Author: johnredwood

29th October 2015

RE: Junior Doctors’ Contract – not a single junior doctor will see their pay cut compared to their current contract

As you know, this Government was elected on a mandate to deliver a 7-day NHS and ensure NHS care is the same quality across the week.

Independent research published in the British Medical Journal is clear that there are 11,000 excess deaths in our hospitals every year – the ‘weekend effect’. We are determined to change this by ensuring that hospitals can staff their hospitals properly 7 days a week to ensure that patients get the care they need whenever they fall ill. There’s a significant body of academic and clinical evidence backing this up.

• Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS Medical Director, has said there is a ‘weekend effect which if addressed could save lives’.
•  The BMJ published study found that patients admitted on a Sunday have a 15% greater risk of mortality compared to those admitted on Wednesday. The authors said this ‘raises challenging questions about reduced service provision at weekends’.
• A 2012 study – Freemantle et el – found that the day of admission was associated with increased risk of death in seven of the ten most common clinical conditions. Patients admitted on a Sunday with renal failure, for example, had a 37% greater risk of death compared with those admitted on a Wednesday.
• The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges said in 2012 that the weekend effect was very likely to be attributable to deficiencies in care processes because of a lack of skilled senior staff and a system that doesn’t provide full diagnostic and support services 7 days.
•  In 2010, Aylin et al found that mortality rates are higher for patients admitted at weekends compared to weekdays.

Changing this means reforming contracts – put in place by Labour – for junior doctors in 2000 and for consultants in 2003. Yesterday in the Commons, I gave a guarantee on behalf of the Government that not a single junior doctor will see their pay cut compared to their current contract. This was actually a deal I said to the British Medical Association I hoped we could reach by negotiated settlement back in September – but sadly instead they chose to whip up fear amongst junior doctors.

You’ll have seen that the doctors’ union, the BMA, has been misleading its members in saying junior doctors will get pay cuts of 30 per cent, and be forced to work longer hours. As I have made very clear, the opposite is true, and in fact we are offering a better deal for doctors that allows us to deliver an NHS that provides the same excellent quality of care every day of the week. In summary, we want –

• The same pay for junior doctors as they receive under their current contracts;
• Shorter hours, with a reduction in the maximum number of hours that can be worked in any one week;
• An end to unsafe working.

I have already given the BMA firm assurances on the junior doctors’ contract in advance of the Government’s formal proposal, which still stand. I’ll be setting out more detail in the coming days, but – as the BMA themselves have admitted – the best deal will be reached by negotiation, so we continue to urge the Junior Doctors’ Committee to come back to the table. Many independent and clinical voices are doing the same – including the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and NHS Providers.

• Firstly, this is not a cost cutting exercise. We are not seeking to save a penny from the junior doctors’ pay bill.
• Secondly, I want the new contract to improve patient safety by better supporting a seven day NHS. For junior doctors, this means some increase in hours which aren’t payable as overtime, but backed up with a significant increase in basic pay. We will still pay staff for antisocial hours, junior doctors will get the same pay on average, and we want to discuss from when on a Saturday overtime is payable.
• Thirdly, I believe that our ambition for the NHS to be the safest health care system in the world is underpinned by reducing, not increasing, the number of hours junior doctors work each week. Junior doctors already work seven days and are the backbone of medical care in hospitals at weekends and at night. There is no question that thiirdly, I believe that our ambition for the NHS to be the safest health care system in the world is underpinned by reducing, not increasing, the number of hours junior doctors work each week. Junior doctors already work seven days and are the backbone of medical care in hospitals at weekends and at nis contract will impose longer hours. In fact, it is the current contract which provides a perverse incentive for juniors to work unsafe hours by paying those who breach safe hours up to 100% of their basic pay.
• Finally, I can now give an absolute guarantee that no-one will lose out compared to their current contract. I have already given the BMA my assurances there will be pay protection for doctors who change to shortage specialities and to support agreed academic work.

The negotiations on the new contract began on the basis of a shared view between the BMA and the Government that the current contract had served its purpose and needed reform. In fact, the BMA accepted that point as far back as 2007.

We are absolutely clear that – as well as being better for patients – this is a fairer deal for doctors. The new contract will mean no junior is required to work more than an average of 48 hours per week, with tougher limits on unsafe hours including a new maximum working week of 72 hours, and a new maximum shift pattern of four consecutive night shifts and five long day shifts, compared with the current contract which permits more than 90 hours a week, 7 consecutive night shifts and 6 long day shifts. It will also better reward pay progression based on achievement and experience.

Finally, there’s a broader lesson from Labour’s time in Government we’re determined to learn. They didn’t take action to address shockingly poor care – and patients at Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Basildon, Tameside and several other hospitals suffered as a result. Since, our tough new special measures process is turning places where care is poor around. We will continue to focus on that – and must never again allow academic debates on the statistical methodology around mortality rates to become a substitute for action to prevent human tragedies unfolding.

Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Health

New website brings home ownership schemes together including Right to Buy, Help to Buy and the Help to Buy: ISA available from 1 December

A homebuyers website has been launched by the government to help hard working people who are looking to own their own home: www.ownyourhome.gov.uk

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, 86% of people have the ambition to own their own home, and the government aims to support them with a target of helping one million people into home ownership through government backed initiatives by 2020.

Since 2010, over 200,000 people across the UK have already benefitted from the government’s home buying initiatives, opening the door to home ownership.

Visitors to the government’s new website are able to quickly find the schemes that could help them by answering a few simple questions.

Anyone thinking about home ownership – and those who believe it is out of reach – can find out more here: www.ownyourhome.gov.uk

29 October 2015

The House will shortly debate the Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill. The Bill implements a number of the Government’s key manifesto commitments to enable hardworking people to enjoy the security of home ownership, help those who need a new affordable property, and boost overall housing supply.

The Bill includes measures to get the nation building homes faster, by:
• Requiring local authorities to prepare, maintain and publish local registers of brownfield land.
• Reducing uncertainty in the planning process with a new ‘Permission in Principle’ to be granted automatically when housing is allocated in future local and neighbourhood plans or identified on new brownfield registers.
• Maximising housing delivery in London with further planning powers devolved to the Mayor of London to support strategic development.
• Providing more information on the potential financial benefits of major developments.
• Improving the process for establishing Urban Development Corporations.
• Simplifying the compulsory purchase of land or property.
• Allowing planning applications for non-major development to be submitted to and decided by the Planning Inspectorate where the local planning authority has a track record of very poor performance.
• Including housing in nationally significant infrastructure projects.
• Simplifying and speeding up neighbourhood planning.

The Bill includes measures to help more people buy their own home, by:
• Taking forward measures underpinning the agreement with the National Housing Federation to extend the Right to Buy to housing association tenants, including financial powers to pay the housing associations for the cost of the discount, and powers for the regulator to monitor and report on the delivery of the terms of the agreement.
• Requiring local planning authorities to actively promote the development of Starter Homes (at 80% market value), whilst embedding them in the planning system.

The Bill includes measures to ensure the way housing is managed is fair and fit for the future by:
• Requiring social tenants on higher incomes to pay fair rents.
• Placing a duty on councils to manage their housing stock effectively, consider selling their high value assets when they fall vacant, and require them to make a payment to the Secretary of State based on the value of their vacant high value assets.
• Introducing a number of measures to give local authorities tools to tackle rogue landlords.
• Allowing local authorities access to data relating to nearly 3 million tenancy deposits, estimated to cover over 70 per cent of private rented sector properties.
• Simplifying the assessment of housing and accommodation needs.
• Changing the way the redemption of rentcharges and leasehold extensions is calculated by amending a defunct statutory formula.
• Ensuring the Lead Enforcement Authority for Estate Agents is effective, without a single body named in primary legislation.

To assist the House, we have placed a number of fact sheets in the Library, which give further details on all of these measures. If you have any detailed questions on the Bill before or after Second Reading, we would be happy to answer them. We hope that these fact sheets will assist the House in holding a productive debate, and look forward to discussing the issues with you.

Yours ever,

THE RT HON GREG CLARK MP

BRANDON LEWIS MP

23rd October 2015

The Rt Hon John Redwood MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr Redwood

Thank you for your recent letter.

Since we last spoke, we’ve now received the report from the independent consultant on flight patterns affecting the Wokingham area. This analysis is one of the first of a series of reports that is being produced as part of the new monitoring programme launched in coordination with the Community Noise Forum, which we established earlier this year. It will be shared at the full meeting of the Forum on 5th November. I have enclosed a copy of the report for you.

It shows that on departure aircraft are on average 1,000ft higher compared with 10 years ago, however there are more of them over this area (on average 45 flights per day). The main reason for this is an increase in the number of flights going to destinations in the Americas.

When the airport is on easterly operations, the analysis confirms that there is a higher density of departing aircraft over particular areas because of the procedural change NATS made to the Compton route in June 2014. I know that, like me, you want to see this procedure reversed. In my discussions with NATS they have reiterated that this change was made to enhance safety. It also means controllers can get aircraft higher, quicker on departure because it reduces the interaction between arrivals and departures.

For arrival on easterly operations – the source of your constituent’s concerns outlined in the letters you enclosed – there are no set routes or heights for arrival aircraft before they join the final approach path. This results in a large spread of arrival tracks across a number of areas which the analysis shows.

I appreciate this is a complicated issue but I hope the analysis will be helpful in explaining why some residents feel they experience more-flight now in particular areas. This monitoring programme will carry on alongside other actions Heathrow is taking to reduce the impact of noise from its operations through our Blueprint for noise reduction, which includes trialling steeper approaches to keep aircraft higher for longer and fitting quiet technology to A320s.

Finally, I would like to put your constituent’s mind at rest that the air quality in Wokingham will not be affected by aircraft emissions from Heathrow. Once in the air, emissions from aircraft disperse rapidly and once above 500-600 feet, the contribution and they make to local air quality is negligible.

I would be happy to meet to discuss these issues in more detail.

Yours sincerely

John Holland-Kaye
Chief Executive Officer

Dear John

Thank you for your letter of 1 September, enclosing correspondence from Mr Andy Couldrick, Chief Executive, Wokingham Borough Council, about school funding. Thank you also for taking the time to meet with me last month and setting out your concerns about school funding in Wokingham.

I was sorry to read about Mr Couldrick’s concerns about school funding. We recognise that there are anomalies in the current school funding system, and are committed to making schools’ funding fairer. As Mr Couldrick will be aware, the coalition government allocated an additional £390 million to the least fairly funded local authorities in the country in 2015-16. This meant that Wokingham Borough Council gained an additional £716,000 in 2015-16. Despite the progress towards fairer funding, we recognise that there is more to be done, and we will put forward our plans in due course. As I hope Mr Couldrick will understand, we will only be able to come forward with detailed proposals once we have set budgets for education and other public services after the Spending Review.

As Mr Couldrick noted, the allocation process for high needs funding, and consequently the amount of high needs funding each local authority receives, is currently derived from local authorities’ own past spending decisions. There is widespread recognition that this arrangement is unfair and out of date, with a wide variation in the funding provided for children with similar needs. Our aim is to make the funding distribution fairer.

To help inform this, we undertook a substantial research report on the future funding of special needs. The report contains a large number of recommendations that we will be considering. We hope to introduce changes from 2017-18, although this is still under consideration within government, and to consult on them by early 2016. One of the recommendations we will be considering is to implement a national high needs funding formula, driven by pupil numbers and characteristics.

Funding for schools is calculated on the basis of pupil numbers from the previous year because this enables local authorities to set school budgets before the year starts, which helps schools with their financial planning. It is difficult for schools to change their expenditure at short notice and this system protects schools against sudden changes in the amount of funding they receive. We believe that this is preferable to the alternatives of basing funding on unreliable estimates of pupil numbers or the uncertainty for school budgets caused by real-time tracking of pupils.

We do, however, recognise the importance of funding for growing schools. This is why we have enabled local authorities, with the approval of their schools forum, to hold some of their schools block funding centrally for a growth fund. As part of our wider reforms, we are looking at how to support local authorities experiencing exceptionally high levels of pupil growth, and we will consider Mr Couldrick’s suggestion on diseconomies funding as part of this work.

On teachers’ pay, the last government’s pay reforms have meant that rather than continuing to be locked in to statutory pay arrangements where pay progression was automatically awarded to most teachers, schools now have much more autonomy over the management of their budgets and are able to use their total salary budget more creatively to reward the best teachers. Giving headteachers more flexibility over pay enables them to manage their overall budgets and meet their school’s unique set of needs more effectively.

On national insurance, currently, employees who are members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes, like the TPS, pay a reduced level of national insurance, as do their employers. This is because they are ‘contracted out’ of contributing to the second State Pension. As you may be aware, from 1 April 2016, there will be a single-tier State Pension aimed at providing a higher level of basic benefits that all employees will have the opportunity to build up, including members of the TPS. As a result, all employees will be required to pay the same full rate of National Insurance contributions, as will their employers. In return, employees will receive a larger State Pension than before. The liability for this will fall on the state. Public sector employers will have to absorb the burden of increased contributions.

With regard to schools facing deficit budgets, as I am sure Mr Couldrick is aware, if an academy anticipates financial difficulties and is formally proposing to set a deficit revenue budge for the current financial year, which it is unable to address after funds from previous years are taken into account, the board of trustees should notify the Education Funding Agency (EFA). In the most serious cases, the EFA is able to consider funding to support the academy, but only where appropriate, as determined on the merits of the individual case. Maintained schools should contact their local authority if they are planning to set a deficit revenue budget.

Mr Couldrick also mentions deprivation funding, and in particular the use of IDACI. It is for each local authority to decide how much money to allocate through their deprivation factors. Local authorities can decide whether to use IDACI for this purpose, and if so, which IDACI bands to use for funding schools. The Department does not currently direct funding to local authorities for school on the basis on IDACI.

If schools have not already, they may find it helpful to consider our document Review of efficiency in the schools system, which sets out the characteristics of the most efficient schools. This document is available online at: http://tinyurl.com/p52lxda. In addition, the EFA is developing an online efficiency toolkit that provides head teachers, school business managers and governors with information and guidance to help improve the efficiency of their school. The toolkit is a set of short videos providing practical advice to help schools identify efficiencies and cost savings, and the current content can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/pgpf2vn.

Thank you for writing to me on this important matter.

Yours ever

Sam Gyimah MP