Providing a path forward to rebuilding Watford General
I happened to be sitting waiting for an appointment recently and two ladies were talking generally about the hospital rebuild. As you do, I couldn't help but overhear them chatting. They had no idea who I was sitting reading my newspaper.
Their viewpoints were interesting. One expressing frustration that Watford General wasn't going be rebuilt sooner (we can all share that) and the other retorting positively that there's confirmation the rebuild will happen and a delivery date.
As Watford's MP, you take the rough with the smooth, but criticism, certainly on the hospital issue, can be ill-informed or just politically malevolent.
'We are where we are' as the phase goes. The history of how we got here perhaps allows the first lady above, and us all, to better understand the way forward.
The town doesn't have its new hospital, because over 14 years the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat allies in the coalition government didn't build it. It's that simple.
People sometimes say, 'well you're just blaming the last lot!' That's rather lame as its fair to point out the reality of the situation.
There was no 'fully-funded' plan to build our hospital. The required investment of £1.5-£2 billion, amid 39 other competing schemes, wasn't there. Not a penny budgeted beyond next month. Total disarray. It needed and got proper organisation with a costed timetable. The second lady sees, as we all can, the path forward.
I'll continue to champion our hospital's cause in the corridors of power.
In other news this week I was glad to see the NHS delivering two million more appointments compared with the same period before Labour took office. We promised change. Well done all the staff involved in delivering it.
Matt Turmaine is Labour MP for Watford
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reform UK struggles to find friends to share council power
Reform UK's success in the recent local elections has propelled many councillors with limited or no political experience into council chambers across England. While Reform UK's rise was the big story of those elections, almost half of the councils up for grabs were not won outright by any single party. That means many of those newbie councillors are now navigating so-called hung councils, where parties with little in common often work together to get the business of local government done. But so far, it hasn't panned out that way for Reform UK, which isn't involved in any formal coalitions, pacts or deals in areas where there were local elections this year. This was despite rampant speculation about Reform-Conservative coalitions ahead of the polls, with party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage not ruling out council deals. So, what's going on? In some places - Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire - Reform UK has enough councillors to form minority administrations and is attempting to govern alone. In other areas where coalitions were possible, Reform UK has either shunned co-operation or vice versa. Where Reform UK has explored potential partnerships locally, its policies have been viewed with suspicion by the established parties. In Cornwall, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives refused to work with Reform UK, even though it was the biggest party and had won the most seats. Instead, the Lib Dems teamed up with independent councillors to run Cornwall Council as a minority administration. That infuriated Reform UK's group leader in Cornwall, Rob Parsonage, who branded the coalition deal "undemocratic" and "a total stitch-up". Did other parties contrive to exclude Reform UK? The newly minted Lib Dem council leader, Leigh Frost, does not think so. "The reality is our core values at heart of it just stand for two very different things and it makes working together incompatible," Frost told the BBC. "And then Reform was given two weeks to try to form an administration and chose not to." Frost said Reform UK's Cornwall candidates mainly campaigned on immigration. This was echoed in conversations with other local party leaders across the country. The BBC was told Reform's candidates had little local policy to offer and mostly focused on national issues, such as stopping small boats crossing the English Channel. Slashing "wasteful spending" by councils, like Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in the US, was also a common campaign theme. In Worcestershire, where Reform won the most seats but fell short of a majority, the party's supposed lack of local policy was a major sticking point for the Conservatives. "They haven't got a local prospectus and that was part of the problem," said Adam Kent, Tory group leader on Worcestershire County Council. "They didn't stand on any local issues. It was on national politics. How can you go into coalition with somebody if you don't even know what they stand for?" Joanne Monk, the Reform UK council leader in the county, said she only had "a brief couple of chats" with other party leaders but was uncompromising on coalitions. "I'm damned sure we're not on the same wavelength," she said. She followed the lead of Farage, who ruled out formal coalitions at council level but said "in the interests of local people we'll do deals", in comments ahead of the local elections. In Worcestershire, Reform UK's minority administration may need to do deals to pass key decisions and avoid other parties banding together to veto their plans. Recognising this, she acknowledged other parties were "going to have to work with us at some point". In Northumberland, the Conservatives retained their position as the largest party and gave the impression they were willing to entertain coalition talks with Reform UK, which gained 23 seats. "I said I would work with anyone and my door is open," said Conservative council leader Glen Sanderson. "But Reform the next day put out a press release saying the price for working with the Conservatives would be extremely high. So on that basis, I assumed that was the door closed on me." No talks were held and the Conservatives formed a minority administration. Weeks had passed after the local elections before Mark Peart was voted in as Reform UK's local group leader in the county. As a result, he wasn't in a position to talk to anybody. "Everything had already been agreed," Peart said. "It was too late." Reform UK sources admitted the party was caught a bit flat-footed here and elsewhere as many of its new councillors got the grips with their new jobs in the weeks following the local elections. A support network for those councillors, in the form of training sessions and a local branch system, is being developed by the party. But this week Zia Yusuf, one of the key architects behind that professionalisation drive and the Doge cost-cutting initiative, resigned as party chairman, leaving a gap in the party's leadership. Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, said the party's success at the local elections "was partly because of the significant efforts and improvements to the infrastructure of the party" spearheaded by Yusuf. Though Yusuf is gone, the party has considerably strengthened its foundations at local level, after gaining 677 new councillors and two mayors. A Reform UK source said party bosses will be keeping an eye out for stand-out councillors who could go on to become parliamentary candidates before the general election. They said in areas where Reform UK runs councils as a minority administration, it's going to take some compromise with other parties and independents to pass budgets and key policies. In the messy world of town halls and council chambers, that could be a tough apprenticeship. Reform UK prepares for real power on a council it now dominates Sir John Curtice: The map that shows Reform's triumph was much more than a protest vote Reform UK makes big gains in English local elections
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Patients may be seen by any dental surgery
Patients could be moved around dental surgeries under proposed changes to the system. Instead of having a regular surgery, the changes could see people offered treatment at any practice within their health board area, with check-ups for those with healthy teeth pushed to every 18 to 24 months. The Welsh government said the proposals would improve access to dental services, particularly for those most in need. But the British Dental Association (BDA) said the opposite could happen and more patients may be forced to go private. The biggest change would see all patients over 18 placed onto a central waiting list, called the Dental Access Portal (DAP). They would then be allocated a surgery, which could be anywhere within the health board area. If they need treatment, they would remain with that surgery until it is complete and beyond, if they needed close monitoring. If or when teeth are healthy, patients would be returned to the central portal and would be recalled for a check-up in 18 to 24 months wherever there is space. Children would be assessed under the plans but stay at the first surgery they are allocated. Some charges for patients would also change - with check-ups going up from £20 to £24.75 but a single crown going down from £260 to £239.15. 'There could be no NHS dentists in two years' Welsh dentistry 'no example' to England Family unable to see a dentist in four years Health Minister Jeremy Miles said the plans would benefit everyone. "It will make NHS dentistry more attractive to dentists and that is good for patients," he said. "Actually, what we want to make sure is that patients do look after their own oral health but when they do need to see a dentist they will be able to access one which is the critical thing." Jody Pegler, 46, from Pontllanfraith, Caerphilly county, who has been with his dentist in Newbridge for more than 30 years, said: "I have been coming here since I was a child. "It's nice to see the same person on a regular basis." Mr Pegler, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, said his family members needing to visit different surgeries could be problematic. "My wife, my child and myself could potentially be attending different practices," he said. "It's difficult to get out and to go anywhere really and if we have to go to different practices it would be impossible. "This dentist's in particular have made a big effort to make sure the practice is wheelchair accessible for me - that means a lot." Jody's dentist is Dr Harj Singhrao, owner of Newbridge Dental Care, who believes the potential breakdown in continued care will be "devastating". "If families can't be seen at the same practice, if people are punished then to join a waiting list because they have looked after their mouth, then where are they going to go? Because we know hospital waiting lists don't work," he said. The proposals are now part of a public consultation, open until 19 June, and in Cardiff people gave a mixed response to the plans when asked by BBC Wales. Robyn Weldon, 21, said: "I've been going to my dentist since I was probably six so I guess that would be a bit sad if I can't go to him. "I would say too that things haven't been going very well for the NHS so maybe this could be a good start to kind of make things easier for them and for us." Paul McCarthy, 77, said he was unaware of the changes. "I wouldn't be very happy about it either," he said. "I've been coming here for over 30 years and I'm used to coming here so I wouldn't like that at all." Justin Rees, 52, from Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, thought the new portal idea could be positive. "It's good because one, there are no appointments at the moment. "Two, it'll remind people that they need to have their teeth checked because you're busy all day and there's things that you let go," he said. In relation to how people currently access services, the consultation document says "contrary to popular belief" patients are not actually registered with a practice once their treatment ends, adding "for those who clinically require regular access, or an urgent need arises, nothing really changes". On check-ups, it says there is "false narrative" that six-monthly check-ups are necessary for everyone and that by giving people with healthy teeth a check-up less often, it will open up access for others. NICE guidelines say intervals between check-ups "should be determined specifically for each patient" and the longest interval for adults should be 18-24 months. But Dr Lauren Harrhy from the BDA said she was concerned that people may end up waiting much longer, with "most people" benefiting from regular checks. Dr Harrhy, who runs a practice in Pontypool, Torfaen, said: "If we are always having patients into the practice who need lots of work done and they are not able to be put back into the central database, there is a saturation point and at which point, access into dental practices will cease. "Our main concerns are we will have an overall reduction in the continuity of care... and we may find that dentists leave NHS dentistry which has been a trend over recent years anyway." Dentists also say the proposals offer no extra money to fund the changes. But Miles said investment in dentistry had increased year on year. "This isn't a contract we have drawn up from thin air, it is based on years worth of work, it's 13 months of negotiations with the BDA itself," he said. "No contract gives everybody exactly what they want but I am absolutely confident that for everybody - for patients, for dentists, for the NHS, for the government - this is a step forward." British Dental Association Why can't I find an NHS dentist in Wales? Fees will see more people pull teeth out - dentist Patient, 73, has 100-mile round trip for dentist
