Blog

Alexander Jan: Radical devolution will be vital to London’s post-Covid recovery

For many weeks, the public health impact and personal tragedies inflicted by Covid-19 have dominated newspaper headlines. That is likely to continue. But this crisis, as with previous ones, has other dimensions too. One of the most important, now gaining attention, is economic recovery. Delivering it is going to be an enormous task.

Covid-19 has the potential to inflict one of the most serious economic upheavals Britain has faced since the Great Slump of 1440 – a potential heightened by the battering the UK’s economy and public finances took from the 2008 global crisis, and from which they had yet to fully recover when the latest disaster struck.

Mainstream forecasters are suggesting the economy could see a double digit contraction this quarter. Further big reductions are slated for the remainder of this year. The more pessimistic think the numbers could turn out to be even worse. The ramifications of a huge relief package today, followed by rising costs of borrowing, higher taxes, austerity and, ultimately, inflation represent an enormous medium-term risk to the economy – and that is before the consequences of Brexit-induced disruption come into play.

As we put together the pieces of the recovery puzzle, it is clear that London faces particular challenges. In a report by Arup for the London Property Alliance – produced in March, before the implications of the coronavirus could be quantified – it was estimated that Central London and the Isle of Dogs (home of Canary Wharf) between them employ more than 1.9 million people. Together, they generate over £200 billion of output. Put another way, 11 per cent of UK economic activity comes from just 0.01 per cent of its land mass, along with many billions of taxes to fund public services across the country.

But London’s high dependence on high density now risks becoming its Achilles’ heel. It looks as if a policy of “social distancing” is going to be required in some shape or form for the foreseeable future in order to minimise coronavirus transmission. At a stroke, this threatens the business-as-usual model for Central London, which thrives on and, indeed, demands a high degree of density to function.

Consider public transport dependency: long celebrated as a core strength and highly sustainable, the system may only be able to carry a third of its pre-crisis ridership during the morning peak – perhaps even less – if new public health restrictions are put in place. Central London’s commercial real estate market has been busy packing workers into smaller spaces, driven in part by the explosion of the gig economy and co-working and also by some boroughs’ reluctance to allow development. The average office worker in 2019 had only 80 per cent of the space he or she enjoyed 20 years ago. And the capital’s dependence on density doesn’t end there. Hotels, theatres, restaurants, clubs, shops, pubs and bars make up a higher percentage of London’s economy than elsewhere. Then there is our reliance on tourism and busy international transport hubs, such as Heathrow, London City Airport and St Pancras station.

Taken together, these phenomena present formidable challenges to how London will operate in the future. Its path to some sort of new normality is likely to be long and winding. Getting there will require a deep understanding of the city, along with policies and programmes that may need to be radical and innovative. These could range from building up centres of business activity outside of Central London to permitting much more office space in the middle.

There may be a case for a major expansion of public transport provision to reduce overcrowding, or for rationing its use to achieve the same aim. Longer opening hours for retail and entertainment could ensure shops and the creative industries survive, although residential areas would need to be protected by beefed up rules and regulations. And then there are the financial challenges of collapsing farebox revenue and a business rate system that has been turned upside down. New taxes and charges may need to be found and old ones pared back or abandoned.

More than ever before, London’s City Hall and Town Halls will need to be allowed to come together with residents and businesses to address these challenges. This will require London government to be provided with greater powers, more flexibility in how it operates, and access to the resources needed to secure London’s recovery.

Central government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis has shown, yet again, how difficult it can be to deliver on the ground using a one-size fits-all approach. If there are early lessons to be drawn from abroad, one of them appears to be that strong regional and local government institutions have helped national governments deliver public health services more efficiently and effectively.

Now, more than ever, Whitehall needs the London economy to recover to help return the national economy and its shattered public finances to health. It should do whatever it takes to allow the Mayor and the boroughs to get on with the job.

Alexander Jan is Chief Economist at Arup and non-executive chair of the Midtown Business Improvement District covering Holborn, Clerkenwell and Farringdon. Follow him on Twitter.

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of  London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

Categories: Comment

Minister and London Chamber of Commerce chief urge councils to improve emergency business grant distribution

London councils responsible for handing out cash to small businesses during the coronavirus crisis need to improve on a currently uneven performance. That was the message from the London Chamber of Commerce today during a live webinar for the capital’s businesses with minister for London and small business minister Paul Scully, MP for Sutton & Cheam (pictured).

Councils administer two new pots of money, the small business grants fund and the retail, hospitality and leisure business grants fund, set up together last month to provide grants of £10,000 or £25,000 depending on rateable values.

Figures released by the government yesterday showed that councils in London had so far distributed just over £839 million from their total allocations. But while some had got almost all the money out to local businesses, others had handed out less than a third of the funding. Southwark, highlighted by the minister, had distributed £61 million of its £70 million allocation, while Haringey had handed out £12.13 million out of its £56.31 million pot.

“Right now the pace of funding delivery to businesses is imperative, whether from government, local government, or banks,” said Chamber chief executive Richard Burge. “The London figures show that many boroughs are making good progress, but there is more work to do in others. It’s important that businesses respond promptly to contact from their local council regarding these grants, and then equally important that councils issue these grants swiftly.”

Councils had had to “reverse engineer” their software to pay out rather than collect money from businesses and had not always initially had the information they needed, said Scully. But while businesses needed to make sure councils had up to date information there was “much more that local authorities could be doing,” the minister added.

Scully promised to take up concerns from Chamber members about company directors, often ineligible for support, either as employees or as self-employed, because of payment arrangements, and about landlords of “co-working” office space failing to pass rates freezes on to their tenants.

He also warned that there would inevitably be a “new normal” for businesses. “It’s not like flicking a light switch,” he said. “There will be measures like social distancing for some time to come, for health reasons and for economic reasons.” But the government would be working to “give as much certainty” to businesses as possible, he said. “London is such an important part of the UK, the centre of the UK in many ways for business. We need to give employers and employees the confidence that they can travel through London safely, work safely.”

Mayor Khan’s “key workers only” message for the capital’s public transport network might have to be tempered, Scully said, with other workers travelling outside the rush hour, and he called for suggestions from businesses about how the city could safely “unlock”.

The minister also highlighted London’s role in supporting supply chains across the country and the importance of the capital’s financial services industry for “bringing investment that is ultimately filling the coffers of small business”. And immigration had “made London what it is, a fantastic world city,” he said. New immigration rules should be used to ensure that those “with the skills we want” are welcome “wherever they come from”.

Conceding that there was “work still to do” to get post-Brexit trade deals in place, Scully agreed to work with the Chamber and other London business organisations to help the capital’s business prepare for possible “no deal” arrangements when the transition period ends, which is still scheduled for 31 December.

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of  London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

Categories: News

New London Poverty Profile shows rises in ‘in work’ and temporary housing hardship

London continues to have a far higher rate of poverty than the UK average and the proportion of poor adults in households where at least one person has a job has soared in the past five years, a new report has found.

The latest Poverty Profile of London, produced by charity Trust for London and consultancy WPI Economics, draws on a range of official figures to find that 28 per cent of Londoners can be defined as living in poverty – roughly 2.5 million people – compared with a UK average rate of 22 per cent.

In line with a government assessment method, the Profile defines people as being in poverty if they are members of households whose net income in a given financial year is less than 60 per cent of the average UK household income for that year.

The Profile says that nearly three-quarters of London adults “in poverty” are part of “working families”, defined as those in which at least one person has a job in which at least one person has a job – a number in the region of 1,050,000. It finds that the proportion of Londoners in this situation has risen by 62 per cent in the last five years, even though the capital’s employment rate has also risen during that time. There has been a similar rise in the percentage of children in poverty in working families.

Housing costs, which have long been a defining component of London’s poverty issue, devour an average of 56 per cent of poor Londoners’ household net incomes, compared with 37 per cent for poor households in the rest of England. The effects of the capital’s high housing costs can be seen in a rise in the number of London households in temporary accommodation compared with five years ago – an increase of 30 percent to 56,000. Average social and “affordable” rents are roughly 50 per cent higher in London than in England as a whole, while lower quartile market rents were more than double.

These changes have taken place in the context of nearly 20,000 London families being affected by the benefits cap – the ceiling on the total amount of money in benefits that can be provided – compared with 11,350 five years earlier.

The Profile stresses that both the cost of living and poverty rates vary widely across Greater London and so compare differently with the rest of the UK. Costs of living can be anywhere between 15-58 per cent higher in London while child poverty rates are a very high 57 per cent in Tower Hamlets compared with 21 per cent in Sutton and Richmond. A broad split between all-ages poverty rates in Outer London (26 per cent) and Inner London (32 per cent) is also identified.

The Profile notes that against a backdrop of national government ideas about “levelling up” different regions of the UK in terms of economic performance “across several dimensions of poverty and inequality Londoners fare the worst” and that “proximity to wealth does not mean that Londoners can access it”.

Trust for London chair Jeff Hayes writes in his foreword that the Profile, whose data were compiled before the impacts on poverty of the Covid-19 pandemic could be measured, now effectively provides a baseline against which future changes can be measured. Observing that sacrifices made during World War II led to the creation of the welfare state he expresses hope that civil society, business and government “will continue to work together to create a new social settlement that ensures that no one has to live a life of poverty”.

Read the 2020 London Poverty Profile via here. Image from Profile’s cover page.

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of  London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

Categories: News

Figures show London hospital Covid case and daily death numbers still falling

London could be the first UK region to be passing an initial peak of coronavirus infections, with the number of people currently being treated in the capital’s hospitals having fallen steadily for seven days in a row.

The latest NHS England figures show a continuing drop from high points of just under 5,000 hospital cases earlier this month to below 3,500 in recent days. BBC London has reported that there are now more people leaving London’s hospitals having recovered from the illness than are being admitted to them.

NHS England figures as published on the Greater London Authority website also show that the numbers of deaths per day recorded in London’s hospitals has also been on a generally strong downward trend (graph below), with an overall fall from just under 200 on 8 April, though those for the most recent days could be revised upwards due to delays in reporting them.

Screenshot 2020 04 21 at 09.58.05

Cautious optimism about the position in London was expressed at Sunday’s Downing Street press briefing by deputy chief medical officer Dr Jenny Harries and a senior doctor at a London teaching hospital writing anonymously in the Evening Standard yesterday said “in London the worst is past“.

Despite the encouraging trends, London continues to have the largest number of current hospitalised Covid-19 cases of any NHS region in England and to have had the highest overall number with 21,654, followed by the Midlands (east and west figures combined) with 15,038, the north west with 14,328 and the south east with 12,878.

The London NHS region has also seen the largest number of deaths in hospitals where Covid-19 was found to be a factor, with 3,906. The next highest recorded figure is for the Midlands, which had seen 3,003 as of yesterday.

The latest figures, which do not include coronavirus-related deaths and cases in care homes or the wider community, appear to be bearing out London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s view, expressed on 8 April, that the London peak was “probably a week and a half away”. The Mayor also said then that he believed “we are nowhere near” being in a position to start lifting restrictions on movement and social mixing.

This week has seen the start of tighter controls on the boarding of London’s buses to help protect bus drivers and the Mayor is urging the government to change its guidance on the use of non-medical face coverings by members of the public in situations where they cannot keep a safe distance from other people.

Main image screen grabbed from BBC London.

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of  London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories: News

London’s boroughs glad of extra government funds, but will be looking for much more

The government pledged on Saturday to make a further £1.6 billion available to councils across England to help them narrow the gaps in their budgets caused by the financial impacts of the coronavirus. This followed expressions of concern by London Councils chair Peter John, who told BBC Radio London last week that “services will be cut” unless communities secretary Robert Jenrick makes good on what John described as his earlier promise that councils should “spend now, we’ll sort you out later”.

London Councils has expressed gratitude for Jenrick’s latest commitment, which follows his allocation of the same amount of funding for English local authorities in March. But there remain big concerns among London borough leaders that their shares of the latest £1.6 billion from national government are not going to cover their losses.

Hackney Council, for example, has told On London it estimates it will still be about £18 million worse off over the first quarter of the financial year – April, May and June – than it would otherwise have been. Initially, the borough calculated that its gap would be £35 million. This was closed to £25 million by its share of the Jenrick’s first £1.6 billion and Hackney anticipates – the exact figure is not yet known – it will get another £7 million from the second £1.6 billion. This would mean Hackney would still be about £18 million worse off.

Budget gaps have widened for two reasons. One is extra spending by boroughs, both on their normal services and additional ones set up to help residents cope with the effects. Adult social care and waste collection costs have gone up, as have those associated with homelessness, including helping to get rough sleepers brought indoors, plus an expected rise in housing benefit payments as people lose jobs and income. New costs include setting up hubs for food delivery and other support, extra IT and call centres and keeping schools open out of term time.

Southwark, the council Peter John leads, has put its three-month coronavirus cost at a very similar £36 million, which was partly met by £11 from the first Jenrick allocation. However the £25 million gap was characterised for On London by John last week as “the equivalent of the worst year of austerity in terms of savings we’d have to find”. John says of the latest funding pledge that if the same distribution model is used as with the first £1.6 billion – and this might not be the case – his borough will receive a further £11 million. That would still leave a shortfall of around £14 million in Southwark’s case.

In a letter to Jenrick sent on Friday last week echoing John’s fears that councils will not be recompensed, Redbridge leader Jas Athwal wrote that “the Covid-19 pandemic has cost Redbridge Council in the region of £43 million in costs incurred and income lost, and this number continues to grow”. Enfield Council received about £8 million from the first allocation, and its leader Nesil Caliskan says the same amount again would still leave her borough short by £30-£40 million, with the figure likely to be even higher for some other boroughs.

Speaking in his London Councils role, Peter John said: Local government is playing a crucial role in the country’s response to coronavirus and our resources have come under unprecedented strain. For example, London boroughs have faced the challenge of both the highest coronavirus rates and the most severe homelessness crisis in the country. In this emergency situation, it’s vital central government ensures local services have the funding required to keep supporting communities.”

Photograph of Hackney Town Hall by Dave Hill.

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

 

Categories: Analysis

Joshua Neicho: The structure and workings of the NHS in London

As London leads the UK towards its coronavirus infection peak – in the week ending 3 April registering 62 per cent more deaths than the previous weekly record – radical steps have been taken to help the NHS in the capital deal with the pressures. The most visible is the first 4,000-bed NHS Nightingale hospital, which has risen from nothing in the ExCeL exhibition centre at Custom House in Newham. Much more impactful have been huge increases in the capacity of the intensive care units of the capital’s acute care hospitals and much elective treatment – non-emergency surgery planned in advance – being suspended. Powers to purchase use of private hospital beds for NHS patients have been temporarily centralised and, in an extension of a long-planned move, health secretary Matt Hancock has wiped £3.1 billion of debt off London’s NHS trusts.

The extreme demands made by Covid-19 have come during the latest transitional period in the complex organisation of the NHS nationally, London very much included. The virus has further delayed the government’s implementation framework for its NHS Long Term Plan, a 10-year vision, published in January 2019. This has been pushed back to the autumn, with knock-on effects on associated re-organisations. With the spotlight trained so firmly on the NHS just now, this seems a good moment to look at how this cherished institution functions in London and the key issues it was already facing for the future.

 

Organisation and funding

About 16 per cent of England’s population lives in Greater London, which receives roughly 20 per cent of the country’s total NHS spending. The disparity is due mostly to there being so many specialist services in the capital for patients from far and wide, and the range of needs arising from the capital’s population being so diverse.

London’s NHS funding feeds into and moves between a bewildering array of different organisations. Several have impenetrable names and the language used to describe what they do can be confusing. One way to start making sense of it all is to follow the flows of NHS funds in England as a whole and in London in particular.

All NHS money begins its journey from the Department of Health & Social Care and about three quarters goes to a division of it called NHS England, created in 2012. This was intended to be a small organisation but has become a dominant one, employing more than 4,000 people. It has seven regional teams, including NHS England London, which has more than £15 billion at its disposal to distribute.

****

The bulk of this money goes to bodies called Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). These are made up of General Practitioners (GPs) within defined local areas, and their governing bodies also have nurses, hospital consultants, patient representatives and sometimes people from local authorities sitting on them. The job of CCGs is to plan and monitor local health and care services and also “commission” them, which means deciding how the money at their disposal is spent on services they think patients in their areas will need.

The concept of NHS commissioning was introduced in the early 1990s under reforms which, as influential health research charity The King’s Fund puts it, “separated the purchasing of services from their delivery, creating an ‘internal market’.” The argument went that making the service providers – hospitals and others – compete for money would foster greater efficiency and responsiveness, because GPs have closer day-to-day contact with patients. The funding of GP practices themselves is NHS England’s responsibility.

CCGs were introduced by the Health and Social Care Act 2012: a £3 billion shake-up “so big you could see it from outer space,” said then-NHS CEO David Nicholson, despite David Cameron having promised no top-down NHS reorganisation. Their multi-clinician boards are quite different from what coalition health secretary Andrew Lansley, who wanted to put money directly into the hands of GPs, imagined, and they have gone through various changes since. In London, there were 32 CCGs, each corresponding to a borough. But this month, 18 of them have merged into three much larger ones and a similar consolidation is planned for the remaining 14.

The “providers” from whom CCGs “commission” the most services are NHS trusts, which also emanate from the early 1990s “internal market” reforms. They are not actually trusts in the usual or legal senses, but public sector corporations that run health facilities and services, including dozens of London hospitals, ranging from the likes of large St Thomas’ in Waterloo where the Prime Minister was treated – administered in partnership with Guy’s at London Bridge – to small specialist ones, such as the Memorial Hospital in Woolwich or the Goodmayes in Redbridge.

****

To confuse matters further, there are formally two kinds of trust, the NHS Trust and the NHS Foundation Trust. Several are named after major hospitals they manage, such as Barts Health NHS Trust or the King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, though many run multiple health facilities and provide other services. Barts is running NHS Nightingale.

Nineteen trusts run “acute” hospitals, which means they provide active, short-term treatment for severe injuries or conditions in emergency departments, intensive care and other “high dependency units”. There are 10 mental health trusts and six “community” trusts, plus the London Ambulance Service trust. Some of the trusts have the word “university” in their title, denoting that they teach medical students and undertake research alongside providing care.

NHS Foundation Trusts were introduced from 2002. They were initially significantly more independent from the Department of Health than the already existing NHS Trusts, and controversial with some because they could function more like private businesses, for example by borrowing money for investment and even buying other hospitals. It can also be argued that they represent a kind of devolution in that they formed part of a continuing attempt to make health care more “patient-led” and responsive.

Img 2395

Three of the very first NHS Foundation Trusts were in London: Homerton University Hospital, Moorfields Eye Hospital and cancer specialist the Royal Marsden. All NHS Trusts were expected to attain NHS Foundation Trust status or become part of an existing one by 2014, but that hasn’t happened: the budgetary autonomy of the Foundation trusts has been watered down and the distinction between the two kinds of trust has eroded. In keeping with their convergence, the finances of both types of trust are now regulated by a single body called NHS Improvement, which is in the middle of merging with NHS England. The care provided by trusts is regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

Among London’s providers are multi-hospital trusts Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Barts Health NHS Trust, operating five or more institutions each and providing services to a 1.5 million and 2.6 million patient populations respectively. As well as the famous Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust runs Barnet Hospital and Chase Farm Hospital, both of which it bought in 2014, plus clinics at Edgware Community Hospital, Finchley Memorial Hospital and North Middlesex University Hospital, which is run by a separate NHS Trust. It employs more than 9,000 staff and provides services to about a million patients.

A completely different type of NHS Foundation Trust is the Central and North West London, which doesn’t have any hospitals at all. It provides mental health services in Surrey and Milton Keynes as well as London. These include a health and wellbeing service for people affected by the Grenfell Tower fire.

The Darzi Review of London’s healthcare in 2007 recommended as much treatment as possible to be carried out locally, for a few hospitals be designated as major acute centres and for others to specialise. It had limited impact on London’s hospital provision. With the refinement of patient flow management practices, bed numbers in London hospitals have steadily declined in recent decades and acute hospitals now run very close to capacity.

Some London hospital trusts, such as King’s and Bart’s, run huge deficits, while some of their neighbours are in surplus, which can make collaborative working difficult. The debt write-off will relieve pressure on financially constrained trusts. Changes to hospitals’ payments regime and the commissioning process had been expected under the NHS Long Term Plan, and it’s too early to say how the coronavirus crisis might affect this.

****

Another kind of organisational healthcare unit in London (and the rest of England) is the local Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP). These were created in 2016 to bring local councils, which are responsible for social care, and NHS bodies together to run health and care systems in a more co-ordinated way. London has five of these, each covering a sub-region of the metropolis. The consolidated London’s CCGs, mentioned above, will align with them.

They are voluntary partnerships, not statutory bodies, and they came about to fill a vacuum in regional leadership after Strategic Health Authorities were abolished in 2012. They mark a shift away from competition. The watchword now is collaboration and there is a big push to promote healthy lifestyles and increase efficiency.

Homertonhospitalcards

At the start, in a policy climate dominated by austerity, they were seen by some as opening the door to NHS England imposing financial targets on local areas. They had a fractious relationship with some local politicians. Sutton Council leader Ruth Dombey exposed the South West London STP’s plan to shut one of the area’s five acute hospitals. London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust put on hold plans to reduce acute beds after Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham councils refused to support the STP.

For now, hospital closures are low on the agenda. STPs have bedded in and benefited recently from the appointment of four independent chairs from a variety of medical backgrounds and the arrival of new NHS England London CEO David Sloman. There remains a democratic deficit in STPs, with more local authority involvement at officer than at elected councillor level, although that is changing. There is a concern that as CCGs amalgamate, STPs will overshadow statutory local bodies concerned with community health, like Health and Wellbeing Boards.

Under the NHS Long Term Plan, STPs are to be superseded by April 2021 by an even more collaborative model called Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), but the timetable has been delayed by coronavirus. South East London STP has already made the transition to an ICS and the North and South West London ones are expected to follow shortly. In the NHS, little stays the same for long. A King’s Fund animated film makes a good job of explaining the English system as a whole.

 

Primary Care

Most peoples’ first point of contact with the NHS is their local GP practice doctor. There are some 7,000 GPs and 1,200 GP practices in London. Most GPs are independent sub-contractors to the NHS, though the proportion who are its employees has grown to around a third. The principle that we can all choose our GP has remained, with some striking consequences. Digital-first provider Babylon GP at Hand, headquartered in Hammersmith with five London clinics, had more than 50,000 patients across the country by May 2019. It has now been asked to disaggregate its patient list. Meanwhile, a third of London’s primary care estate is dilapidated and needs replacing at an estimated £8 billion cost. Connectivity between NHS organisations to transfer patient information is considered poor, lagging public expectations.

 

Budgets and Workforce

Policy specialists calculate that vastly more money than the 2018 NHS funding settlement, which delivers an annual 3.4 per cent spending increase, will be needed to meet the NHS Long Term Plan’s objectives: the Health Foundation calculates £4 billion extra by 2023/4. Social care and public health will need even more.

An even greater challenge, many experts agree, is the NHS workforce. There’s a shortage across England of more than 100,000 staff in the trusts alone – about one in 11 posts – which could grow to more than 350,000 by 2030 in a worst case scenario. London had the worst retention rates of any region in England in 2017-18 with almost 20 per cent of staff in the North Central and East London sub-regions leaving during the year. London nurse vacancies decreased year on year in 2019, but its rate is still the highest in England at 13.5 per cent, with almost one in five mental health nursing posts empty.

Royalfree

The Nuffield Trust found North West London has the lowest number of GPs per head of any English region. A 2018 joint Nuffield Trust, Health Foundation and King’s Fund report argued that the shortfall of GPs would never be made up by simply training more of them, and that pharmacists, psychiatrists, nurses and mental health staff would need to take on some GP tasks in future. Initiatives such that by East London Health & Care Partnership to recruit and retain GPs may help bolster family doctor numbers at a local level.

Brexit adds uncertainty to the mix. 11 per cent of NHS staff in London are EU nationals. Existing employees can apply to remain beyond the transition period under the EU settlement scheme, but will future potential NHS recruits be stemmed or discouraged by the £25,600 migrant salary threshold? Efforts to increase the domestic NHS workforce will take time to work through to extra frontline staff. Meanwhile, there’s concern that after transition, London will pull in NHS workers from other regions because of the earning differential in the capital.

 

Public Health, the Boroughs and the Mayor

In 2012, responsibility for most areas of public health was passed from the NHS to local authorities, overseen from 2013 by a new body called Public Health England. At the same time, councils’ government grants for spending on public health were radically cut back.

Health inequalities in London have long given grounds for concern. In 2014, Professor Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine described large disparities between boroughs in life expectancy rates and incidence of certain terminal illnesses as a scandal. A 2019 Centre for London report found almost double the rate of common mental health disorders among residents of Newham compared with those of Richmond, and the proportion of overweight or obese 10 to 11-year-olds almost double in Barking compared with Richmond. Asked in January by On London about underlying pressures on hospitals, Labour London Assembly health lead and practising GP Onkar Sahota pointed straight away to public health: “A shift should have been taking place on prevention. But the brunt of cuts have been on the public health budget. We’ve always been playing catch-up with health.”

Img 2409 2

Under NHS England’s London Vision, the Mayor, cross-party body London Councils and Public Health England are partners in furthering ten pan-London public health objectives, plus collaborative work at different geographical scales to make London “the world’s healthiest global city”. A 2017 health and care devolution deal for London established some areas as city-wide responsibilities – for example, incentivising the NHS in London to sell off unused land for housebuilding, generating revenue for investment in care facilities. But it didn’t include public health powers for London to decide how the sugar tax would be spent, or to tackle obesity on a citywide basis.

Sadiq Khan is largely in the same “extremely frustrating” position as the one Boris Johnson told London Assembly Members he was in five years ago. It’s a quite different situation from Greater Manchester, where health funding and decision-making powers were drawn down from central government and up from councils to the combined authority led by that city-region’s Mayor.

 

Ways Forward?

Conservative London Assembly member Andrew Boff thinks STPs are only about controlling costs and that integrating the NHS into existing democratic structures would enable it to work more effectively. He argues that local councillors should have a role over CCGs and that the GLA should play a part in running hospitals, though former King’s Fund CEO Professor Sir Chris Ham would consider this a lost battle, as he has insisted “there is no Plan B” with STPs.

Labour figures set store by Sadiq Khan’s six tests for NHS reorganisation – including public engagement, clinical support and avoiding bed closures – set out in 2017 in relation to STPs but also applicable to any future proposed reforms. Former shadow health minister Baroness Thornton hopes for a levelling up in standards to embrace best practice within the new larger CCG areas. And Camden councillor Alison Kelly, chair of the North Central London Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee and former head of governance at the Audit Commission, says that, given a long-running commitment to centres of excellence, a crucial part of NHS reorganisation is to ensure free patient transport is available wherever needed, so that all patients have proper access to the best treatment across London.

 

Impacts of the Virus

The extraordinary efforts to tackle the coronavirus after the UK’s switch to a lockdown approach has forced people and services to come together and driven innovation more quickly than NHS reforms managed. Getting all GPs to offer telephone consultations is one clear example. At the same time, there are concerns among London NHS staff that the building of the Nightingale has seen staff diverted from other hospitals where they are needed more.

Whichever point in recent history it is viewed from, England has a fairly centralised health system by developed world standards. On top of huge national funding and staffing pressures, London has a set of distinctive challenges, which collaborative working and some limited devolution may help resolve – but it’s a long road. Even if, as experts predict, we return to planned programmes of change after the crisis, it will be intriguing to see what Londoners think about and what they will expect of their health service and care systems when it’s over.

Thanks to the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust for their help with compiling this article. 

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of  London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

Categories: Analysis

On London Corona City Podcast: Rough sleepers, teaching ballet and missing crowds

The third ever On London podcast continues the uncertain technical learning curve progress of the previous two, but also maintains the high standard of contributor.

In the latest effort, I speak to Laura Pilcher of street homeless charity Thames Reach about the new pressures she and her colleague are facing, ballet teacher Sarah Toner about how she has adapted her business, and Centre for London’s Richard Brown, who recorded his contribution at his home in Brighton.

Never mind the variable sound quality, admire and enjoy the stories of three terrific people who live or work in the capital.

All On London podcasts made so far can be heard HERE.

OnLondon.co.uk is doing all it can to keep providing the best possible coverage of  London during the coronavirus crisis. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

Categories: Culture

Vic Keegan’s Lost London 139: The great royal jewels heist of 1303

We hear a lot about the Great Train Robbery of 1963, but hardly anything about its more daring predecessor, which took place 700 years earlier – Great Royal Jewels Heist of 6 June, 1303, which saw most of the Crown’s treasures stolen from the supposedly impregnable Pyx Chamber off the east cloister of Westminster Abbey.

The robbery was obviously an inside job, so Edward I did what a king had to do. He arrested the Abbey’s abbot, its 48 monks and 32 servants, as they were the ones with access to the Pyx. All were imprisoned in the Tower of London.

The Chamber, which still exists, dates from about 1070. There, gold and silver were measured in little round containers called pyxes. With its 13-foot thick walls, it long been considered the most secure room in the whole of the kingdom. It had two heavy oak doors, one behind the other, each with three locks, meaning six keys were required to gain admittance.

And so it had been until the arrival of Richard de Podnecott, a “gentleman” from Oxfordshire, who is believed to have had a grudge against the king dating back a few years to when he was imprisoned in Flanders as a guarantor for the monarch’s spiralling debts.

Podnecott shadowed the Abbey for months while Edward (“Longshanks”) was at war with William Wallace (he of Braveheart fame) in West Lothian, Scotland. Then, almost certainly with the connivance of some monks, he entered the Chamber on the night of St Mark and stayed hidden there for most of the day before making off with the bounty.

He was later arrested with over £2,000 worth of booty on him, after some of the stolen property started turning up in nearby brothels and pawn shops. By that time, the monks had been released from the Tower, but Podnecott was hanged along with a few who were suspected of helping him.

The Pyx Chamber can be viewed by the public, and, unlike the main Abbey interior, there is no entrance charge. You can get to it via Dean’s Yard. One curious fact is that there clearly used to be an altar there, where mass would have been celebrated in Catholic times, but was not destroyed during the Reformation, probably because it was disguised by the royal treasures.

The theft from the Pyx was only the most serious in a series of robberies from Abbey during that period, and it is still puzzling that the king continued to use it and a crypt in the Chapter House next to it as main storehouses for his treasures when they were clearly so vulnerable.

Afterwards, the royal treasures were removed to the Tower, but only until the undercrofts at the Abbey had been reinforced. They were then brought back to their historic resting place. Maybe the thinking was that God would still be their best guardian.

All previous instalments of Vic Keegan’s Lost London can be found here.

OnLondon.co.uk is committed to providing the best possible coverage of London’s politics, development, social issues and culture. It depends on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via PayPal or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

 

 

Categories: Culture, Lost London