aerate it and possibly skim off the worst of it.

I therefore went along to the meeting—although I am sorry that I could not stay for the entire time—to see whether Mr Binnie had something more to say on that issue. It would be fair to say that he had something quite surprising to say. I appreciate that I am about to read from a note about the meeting that was written up by a supporter of the tunnel—I had left by this stage—but it says:

“Chris Binnie announced that he had changed his mind again and now supported Thames Water’s view that we should implement the single Thames Tunnel option. Wow! You could hear the gasps around the room and Simon Hughes’ chin nearly hit the floor.”

That might be slightly unfair: the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is unfazed even by things greater than engineers changing their minds, for the second time. However, this issue draws attention to an important point in the argument about the Bill, and brings us back to the financing. I think everybody—certainly everybody present in the Chamber today and most other Members of the House, albeit with certain exceptions, my neighbouring Member of Parliament being one of them—supports the idea that something must be done to relieve sewer flooding of the Thames in a substantive way that will last us, we hope, as long as the Bazalgette solution did.

Social Housing in London

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Heidi Alexander

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

It does not, which is partly why I am making this speech in the House.

When Boris Johnson stands there and looks proudly at new homes, I feel like saying to him, and to the public, “Those new homes are a result of the Labour Government’s investment in housing. They are a direct result of the national affordable house building programme.”

I have been involved in regeneration and attempts to build new homes in Lewisham for a number of years, and I know how long it takes to get new developments off the ground. Any homes that are being built at the moment probably went through the planning process three or four years ago, and the commercial viability of the scheme was probably assessed and agreed three or four years ago. For Boris Johnson to stand there and claim this as his victory is entirely wrong. His record will relate to what happens in the years to come. As we have heard, the Homes and Communities Agency predicts that in a couple of years no new affordable housing will be being built in London. It will fall off a cliff face. Boris Johnson should bear in mind that that will be his legacy for London, not the legacy left by the last Labour Government.

Another thing that I wish to say about my experience of trying to deliver regeneration in Lewisham is that no thanks are due to the Liberal and Tory councillors in this regard. As soon as there was the faintest whiff of local opposition to a new housing scheme, whether it was a private sector development or affordable housing, they generally chose to vote against it. Some of the plans in the Localism Bill will make it easier for some of those nimbys to block development. If we really are going to build more homes, we need to be thinking about how the planning system works.

I have talked a little about the fact that the capital grant programme has been slashed and the Government seem to be moving to a way of funding new homes that relies on the future rents that they will get in from properties. The approach of allowing housing associations to build and charge 80% of market rents seems to relate to an argument about why capital grants are being reduced. My big problem with that approach is that I fear we are simply not going to build the type of housing that Londoners, including my constituents, can afford.

I have done a bit of research on the average rents in Lewisham in the private rented sector and for housing association properties, and I have thus been able to work out what 80% of market rent would mean. At the moment, the average median rent for a one-bedroom flat in Lewisham is £170 a week and the rent in a housing association for such a property is about £80 a week. An increase to 80% of the market rental value would make the cost £136 a week and would mean a weekly increase of about £55.

That is bad enough, but the average market rent for a four-bedroom flat or house in Lewisham is £300 a week. Someone living in a similar London and Quadrant property would pay, on average, £114 a week. If London and Quadrant builds new homes in Lewisham and charges 80% of market rent, that figure would increase to £240 a week, which is an increase of about £125 a week. That represents a monthly increase of £500 and an annual increase of £6,000 in someone’s housing costs. If someone is lucky enough to be in full-time work in Lewisham and they are on the minimum wage, they will be earning less than £12,000 a year, so how on earth are they going to find £6,000 extra to pay towards their housing costs? I cannot see how that will happen and the London Council agrees with me. Its recent briefing produced for councillors in London on the affordable rent model states:

“There is already a widespread recognition that the ARM will fail to deliver on larger sized family homes; and that, at 80% of market rates, the model’s maximum rent level will be unaffordable in the capital”.

As I have mentioned, I am also concerned about families living in overcrowded situations. When they are offered a flat or house at 80% of the market rate, how are they going to be able to afford it? If they are going to have to pay an extra £6,000 a year, they are not going to move and so will stay in the overcrowded flat that they are living in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) discussed in an intervention the additional costs that could be pushed on to housing benefit, and that is precisely what the affordable rent model could result in. I recently read an interesting report by Family Mosaic entitled “Mirror, signal, manoeuvre: our drive to provide more social housing”. Family Mosaic did some research on about 50 of its new tenants who moved into properties across London at the end of last year. Some of those people were in work and some had caring responsibilities; the real-life situations of a vast range of people were researched when putting together that report.

Family Mosaic estimates that if every one of those 50 individual households lived in a property at 80% of market rent, the housing benefit bill would increase by 151%. That is a huge amount of extra money that will have to go out in housing benefit and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North is completely right to say that that is a way not of tackling the deficit but of making it worse.

At the end of the report, Family Mosaic asks what we can do:

“How do we go forward?”

In answer, the report states:

“To mitigate this risk”—

the risk that people might not be able to afford the rents—

“we could change the profile of our tenant group, and not let new properties to those most in need: this, however, goes against our core principles.”

I am concerned about how the affordable rent model will deliver any homes in which people can afford to live.

[Mr Slaughter]

It is refreshing to hear that from a housing association. The quote is from the same report that I mentioned when I intervened on the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord), who chose, for reasons best known to himself, to answer about security of tenure. The report completely gives the lie to the idea that so-called affordable rent—a piece of Orwellian speak if we have ever heard one—will be in any way affordable. It also states that 60% market rents will not be enough to enable

“a large proportion of tenants…to retain enough income to pay their rent and live according to government standards of affordability”.

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Our debate about what it is affordable to pay out in housing costs was interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North gave scenarios in which people might be spending 50% of their household income on their housing costs alone. I know that the Department for Communities and Local Government, in the guidance it published a number of years ago on how local authorities should carry out strategic housing market assessments—the Minister might wish to comment on this—says that the definition of affordable housing costs is a household paying 25% of its overall income on housing. We are clearly seeing situations in which households are paying much more.