Liberal Democrats call for £4m extra for NHS and social care in Newbury & West Berkshire

 

Ahead of this week’s budget the Liberal Democrats called for a £4 billion funding boost for NHS and care services. That would have amounted to a cash injection of £4 million for local NHS services in the Newbury and District CCG and £5.9m for social care across West Berkshire. The Budget announced by the Government today will instead see the share of national income spent on the NHS fall in the coming years.

The Liberal Democrats have slammed the Government’s failure to provide enough extra cash for the NHS in the budget, warning that local services will struggle to cope with growing demand.

NHS services in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West, the area which will oversee healthcare here in the coming years, currently face a funding gap of £479m by 2020-21, analysis of local NHS plans has found. The NHS funding crisis also risks being made even worse by the Government’s hard Brexit plans, which are set to increase borrowing by £100bn in the coming years.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson Judith Bunting commented:

“The Government is refusing to stump up the extra cash that NHS services in Newbury and West Berkshire so desperately need.

“This is a woefully inadequate response to the impossible pressure our NHS and care services are under.

“Chronic underfunding of our NHS is leading to longer waiting lists, cancelled operations and loved ones being stranded in hospital.

“Only the Liberal Democrats are being upfront with people that to protect our NHS and care services, we may all need to pay a little more in tax.

“We will also stand up against Theresa May’s reckless plans to pull out of the Single Market that will blow a £100 billion hole in the public finances. It’s clear you can’t have strong NHS and care services with a hard Brexit.”

The £4 billion of extra NHS and care funding , called for ahead of the Spring Budget 2017-18, included £2bn for social care, £1.5bn to improve efficiency in the NHS and £500m dedicated funding for mental health.

~   *   ~

The photo above shows Judith Bunting with Sybil Flinn, at the Hungerford Resource Centre in 2013.

 

Report on Housing Q&A – Judith Bunting and Lee Dillon

This report gives the gist of the discussion that took place in the recent Facebook Q&A on Housing. Thank you to everyone who took part!

At the sharp end, we had Lee Dillon, Councillor for Thatcham North and Leader of the Liberal Democrat Council Group, and Judith Bunting, Parliamentary Candidate for Newbury constituency.

Discussion kicked off with social housing:

SOCIAL HOUSING

We opened proceedings, with a question from Sue Farrant asking:

“How many affordable homes do West Berks Council say they have provided in, say, the last 5 years and how many have they actually provided?”

Lee Dillon replied that 101 affordable housing units have been built in West Berkshire so far this year [latest figure]. Last year West Berks saw 158 completions. The Council has set itself a target of developing 1000 affordable homes by 2020, but has admitted that is unlikely to hit that target and looks set to fall short by at least 150.

Tony Harris joined the debate, asking about the situation with the affordable flats in Parkway. Out of 111 housing units in the development, 37 are allocated to be social housing. Sadly, 4 years since the units were all finished, the affordable unit were still not being late. Tony was looking for an update:

Do you know if the situation with the affordable flats in Parkway has been resolved yet? We learned that due to another West Berks Council legal cockup the developers realised they could keep them vacant and still keep the council’s money.” He went on to ask, “Are the flats now occupied and have WB legal accepted responsibility?”

Judith Bunting answered with the latest news that, “The 37 affordable units have now been allocated to the social housing provider, One Housing Group. I understand, however, that only one flat is occupied. After all, it is just four years since Parkway was completed!” She went on to say, “West Berkshire Council accepted legal responsibility for this crazy situation some time ago, now. Sadly that did not speed up their quest to find in a housing provider.”

“This is a disgraceful situation”, commented Ian Hall. And so say all of us, Ian!

Lucie Thompson then asked: “How much social housing has been replenished, and why do we see less and less being built. The housing list bidding system, how many families are living in cramped conditions because there is a shortage of 3 and 4 bed houses.”

Judith Bunting picked up this question saying, Lucie, Afraid I cannot find precise information about the number of bedrooms. The latest figures from the National House Building Council show that in 2015 the UK built:

  • Detached Houses:         42,173                     27% of which was social housing
  • Semi Detached:              35,423                     23% social housing
  • Terraced:                          26,531                      17% social housing
  • Flats:                                 49,529                      31% social housing
  • Bungalows:                     2,484                          2% social housing.

Judith Bunting continued, “The problem is that not enough dwellings are being built altogether. The country needs a major programme of house building, increasing the rate of construction until we reach at least 300,000 houses a year and giving more freedom to social landlords, local authorities and local communities. Funnily enough, when we were in coalition, the Tories nixed the idea of any major investment in housing, although Nick Clegg’s proposals for a new garden city at Ebbsfleet, seem to be going ahead.”

  • Semi Detached: 35,423 – 23% social housing
  • Terraced: 26,531 – 17% social housing
  • Flats: 49,529 – 31% social housing
  • Bungalows: 2,484 – 2% social housing.

I’m afraid I cannot find precise information about the number of bedrooms. The problem, not enough dwellings are being built altogether!

Lucie Thompson“My point is that so many houses from the social sector were sold to families during the last 40 years that they are not replenishing those homes. This in turn leaves a huge gap for families living in a two bed flat, waiting for a house, then you have this crazy bidding for the house to even get it! Some families wait years!”

Rowena Lewis agreed: “I agree Lucie, it is a nightmare for any family on a single salary or person trying to restart after a change in personal circumstances.”

Lucie Thompson finished, saying, “I personally think there is a bigger need for social housing than affordable housing, currently, and that is nationally”.

COUNCIL HOUSING
Building on Lucie’s comments, Judith Bunting drew our attention to the graph below from the Local Government Association (LGA), posted by Judith, shows how the type of new homes being built has changed over the years:

Graph 1 - new homes, private and social sectors

“In 1981, you can clearly see the effect of Margaret Thatcher’s policies, in the dramatic drop off of council built homes [yellow line, Local Authority Housing]. Interestingly, the increase in social housing (grey line) comes in 1990, while John Major was PM. This is when social housing overtakes council housing for the first time. During the Blair years, 1997 – 2007, the rate of building of social housing drops off again. Gordon Brown oversaw a rise in the building of social housing, which then remained pretty steady during the coalition years. “

A presubmitted question asked specifically about Council Housing in West Berkshire:

“Other Councils still have Council Houses, why is it not the same in West Berkshire?”ow

Lee Dillon had no doubt about his answer: “West Berkshire Council could build Council Houses it if wanted to.”

Judith Bunting was also very clear: “There is no good reason why we do not have Council Houses in West Berkshire. The Conservative government of 1979 transferred the public housing stock to the private sector and created the right to buy. Today, though, it is a Council’s choice whether to build Council Housing again. Our Council has chosen not to do so, and shows no sign of changing their minds. It is worth noting,” she said, “that Reading Borough Council still builds Council Houses.”

Lee Dillon picked up with a comment on the cost of housing in West Berkshire, “One clear reason why we are in desperate need of affordable housing, from social rent, through to shared ownership is this …

Graph 2 - av house prices in WB
The average price of a home in West Berkshire has risen to a whopping £336k. Assuming a 10% deposit (£36k) you would still need a mortgage of £300k which requires a joint income of over £75k per year.”

Lucie Thompson joined in with the comment that“Sadly this also means the average earner and below will always be trapped in rented properties. It’s not just the North/South divide, it’s the rich poor divide and many middle class are being squeezed into poverty.”

Lee Dillon: “Spot on, Lucie.”

This brought Mel Macro of Hungerford into the debate. Mel made the point that the staggering size of the mortgage required to buy a house in West Berkshire had pushed her and her partner go with SO [Shared Ownership].

“I bought a shared ownership house as for us it was the only option to buy. Whilst happy that it enabled us to buy, to buy the rest of it we are limited – we are only allowed to buy up to 25 % at a time, which means 3 more lots of fees, solicitor charges etc. This effectively stops it being sensible/affordable to buy your own home outright. I don’t know if there is any talk so that all shared ownership homes have the same ‘rules ‘ or that they make it as easy to buy your SO home as they do your own council house.”

Mel Macro went on, “We bought the first one we were offered after losing out umpteen times, so there wasn’t a choice. With that and the fact that solicitor costs are almost double for shared ownership and you can only get a mortgage from a few banks it just seems like everything is against you!”

Lee Dillon: “Hi Melanie Macro, some Shared Ownership agreements allow people to staircase up in 5% blocks.”

Melanie Macro: “It doesn’t make any sense to buy 5% in my opinion, because it costs thousands in fees. You’re better off saving and waiting to buy a larger chunk, it’s the upper limits that upset me for that reason.”

Lee Dillon: “I think there should be a standard agreement that allows stair-casing without new legal fees at each point.”

Which sounds like a very good idea to us!

HOUSING WHITE PAPER

Judith Bunting drew our attention to the Government’s Housing White Paper, currently making its way through Parliament:

The full white paper can be read here, Fixing our broken housing market.

Judith Bunting said that although the paper shows that the Government recognises the scale of the housing problem, sadly, it still misses the main point. The paper omits any plans for new, genuinely affordable homes to rent.

Judith also drew our attention to the Joseph Rowntree Trust’s review of the paper, which makes the point that: “For many families in the UK, high rental costs make the difference between just about managing and not being able to manage at all: poverty in the private rented sector has doubled in the last decade, leaving millions trapped in insecure, expensive housing.”

A question from Sue Farrant highlighted the worst of the current problems.

Sue Farrant asked, “How many households are living in temporary accommodation at the moment? What’s the average length of stay?”

Lee Dillon answered, “Hi again Sue. Sorry I don’t have those figures to hand but what an absolutely on topic question – especially here in West Berks where have seen recently local companies stepping up to help out.

Only last week the Executive at WB considered the future of the Homelessness service going forward. They decided to cut the budget by £349k which will see a reduction in the amount of places where people can sleep from 108 units to 73 units.

So sadly those living in temporary accommodation with decrease but not because more is being done to get them into permanent homes but because there will be less provision or them going forwards.”

As in any discussion of housing in West Berkshire, the topic finally moved on to Sandleford:

Presubmitted Question: “It looks like the 500 house development in Sandleford is not going ahead. What does that mean for housing developments elsewhere in West Berkshire?”

Lee Dillon took this question: “Sandleford is expected to provide 2000 homes in the not too distance future, but a poorly chosen site has led to delay upon delay with the latest decision not now expected until the Autumn when we should have had a decision around about now.

“The impact of Sandleford not being built will be massive for communities across the District as it is designed to provide such a large percentage of our housing and what the Council have to provide in terms of a thing called 5 year land supply.
(which is where the Council have to show the government how it can always provide homes over a rolling 5 year period) the district as it is designed to provide such a large percentage of our housing, and what the Council has to provide in terms of a thing called 5 year land supply (which is where the council have to show the government how it will provide homes over a 5 year rolling period). The major riss is that the Council puts all their eggs in one basket with Sandleford. Now it is in trouble, we could see many more planning appeals ahead.

“This means developers will be free to put new sites up for approval and will have a higher chance of winning them [whether we like it or not] at Appeal as the Council wont be able to demonstrate to the inspector that we have a good supply of housing coming forward.”

Judith Bunting picked up: “Part of the problem is that Councils need to start insisting that developers to buy into the community focussed district plan. I understand that developers need to make a commercial profit, but we need to challenge ‘requirements’ for super-profitability. Developing large sites such as Sandleford and the London Road/Faraday Road trading estate is a privilege. Where such huge sites are concerned, developers should expect and be expected to accept community needs.

“In West Berkshire, the Conservative Council should have started planning to develop London Road/Faraday Road years ago, when they first took power. By now we could have a shiny new headquarters for Bayer at the Robin Hood Roundabout, as well as many flats across the site, mixed in with light industry. At a meeting of the businesses on the site in 2015, almost all agreed that the area needs to be developed. Most people said would be happy to move temporarily while building work went on. 2 years later, though, no development has started. Largely because the Council is insisting that a single develop takes control of the whole site AND that they expect the plans to be as profitable as possible. Here, there is no doubt that money is being put ahead of community needs.

“The Council should be also working with Newbury Football Club to make the most of the ground on Faraday Road. With cooperation, the Council could help the club create a modern site with artificial pitch, which the main team could share with women and the 350 youngsters that play with AFC Newbury each week. If development has started soon enough, the Council could have incorporated the recent Travelodge development as well.”

And finally, here is a graph that shows how the number of private renters, across the population, is increasing (palest blue). It’s not something people asked about, but it is a distinct trend and a dead good graph.

For comparison, below it we have posted a pie chart showing home ownership vs rental housing in Germany.

Graph 3 - Share of private renters is getting biggerGraph 4 - pie chart, Germany cf UK private renters

What is your opinion? Do you think it is healthier for society if more people rent their homes, or should be encouraging everyone to buy their own?

 

Bunting welcomes funding changes for social care but slams local Tories for past funding decisions

 

Newbury and West Berkshire Liberal Democrat parliamentary spokesperson Judith Bunting, today welcomed the government’s upcoming changes to health and social care funding and their tightening of the rules as to how this funding must be used. Norman Lamb’s changes mean people in Newbury and West Berkshire with ‘substantial’ social needs should now get a better deal from West Berkshire Council.

Judith requested an urgent meeting at the Department of Health to discuss the imminent crisis in care in West Berkshire caused by the mismanagement of local health funding by Richard Benyon’s Conservative Council. For the past ten years the Council has provided social care only for those in ‘critical’ need.

Judith said: “The number of older people living in West Berks has gone up by more than 30% in the past ten years. During this time, West Berkshire Council has resolutely refused to respond to this change in population and cover the care of people in ‘substantial’ need. ”

At the meeting on Monday, Minister for Health, Norman Lamb, told Judith Bunting and the Liberal Democrat Council Group Leader, Jeff Brooks: “There is no way we could possibly justify giving additional funding to West Berkshire and the two other Tory councils who now have to adjust their care levels to ‘substantial’ from ‘critical’ only. All other Councils in England already fund care for people with substantial needs. To provide additional funding now would be to penalise every other Council in England for taking good care of their residents.”

Commenting, Judith Bunting said: “That the money provided by government for this has been spent elsewhere, is the Council’s choice. I have long been concerned that our resources for vulnerable people in West Berkshire are under-used, while those in ‘substantial’ need have been going without assistance. In 2013 I met Sybil Flinn at the Resource Centre in Hungerford (see above). The care offered by the team there was outstanding and with the right funding they could easily have catered for more clients.”

Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, also refused Richard Benyon and his Council’s plea for more money to make up the claimed ‘shortfall’ in funding.

Age Ready Britain in Rural Communities

This article is based on the speech I gave at the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference, 7th October 2014

I would be glad to hear any comments or suggestions people have to make, after reading.

Age Ready Britain - Speech 7th October 2014
Judith Bunting, Parliamentary Candidate
Age Ready Britain in Rural Communities
7th October 2014

AGE READY BRITAIN in RURAL COMMUNITIES

Wherever they live, across the UK, older people should have the opportunity to live in resilient, thriving and sustainable communities and to emphasise the importance of the joined up thinking and collaboration between government departments if we really want to make that happen.

The policy motion passed at Conference, in Glasgow, recently, calls for us to be ready to create an Age Ready Britain. It states: “Liberal Democrats take an optimistic video of of ageing and the opportunities it presents.” I love this line. Retirement should be a time of discovery, of engagement and opportunity. Everyone should be able to feel optimistic about their old age, wherever they live.

My mother is an optimistic pensioner and an inspiration. She lives in Hertfordshire, just close enough to London to enjoy good public transport and Mum is a wizard on the buses. Buses allow her to be independent, go shopping, to the doctors, to the library, to the church, to the choir, to see friends, to go to groups, talks, U3A – you get the picture. All possible, because regular bus services are available. Mum is 84 years old.

In contrast, if you read my blog, you will have read about my meeting with Ivy in Ashmore Green, West Berks, a year or so ago. The day we met, Ivy had learned that her eyesight had deteriorated so much, she was not allowed to drive any more. She had been looking into the bus services and told me, “I can get to Tescos in Thatcham on the bus, alright. The only problem is, I have to spend the night there”. The only return bus left half an hour after she could be dropped off and, Ivy said, at 84 years old, she just can’t shop that fast.

I sat in on a Health and Wellbeing Board meeting in Lambourn, recently, and heard about how resources for older people were likely to be closed down and moved to Hungerford. Six months before, during the Hungerford by-election, I’d spent time speaking with residents on the Fairfields estate. All the residents who were over 65 were about to be moved to a shiny new facility on the edge of the town. So resources are being moved into town, while old people are being moved out. You couldn’t make it up.

The number of older people living in our area is increasing fast. West Berkshire is home to more than 23,500 people who are over 65 – a figure that increased by 23% between 2001 and 2011 – double the average increase across Britain. Of this group, 3,300 people are over 90 years old – a figure that went up by 34% in the same period. We need to keep facilities where people live, to house people where the facilities are, or to provide regular, reliable transport so that people who are too old to drive can continue to live full and active lives for as long as possible.

To create thriving and sustainable communities that work for older people there needs to be some manner of better public transport. Regular, reliable, affordable. But how can we possibly afford such a service?

Each year the government awards a local government settlement to local authorities across the country. Not every authority receives the same amount and, on average, urban areas receive £153.47 more per person than rural areas. This constituency has a population of about 98,000 people. Multiply that by £153.47 and you get just over £15 million. A useful chunk of change, as they say.

I have no doubt that calculations behind the local government settlement have sound bases. There are issues with deprivation in some cities that need special consideration. I would like to ask, however, whether the new, ageing demographic of the UK is being fully considered, as well, when these calculations are made. I don’t want a fancy rural grant for this or a specially negotiated subsidy for that. ‘m not asking for special favours for countryside communities. All I want is fair’s fair for everyone, wherever they happen to live.

When people stay active, they stay healthier – and happier – for longer. An active, older, society offers a group of individuals who are often happy to engage, to volunteer, to help each other. So long as they can get about. When you are trapped in a block of flats a couple of miles or more from any active community, how are we honestly expecting people to cope?

The Policy passed at conference calls for the creation of a Minister for Ageing. When they are created, I call on them to engage with the Department of Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Transport and DEFRA, with its responsibility for rural communities.

If I’m elected to Westminster I will work for and campaign for joined up thinking between government departments, joined up public services, joined up action – which is the only way to enable the resilient, thriving and sustainable communities we all want, for older people.