Did you really need to buy the book?

In 2020, Tory ministers promised 40 new hospitals as part of a new buildings programme, but the National Audit Office has discovered that the scheme will not be delivered by 2030 as was pledged.

Andrew Gregory www.theguardian.com 

Millions of patients are being put at risk in crumbling hospitals that are unfit for purpose, MPs have said, as figures reveal more than 2,000 NHS buildings are older than the health service itself.

Health bosses have repeatedly warned ministers of the urgent need to plough cash into replacing rundown buildings in order to protect the safety of patients and staff. The maintenance backlog has risen to £11.6bn in England.

Now analysis of NHS Digital data has found that at 34 out of 211 NHS trusts in England at least one in four buildings have been standing since before 1948, the year the NHS was founded.

Sewage leaking from sinks on to wards are among the issues affecting more than 2,000 buildings that predate the health service. Last month it was reported that the ceiling of an intensive care ward collapsed on to a patient on life support and a falling lift broke a doctor’s leg. One hospital is said to have been using its intensive care unit as a storeroom because it deemed it unsafe for patients.

In 2020, Tory ministers promised 40 new hospitals as part of a new buildings programme, but the National Audit Office has discovered that the scheme will not be delivered by 2030 as was pledged.

The Liberal Democrats’ health and social care spokesperson, Daisy Cooper, described the situation as a “national scandal”, with millions of people “treated in old and crumbling hospitals that are no longer fit for purpose”.

“Patients and staff deserve the dignity of safe, modern and clean hospitals,” Cooper said. “But instead this government has shamefully chosen to raid capital budgets for fixing crumbling buildings to plug the gap in day-to-day costs, while hospitals are literally falling apart.

“Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and announce a plan to fix our crumbling hospital buildings. Patients should not have to pay the price for this Conservative government’s chronic neglect of the health service.”

The head of NHS Providers, which represents health trusts, said the safety of patients and staff was at risk, with too many NHS buildings “in a very bad way”.

Saffron Cordery, the deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, said: “The situation is just getting worse year after year. The safety of patients and staff is at risk. NHS trusts have an £11bn-plus list of essential repairs waiting to be done and the backlog is mounting at an alarming rate.

“The eye-watering cost of trying to keep creaking buildings and out-of-date facilities going is soaring. To be properly equipped to give people first-class care, the NHS needs safe, 21st-century buildings and facilities.”

The Guardian revealed last week that thousands of pests including rats, cockroaches and bedbugs were being found in NHS hospitals every year.

Hospital bosses are having to spend millions of pounds on pest control after discovering lice, flies and rodents in children’s wards, breast clinics, maternity units, A&E departments and kitchens.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We’re investing record sums to upgrade and modernise NHS buildings, with £4.2bn invested last year alone, which has helped us achieve the biggest five-month fall in waiting lists in the past 10 years.

“This is on top of expected investment of over £20bn for the New Hospital Programme – with four hospitals already open and another four due to follow this financial year and a further £1.7bn for more than 70 hospital upgrades.”

A problem like Thames Water is everyone’s problem. People with only a passing interest in finance will still feel the ripple effects should it become insolvent.

Anna Isaac www.theguardian.com 

It won’t be because the water stops coming out of the tap or the cleanliness of Britain’s rivers – so clearly scarred by the effects of creaking infrastructure and raw sewage – worsens.

It will be due to the rising cost of investment, a burden borne by the private sector, and, by extension, households and businesses. If the company collapses, a slice will be trimmed from many British pensioners’ pots, managed by mega funds that are owners of Britain’s water companies.

Whether or not the crisis triggers a full-blown nationalisation and pulls a water company on to the government’s balance sheet is uncertain. But the odds are clearly going in that direction.

Ofwat, the water industry watchdog, has “far less time to find a solution than it thinks”, one major bond investor in Thames told the Guardian. Another lender to the operating company said “there are six weeks left to save it”.

So grim is the outlook for bondholders at Thames’ operating company that the Investment Association, the trade body for fund managers, has already issued a rallying call to Thames’ lenders, laying the groundwork for intensive lobbying of the government and, ultimately, potential legal action. This work is only preliminary for now but it indicates the potential fightback against Ofwat and the Treasury by investors should Thames’ entire operation run aground.

A light was shone on Thames’ notoriously complex ownership structure when a holding company – Kemble – defaulted on a debt repayment. It is widely expected to go bust, collapsing one storey of a fragile house of cards.

What matters now is whether or not the ringfenced operating company, the part that is regulated by Ofwat, stays solvent.

Many different groups hope it staves off insolvency. Chief among them are Ofwat, the Treasury, and lenders to Thames’ operating company. But it is also laden with about £15bn debt, which is increasingly expensive to service. Appetite to pump more money into the part that keeps the taps on is going to depend on two things: whether or not bills can rise by enough to make a return attractive enough for investors to put in fresh money, and whether Thames can convince Ofwat that its efforts to reform itself – with a new and improved turnaround plan – can justify that bill hike.

How much Thames’s 16 million customers have to pay for their water depends on this negotiation. Thames’s owners want to raise bills by 40% and it would probably not be the only company in England to push through bill increases of that scale if it can persuade Ofwat it has changed its ways. On average bills are already expected to rise by 35%.

Thames can only hope to raise its bills if there is enough heft in its plans to change how it manages its assets and governs the business. It must convince Ofwat that those Victorian pipes it claims to be mending are really getting replaced, and that shiny efforts to build super sewers really do lead to a new and effective wastewater system that does not spill sewage into rivers and streams each time the rain comes down.

What is unclear is just who might come forward with the necessary cash even if the bills and governance can be straightened out. Ofwat and the Treasury are desperate to keep attracting the kind of patient cash that pension funds and long-term investors offer. Thames’s travails will be watched closely by the nimble, global mega funds that Britain needs to overhaul and upgrade its infrastructure, from power lines to new windfarms.

A plausible turnaround plan could sway Ofwat’s thinking on whether or not a bill hike will actually achieve results. And Ofwat wants those investors committed for the long haul – a 25-year, rather than five-year, horizon.

There is no single, universal view about how to press ahead among the shareholders of Kemble, the holding company of Thames’ operating arm. Many of the investors in Kemble’s debt and equity are also creditors to the operating company.

Some investors are more amenable to finding a way through than others. Quiet words in quiet corners are under way.

Time is short, however. One of the major indications that bondholders in the operating company are waiting for is Ofwat’s decision on Thames’ bill increases, expected in June. That verdict must be taken by the regulator’s 23 May board meeting. In the view of some major bondholders, that leaves only six weeks to save their investment in the water operating company.

Ofwat declined to comment on “speculation” but said it was working on its draft decisions, due in June. “We will continue to monitor Thames Water as it seeks to turn around its performance for customers and the environment,” a spokesperson said.

According to the company’s internal estimates, Thames believes it can operate for 15 months based on its current spending plans, even without fresh investment. But Thames’ problems will come home to roost well before then.

“Planning permission is a state asset and should be priced accordingly. Landowners and developers should pay for it. This way we will find the money for our social housebuilding.

Many other countries do this…… most of the uplift in UK land values arising from planning permission remains uncaptured by the state.”

Julian Richer www.thetimes.co.uk 

Far too many people in this country cannot afford a decent roof over their heads — a growing scandal that is having huge social consequences. I’ve seen this problem worsen, with housing ministers coming and going (15 since 2010!) while little gets done. I’m originally a retailer, but I also have a keen interest in property. We are facing an immense challenge on housing, but I believe there are several important things we might do.

At least eight million people are in housing need, plus millions more in the private rented sector who live with the fear of arbitrary eviction or rents rising beyond their reach. A general election is looming. I’m calling on politicians from all parties to make housing a priority and be ready to take bold decisions.

A new mindset is needed. Good-quality social housing is the best way out of our crisis. Social renting should be a valid option for people from all walks of life. The stock should be well maintained and well managed.

The housing crisis cannot be talked about without a rational and intelligent look at land and planning — and specifically, land value capture.

Planning permission is a state asset and should be priced accordingly. Landowners and developers should pay for it. This way we will find the money for our social housebuilding.

Many other countries do this. But the Scottish Land Commission reported that most of the uplift in UK land values arising from planning permission remains uncaptured by the state.

Capturing it would allow us to replace much-discredited Section 106 agreements, which ask developers to make contributions that benefit the surrounding area. The existing Community Infrastructure Levy should also be updated to charge developers for the full cost of linking their projects to roads, sewerage etc.

Another big elephant in the room, which very few are aware of, is Harold Macmillan’s Land Compensation Act of 1961, which we urgently need to repeal.

Before this legislation came in, local authorities had the power to compulsorily purchase land at existing use value. The 1961 law forces the state to compensate landowners for the potential value. State-built housing schemes were now unaffordable. That is a big (and largely unknown) reason behind the situation we are in now.

Paying landowners existing use value (and I would be perfectly happy with a 100 per cent uplift to farmers for their “inconvenience”) would take a huge cost out of the building equation. Councils would be able to turn on the housing supply tap at scale. Indeed, once built, there would be a huge increase in asset value (profit) for UK Plc.

Here are a selection of points from my manifesto to put things right:
1) There should be priority reform for renters, including:
a) The banning of revenge evictions;
b) The extension of assured short-hold tenancies for up to five years by mutual agreement.
c) Tenants being evicted only for major contract breaches;
d) The statutory inspection of private-sector rental properties, with councils taking tough action against rogue landlords;
2) We need a responsible landlords’ charter or accreditation scheme in the meantime, which would include “voluntary” adherence to the above. I am happy to set this up myself if the response is favourable;
3) Taxpayer-funded subsidised home ownership schemes should be scrapped. They push up prices and do nothing for the less well-off;
4) The Land Compensation Act 1961 must be repealed as an absolute priority;
5) “Right to buy” should be scrapped;
6) Planning permission must no longer be given away;
7) Permitted development laws must be tightened up so they are not misused for shoddy housing;
8) The use of anonymous offshore trusts should be banned and companies blocked from buying property or land unless the beneficial owners are disclosed and funds proven to be legitimate;
9) Quality standards should be set for sustainable housing so it’s built to last;
10) Benefit payments must cover the cost of social housing rents.

The housing supply disaster can be addressed only by politicians working together beyond the usual four-year cycle, and through a change in mindset.
It also calls for a willingness to tackle the complex, messy business of managing expectations and balancing competing interests. In a democracy, this is part and parcel of creating change for the better.

Julian Richer is a retailer, philanthropist and author. 

Questions for, but no answers from, Simon Jupp.

Mystery deepens over Devon Lib Dem ‘website’ redirecting to Tory rival

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

Three web domains in the name of a Lib Dem MP but that redirected people to a Conservative rival’s website now appear to have been disconnected. Pressure began growing on Simon Jupp (Conservative, East Devon ) last week to explain why the web addresses – RichardFoord.co.uk, RichardFoord.com and RichardFoord.uk – sent users to Mr Jupp’s website.

Mr Foord (Liberal Democrat, Tiverton and Honiton ) will contest the new Honiton and Sidmouth seat against Mr Jupp at the forthcoming general election. Now, just days after news of the web domains emerged in a national newspaper, they do not connect to Mr Jupp’s website.

A Google search for them still lists them, but the links are no longer active. Mr Jupp said he was “not responsible for the web domains”, and the Electoral Commission said it is not an issue they will be looking into.

But Paul Arnott (Liberal Democrat, Coly Valley), the leader of East Devon District Council, an area currently represented by Mr Jupp, said it was up to the Conservative MP to explain what he thinks occurred.

“As leader of East Devon District Council for the last four years, I have made it a priority at all times to make sure the council and all local politicians operate at the highest level of truthfulness and transparency,” he said.

“At this stage it is not certain what has happened here, but I do think the absolute onus is on Simon Jupp to give a full, frank and immediate explanation of what has happened.”

A spokesperson for Mr Foord said: “When we talk to people across Mid and East Devon, they tell us they want their representatives to play it straight and be honest.

“Links that look genuine but simply redirect to Conservative websites only serve to arouse suspicion and undermine trust.

“People deserve better from their MP, and at the election they have a chance to demand better by voting Liberal Democrat.”