Blog
« Older EntriesLabour Left – “Reclaiming our National Health Service”
Blog / Today / Comment now
In partnership with the Socialist Health Association and Durham University Labour Students
Reclaiming our National Health Service – current action & future policies
Grahame Morris M.P,
Prof Clare Bambra
David Taylor-Gooby
Friday 8th June
6:30 p.m.-8.30p.m
Elvet Riverside, Durham University
To confirm attendance, contact Val Hudson valhud2000@yahoo.co.uk, tel 07590849333
This Cabinet of Millionaires may have learnt the price of milk but know nothing of the cost of living
Blog / May 16, 2012 (2 days ago) / Comment now
The price of milk is often used as a rather crude barometer of the basic changes in the cost of living for ordinary families. Yet ironically milk price inflation currently runs at a meagre 1.08%, a pint costing 49 pence in Tesco stores. The ‘price of milk’ test may be a better indicator of ‘Prime-Ministerial Poshness’ than of the economic woes facing ordinary people up and down the country.
Supporters of the government, both Conservative and Liberal Democrats, seem oblivious to the growing public hatred for the new politics brought about by Coalition politics. The launch of the first British Coalition government since the Second World War with that famous love-in in the Downing Street rose garden is a dim and distant memory. Two years on people rightly feel angry, abandoned and excluded.
Ordinary people see a government that is oblivious to the struggles of the working poor, that has failed on the economy and has failed to protect the most vulnerable, in the most difficult times. This year’s increase in the minimum wage will leave it lower in real terms than it was in 2004. Last year the Institute for Fiscal Studies forecast that the real median net household income would be lower in 2015-16 than it was in 2002-3.
There are also over one million homeowners that now face higher mortgage repayments after several high street lenders – including Halifax, the UK’s biggest mortgage lender – raised rates by up to 0.5 percent this month. Research by consumer group Which? showed a fifth of borrowers surveyed would struggle to pay for daily essentials like food if mortgage payment rose by just £100 a month.
But it is rising food prices and energy bills that are raising the cost of living for the poorest households the most. The TUC’s living standards index shows that CPI inflation is 0.8% higher for the poorest 10% of households than the richest 10% of households. The TUC also provides a comprehensive breakdown of how the cost of living is rising further and faster for the poorest.
Soaring energy bills make gas and electricity the highest single costs facing households because this Government has failed to ensure that the energy market is serving the public interest. Instead, when people are facing record fuel bills and energy companies are enjoying huge profits, this Coalition stands to one side and does nothing.
Labour has said we would reform the energy market by breaking the dominance of the Big Six, requiring them to sell power into a pool, and allowing new businesses to enter the market, increasing competition and driving down energy bills for families and businesses. And if there is not yet a consensus in the Labour Party for the full-scale re-nationalisation of our energy sector, which I believe would benefit every citizen in this country, then I at least support the fresh thinking of Labour’s front bench on energy issues.
The Prime Minister said last week: “There can be no going back on our carefully judged strategy for restoring the public finances”. However, people know that their cost of living is rising because of a crisis caused in Downing Street. The arguments deployed by Ministers, for instance the smoke and mirrors or cutting the basic rate of tax whilst raising VAT, only infuriates ordinary people more. They know that the money in their pocket is falling, whilst prices are rising.
This Chancellor has given us zero growth over the past year, an economy that is now smaller than it was in the autumn of 2010, and a vicious cycle of squeezed living standards and weak consumer spending. In the final quarter of last year, in the North East, 65,293 people were working in part-time work because they could not find full-time employment. We needed a Queen’s Speech for jobs and growth, but instead we got more attacks on ordinary people – this time on their rights at work.
Ordinary people see a Cabinet of Millionaires balancing the books on the backs of the poorest and cutting government spending forcing the poorest to take on greater personal debt themselves.
Two years ago this month, David Cameron and Nick Clegg set out their shared agenda: a new politics, a new economy and a stronger society. On these three objectives, they have comprehensively failed. This government has been compromised by the hacking scandal, BSKYB bid and been caught out offering dinners to donors. It has delivered the worst unemployment for 16 years and the first double-dip recession for 37 years and it has attacked core local services for the young, elderly and disabled with cuts that have been too far and too fast.
The election of the Socialist Francois Hollande in France and Labour’s remarkable successes in May’s local elections shows there is an appetite for change in this country and across Europe. The utter failure to regulate energy prices, for one, and protect the poorest from the rising cost of living is shameful.
The cut in tax for millionaires whilst millions pay more is the final slap in the face for the ordinary people we are all supposed to represent. Make no mistake, the public mood across Europe and here at home is changing. Austerity has failed, ordinary people are rightly calling for change and yet this failed Coalition simply offers more of the same.
Reaction to the Queen’s Speech by EASINGTON MP Grahame Morris
Blog / May 10, 2012 (2 weeks ago) / Comment now
Two years ago this month, David Cameron and Nick Clegg set out their shared agenda: a new politics, a new economy and a stronger society. On these three objectives, they have comprehensively failed.
This government has been compromised by the hacking scandal, BSKYB bid and been caught out offering dinners to donors. It has delivered the worst unemployment for 16 years and the first double-dip recession for 37 years. It has attacked core local services for the young, elderly and disabled with cuts that have been too far and too fast.
Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech is a recipe for continuing decline across the North East. This pathetic package will do nothing for jobs and growth with typical regressive Tory ideas to boost growth – such as making it easier for bosses to sack their employees – showing just how out of touch this government really is.
In the North East the private sector continues to haemorrhage jobs and a generation of young people see no hope for the future and a government that has abandoned them.
The election of the Socialist Francois Hollande in France and Labour’s remarkable successes in May’s local elections shows there is an appetite for change in this country and across Europe. Austerity has failed, ordinary people are rightly calling for change and yet this failed Coalition simply offers more of the same.
Grahame Morris sketch by anonymous O.A.P.
Blog / May 8, 2012 (2 weeks ago) / Comment now
Following my recent Westminster Hall Debate against outsourcing to the private sector by government departments I have received a number of supportive messages from across the country.
I wanted to share this sketch that was sent to me by an anonymous O.A.P. with a cut-out from the Morning Star (below).
Speech: TUC May Day Rally 2012
Blog / May 5, 2012 (2 weeks ago) / Comment now
Comrades,
The first and most important thing I want to do today is to thank all of you for being here.
Millions of working people across the world will have celebrated May Day this week, they will have joined rallies and they will have united to celebrate the role of ordinary hard working people in all sections of society.
However, working people across Europe, and beyond, are under attack.
In the same way that we have come here today to show unity and courage, governments across Europe have colluded against the best interests of ordinary people.
As local elections on Thursday undoubtedly showed people across this country reject the savage cuts to local services and reject the austerity that is so badly failing our country.
And hopefully tomorrow, in France, our brothers and sisters there will endorse our socialist friend Francois Hollande and send shock waves across Europe and the world.
Events like these must be about sending a common message to governments who think that ordinary people should pay for the mistakes of wealthy bankers and city financiers.
This Coalition government is forcing millions of struggling families to pay more, whilst it is allowing millionaires to pay less.
It is forcing our Labour councils that represent the poorest areas in the North to suffer the worst cuts, whilst Tory Councils in the South face little or no cuts.
And it is forcing its cuts agenda furthest on welfare, the disabled, the sick and the elderly, whilst it does nothing to promote growth in the economy and nothing to create employment.
We are told that there is no alternative to cuts and austerity. But there is. These are political choices and they are the wrong choices.
How dare politicians now attack our public services as if this is somehow a coherent response to a crisis that started in the banking sectors of the United States back in 2008?
Reforms by Andrew Lansley to the NHS, to allow fly-by-night private health firms unrestricted access to profiteer from public investment has nothing to do with our debts, with cuts or austerity.
Tory reforms, spinelessly supported by the Liberal Democrats, are ideological and they represent an attack on our National Health Service.
Today is about unity, society and about people. And these are the values that are best represented by our public services.
These are the people who teach our children, who collect our refuse, who build our roads, who treat us and our family when we are sick and care for us when we are elderly.
In essence, it is our public services that create and sustain the civilised society in which we live.
The right-wing media and the millionaire politicians of this Coalition government, would have us believe that public services are the enemy.
They want to pit private sector against public sector in order to divide and rule.
The real challenge we face is shrinking the growing gap between the richest (who are getting richer) and the poorest (who are getting poorer).
And the only way to achieve this is through tax justice.
If you are on a wage, you don’t have a choice about paying your taxes – they are deducted automatically. Yet, if you are part of the ‘corporate elite’, the richest 1%, and you can afford clever accountants, you can pay less tax than your cleaner!
This country – and the North East in particular – needs an end to austerity.
David Cameron promised that the private sector would ‘pick up the slack’ and replace the jobs he was axing in the public sector. That has not happened.
We need a new agenda of investment, growth and jobs.
We need investment in our public services, our infrastructure and our manufacturing base.
We need growth in the private sector, balanced across all sectors and all regions, not weighted in the banks of the City of London and the South East.
And we need jobs, for all those able to enter training and employment. This government would rather see generations of people in the North East linger on benefits than invest to create work.
I’m delighted to have been invited to speak here today. We must challenge what this government is doing at every point and at every opportunity.
Today is part of that agenda.
Full Text of Debate on Outsourcing (Government Departments)
Blog / April 27, 2012 (3 weeks ago) / Comment now
Outsourcing (Government Departments)
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): I am grateful, Mrs Main, for this opportunity, and it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time. Today, I hope to raise a very important issue, put down a few markers and seek some answers from the Minister to a series of questions that I will pose. I want to place on record my thanks to the Public and Commercial Services Union, the TUC and Unison for various pieces of briefing information that they have provided in support of my efforts today.
When the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General was Financial Secretary to the Treasury under John Major, he sought to
“extend competition in the provision of public services further and faster than ever before”.—[Official Report, 18 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 25.]
He said that he would do so with no bias between public and private sector providers. It must surely have been a setback for him personally that, shortly after setting out that agenda, his then constituents in the North Warwickshire constituency decided to ditch him at the 1992 general election in favour of Labour representation. However, in 1997, he returned to Parliament in the far safer Conservative seat of Horsham and he waited patiently for 13 years in opposition before returning in 2010 to his privatisation agenda of 20 years earlier to make private everything that is public.
I give this preamble only to set out the context of the debate: we can all understand that an individual who has waited 20 years to achieve his ambition may be more keen to implement his policies and to do so somewhat quicker than otherwise would be the case. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has made his intentions clear. In June 2011, he spoke to the business community on the subject of public service reform, saying:
“Spending cuts are one-offs. What we need to do, and are doing, is fundamentally change the way we operate.”
However, the problem with the coalition Government’s approach is that it is not evidence-based; it is ideologically driven. Whether they are outsourcing services, opening them up to a range of providers or decentralising them, the Government are gambling with the nation’s hard-won assets.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con): We seem to be hearing a political diatribe against outsourcing. What would the hon. Gentleman say the previous Government were up to when they successfully outsourced many services? Indeed, many Labour councils, as well as Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, followed in the footsteps of those pioneering Conservative councils of the early 1980s, by outsourcing services to give people a better service at lower cost.
Grahame M. Morris: The basis of my argument essentially is that there is no evidence base for that approach. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument a little further, I hope to illustrate that point.
If we look at the evidence base, it is in fact a constant lesson from history that reform has often come, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, in the form of privatisations and outsourcing, but it has not always led to service improvement. Whether the justification for such reform has been a desire to bring perceived good practice from the private sector into the public sector or, indeed, the belief that savings can be made through outsourcing, the question that we parliamentarians must ask the Government and that I wish to put to the Minister is this: where is the evidence for those reforms?
I hope that the Minister will address this issue, which is about the economic and social evidence base rather than an ideological base that is behind what seems to be a rush to sell off services and public assets. It is my contention that the Tory-led policy on public services reform that is being followed by the coalition is ideologically driven and light on any such evidence base. I want to develop that point by presenting some evidence to suggest that the Government are on the wrong side of public opinion and, indeed, wrong about the whole issue of public service reform.
I hope that the Minister is aware of a report by Ipsos MORI entitled, “What do people want, need and expect from public services?” The report presents the most up-to-date and detailed data on current public attitudes to public services and public service reform. I want to put three headline findings on the record. First, people
“want public services to be based on notions of the public good, rather than just what’s good for me”.
Secondly, people
“understand the public good largely in terms of universalism, with equality of access to benefits”.
Thirdly, people
“struggle to see a compelling or urgent case for reforming public services to cope with economic pressures and social changes”.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different interpretations of public sector reform? For example, Labour set up academies in areas of high deprivation, but the Tory-led Government turned that on its head. Their interpretation is anti the public good.
Grahame M. Morris: I agree that there are various interpretations of what constitutes public sector reform, and I will speak about academies in a few moments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.
On all three points illustrated in that detailed survey, the Government are out of step with the public on public service reform. Ordinary people want public services in public hands for the public good, but the Government seem to want public services outsourced to business for the good of private profit. Ordinary people want universalism, but the Government want to decentralise, to remove targets and to create local variations and postcode lotteries, so going against standardised and universal access. Ordinary people oppose rapid upheaval and fundamental reform to public services, and a case in point is the opposition to the NHS reforms.
The Government have run amok with the reorganisation of the health service and forged ahead with public service reform and outsourcing at breakneck speed. It is no surprise that when Ministers make speeches on public service reform, they do so to business leaders, never to public sector workers, service users or trade union groups who work in the public sector. I want to place on the record my support, sympathy and admiration for the front-line workers who are so often treated like pawns in a game of chess, facing constant change, reorganisation and regrading, often at the whim of political elites.
Workers across the public sector know that the latest policy move to the mass outsourcing of services and a free-for-all for business will be a last hurrah, because many of the changes will be irreversible. For people who work in the public service, it means an end to job security and to nationally determined pay, conditions and terms of service. Instead, national public services will become ever more fragmented, unstable and variable, offering short-term and risky employment not by the state, but by any fly-by-night private sector operator.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate case, but it is framed as public versus private. The reality is that we are looking at any number of models to deliver our public services. We have social enterprises and co-operatives. Surely, we should look at the outcome and not the structure of delivery.
Grahame M. Morris: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but there is a danger of fragmentation, even with some of the models that she mentions—for example, in the national health service and social care. If we are trying to promote integrated services, a plethora of private sector and even voluntary sector providers works against that ethos. That is a risk.
My argument is that public sector workers and service users know the difference between private profiteering and public services. Let us not forget that the key difference is that the first duty of a business is to its shareholders and the pursuit of profit.
The coalition Government are trying to do two things in developing their own brand of public service reform, which is quite distinct from what the Labour party did when in office. First, they are trying to tie down companies with more stringent contracts in the belief that setting targets will guarantee performance—ironically, the Government argued against targets in the national health service and wanted them to be ditched by public sector providers. Secondly, they believe that with stricter conditions for private sector providers, there should be no limits on where those providers should be allowed to tread within the public sector.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): My hon. Friend is developing a pertinent point. If we outsource public services—a public commodity—to the private sector, in some way, shape or form the private sector has to make a profit to give to its shareholders. That seems to be the logic from the Government’s perspective, but it will be impossible for public services to become more efficient or reinvest savings back into the development of the service.
Grahame M. Morris: That is an excellent point, and we should be guided by the evidence. If the Minister can demonstrate that that is not the case, I will be interested to hear his response. Certainly, in relation to the national health service, the detailed impact assessment published with the Health and Social Care Bill proved that in-house services were considerably cheaper that those offered by the private sector, as well as being more responsive, accountable and fitting in with the wish for better integration.
A little earlier, different models of provision were mentioned. The coalition Government are promoting different models for outsourcing different services within different Departments—for example, academies and education, the utilities model and the NHS, or payment by result for welfare and benefits. However, although those are different models, the driver is the same. Emergency 999 call centres have been privatised and outsourced together with the administration of the benefit system. The roads on which we drive are the latest to go, as the pace of outsourcing to the private sector speeds up.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Another example is the translation service. Since it was moved into the private sector, a plethora of problems have included translators failing to turn up at court and criminals walking away without being tried because no translator was present.
Grahame M. Morris: There are many examples where the proposals for privatisation, outsourcing or whatever models are being piloted have not produced positive results. I do not have the opportunity to list them all owing to a shortage of time, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
The Welfare Bill passed through Parliament in March and lays the foundations for billion-pound contracts of five years or more for private companies to run welfare-to-work programmes and the administration of the new benefits system. I believe that the rush to outsource the biggest spending Department—the Department for Work and Pensions—rather than develop a coherent strategy to create jobs and growth in the economy, is a dereliction of duty by the Government.
Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a good example of a contract that is working. In that contract, the burden of risk is pushed on to the private provider. If it does not deliver jobs, it does not get money. Surely, that is a good thing.
Grahame M. Morris: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The issue was raised during questions to the DWP on Monday—by myself, I think—and the papers this weekend illustrated a number of examples of service failure. Service users feel huge dissatisfaction with Atos and A4e, and there has been a huge uproar about the quality of service provision in training or retraining ex-offenders.
The evidence base is littered with failures from the private sector, so it is difficult to hold up an example. If there is a good example, I suspect that it might be the exception rather than the rule. Most often, there is a negative impact for employees, with the prevalence of short-term contracts and the use of part-time and temporary staff who are often recruited through employment agencies. Indeed, Unison commissioned a report on the rise of the multi-billion-pound private public services industry and raised significant concerns about the increased dependency on private firms.
The privatisation of public services has already become a huge industry, through which the private sector receives more than £80 billion of taxpayers’ money every year, yet it has become characterised by increased cost, deteriorating quality, the loss of accountability and the greater risk of service failure. The reason why we had
the birth of municipal provision in the great northern cities—Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Wigan—was that the city fathers saw that public provision was more efficient and accountable than the existing private sector provision that was available at the time. Those arguments are not new in that respect.
I want to give another couple of examples. I mentioned A4e, and it would be remiss not to mention the Southern Cross care homes debacle. Other scandals in relation to welfare have also raised such issues and brought this agenda to the fore. That will happen more often as more services are passed over to the private sector. There is also a risk that we will lose control over our public services altogether. Indeed, in 2007, the Local Government Association warned that the amount of local authority spending on external private sector contracts and the ability of local government to make efficiency savings when it has already signed contracts without further damaging services was not realistic.
The Government’s central argument in favour of the increased commercialisation and privatisation of public services rests on the importance of consumer choice as a driver for increased efficiency, accountability and value for money. However, again, that is not supported by the evidence contained in the public surveys that have been carried out. One area that features genuine consumer choice is the provision of utilities. In most parts of the United Kingdom, people can choose a provider of gas or electricity from a handful of companies. However, is that a good example? There is massive public concern that prices have increased way above inflation and that the profits of the energy companies have soared. So the panacea of private-led competition is not everything that the coalition would have us believe it is.
Jonathan Lord: The hon. Gentleman is making a delightful speech in favour of socialism, the big state and the state always providing, whether nationally or locally. He talks about the utilities and so on. British Telecom is not perfect, but I remember as a young man when one had to wait weeks and weeks, if not months, to have a phone installed, and I think there was a choice of about three phones. As soon as BT was privatised, it saved taxpayers’ money and gave a much better service to its customers.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that he would like to give the Minister enough time to respond to the questions that he has asked.
Grahame M. Morris: I would, indeed—thank you, Mrs Main.
There is an awful lot to explore in relation to the subject, but I want to pose a number of questions to the Minister. I want to ask about the evidence. Given that the survey evidence shows that the public seem to reject the individualist consumer approach to public service, why are the Government pursuing that? Can he point to specific pilots or evidence of its success? What protections are in place to stop the spiralling costs of redundancies during this transition period, for example, in the national health service?
In respect of the decentralisation agenda, what specific standards are being developed to ensure accountability, equality of access and provision nationally? With this new landscape of competing service providers from different agencies, with different forms of accountability, how will the needs and interests of service users with complex and multiple needs be protected? I am thinking about the social care sector, where needs dealt with by different providers often require integrated services.
Will the new accountability measures apply to private and voluntary sector providers? As we know, they remain outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. What direct accountability will there be to elected representatives and democratic institutions, nationally and in respect of local government, when such public services are outsourced?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and on how he presented his case. I believe that he worked in the NHS before going into politics. I read his profile, which says that his political mission is to push Labour leftwards, so he must be delighted with the direction of travel. It is clear where he is coming from and I have a certain respect for that, even though I come from a different place politically.
Our constituencies may be different, but I suspect that all our constituents share a desire to see Government deliver better value for the tax that they pay. This Government take that seriously.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): Will the Minister give way?
Mr Hurd: Perhaps I can just advance my argument a little.
This is not the place to have a great debate about the economic situation or the level of debt that the Government have inherited, but we are serious about trying to deliver better value for taxpayers’ money. I am a Minister in the Cabinet Office. The controls that we have put in place—that my boss, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has put in place—delivered some £3.75 billion in the first year of Government and are on track to deliver £5 billion of savings this year. We are quite proud of that. Frankly, it was an exercise in delivering common sense. It is an appalling indictment of the attitude of the previous Administration to public money that such big savings could be found in such short order by doing some basic commonsensical things.
Ian Lavery: Does the Minister agree, in respect of looking for better value, that paying doctors, nurses and porters in his constituency more than those in my constituency is a good way of saving money?
Mr Hurd: I want doctors and nurses to be paid at fair value. I am also interested in the value that they offer to the taxpayer for the work that they do, which brings me on to my next point about public services and how they are commissioned.
The Government’s view is that, when expectations about public service standards are rising, we need to find more creative solutions. There is dissatisfaction and a challenge, because there is less money about and therefore greater pressure to get better outcomes with less money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) made an important point: the direction of travel here is not driven by ideology, although there is more ideology communicated from the Opposition than the Government. This is driven by a desire to deliver better outcomes on behalf of the taxpayer and the people we are trying to help in a way that is much more transparent than before.
Ian Mearns: The Minister belabours the point about making additional efficiencies within government since the coalition came to power. Of course, one of the biggest elements of public expenditure is local government. Conservative control in local government has been at a high watermark for eight or nine years now. Would he criticise Conservative councils in that respect?
Mr Hurd: I resist any invitation to criticise Conservative councils, particularly at this moment. My point is about attitudes to taxpayers’ money. The previous Administration were cavalier with taxpayers’ money and this Administration are trying to deliver better
Gloria De Piero: The Minister might not want to speak about Conservative councils, but I live in Nottinghamshire where the Conservative council has just used taxpayers’ money to develop a new logo on all the buildings. Is that good value for taxpayers?
Mr Hurd: I do not know because I do not know the situation in Nottingham. That is an issue on which the people of Nottingham can take a view and they will be able to express that view more clearly and more loudly because we are moving towards a world in which there is more transparency about local authorities’ spending. We are moving away from the opaque world in which we had very little information about what was being done in our name.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): I share the Minister’s concern about value for money, although I am also concerned about protecting the most vulnerable and about the standard of public services and the intelligence of targets that are used in outsourcing. Will he respond to the point that was powerfully put by my hon. Friend about the evidence base behind this? Where is the evidence that outsourcing provides better value for money?
Mr Hurd: I am delighted to move on to the substance of the debate. I have tried my best to respond to various interventions from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Easington referred to the open public services. [Interruption.] With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am trying to answer the meat of his argument, which is whether it is good to create a situation in which those buying on behalf of the taxpayer have choice about where they buy services on our behalf. The hon. Gentleman is actually arguing for no choice and for protection of the status quo. The Government’s open public services White Paper makes it clear—we expect a political argument about this—that we want to switch the default setting away from in-house delivery to commissioning services from a diverse range of providers where that would improve services or reduce costs.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was hostile to the for-profits sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a valuable point that the Government are agnostic about who delivers the service. We are particularly keen—and it is a coalition Government commitment—to make it easier for charities and social enterprises to participate in public services. They are not driven by a profit motive. By definition, they are driven by a desire to deliver a better outcome for the people that they support and care about.
Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) referred to academies in his speech. Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend about the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into academies, which showed that they delivered not only better outcomes for the taxpayer but better value for money. Is that not a perfect example of how changing provision and getting away from uniform provision delivers better outcomes?
Mr Hurd: Yes, I absolutely agree. I also agree with what my hon. Friend said when the hon. Member for Easington kept saying, “Where’s the evidence?” There is plenty of evidence for the value of competition—if we need it, because we know it in our daily lives. Academic research suggests that competitively tendering public services typically produces savings of between 10% and 30% while maintaining or improving standards. I refer the hon. Member for Easington to the “Public Services Industry Review” of July 2008 by Dr DeAnne Julius, but there is no shortage of evidence for the value of tendering and introducing competition into the system.
Dr Julius also talked about the payment-by-results regime, which the Opposition do not like at all, although the situation we inherited was that those buying on our behalf were extraordinarily complacent about whether we got anything for the money. Such a regime is not appropriate in every case, but we are moving towards a requirement for commissioners—those buying on our behalf—to think much harder about what they are buying and the outcomes against which they will be measured in a new transparent world where there will be nowhere to hide. Yes, we will introduce payment by results where that is appropriate, because it introduces some basic, common-sense discipline into how we spend taxpayers’ money. For most of my constituents, that makes plain common sense—after all, it is their money.
Finally, we are also keen to encourage the development of mutuals, employee ownership and organisations in which employees are in charge. One such model in which ownership is shared between employees, Government and private sector partners is the innovative pathfinder mutual joint venture, My Civil Service Pension, which provides pension administration for civil servants. Likewise, I go around the country and meet some of the mutual spin-outs from the NHS, where the hon. Gentleman used to work, and the difference when one walks through the door into those organisations is tangible.
Our programme of reform is focused on the citizen and is already cutting out unnecessary cost to help protect front-line priorities. Outsourcing remains an interesting option and one that will offer the best deal in many situations, but it is not the only one, and we are judging every case on its merits.
Speech: Effect of the Budget on the North East Economy
Blog / April 19, 2012 (5 weeks ago) / Comment now
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), on securing this debate, the importance of which is testified to by the number of Labour Members present.
The Budget will have few positive benefits for the economy of the north-east, and there is no discernible regional support within the measures set out in the Budget statement. There are cuts in corporation tax and cuts in tax for the wealthy, but there is no credible plan for what is really needed in the north-east: a stimulus for jobs and growth.
The often used line that we cannot spend our way out of a recession has been shown to be an ideological mantra that flies in the face of economic reality. What the Budget has given us is rocketing unemployment and plummeting growth in regions such as ours. The north-east has the highest rate of unemployment of any UK region, at 10.8% of the economically active population. That is mirrored in my constituency where, despite the good news we have had from Nissan, large numbers of private sector job losses are in the pipeline. We are hemorrhaging private sector jobs at an alarming rate.
Regional economies such as the north-east will not make any headway without investment in a comprehensive and lasting economic infrastructure. That can only be done by the courageous state and by Government intervention. The north-east continues to suffer from the unfinished business of transition from heavy industry. However, that transformation has stalled as a consequence of the coalition Government’s policies.
The evidence supports the fact that Labour and our regional development agency, One North East, were making progress in transforming the economic landscape. An analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that, for every £1 spent by our RDA, an average of at least £4.50 of economic output was achieved. That rose to an output of at least £6.40 when future benefits were assessed.
Ministers have sought to propagate the myth that money spent in the north-east under Labour was wasted, but that is not supported by the facts. Based on the gross value added per head indices, the rate of growth in the north-east went from being the lowest of any region during the 1990s to being the second highest during the past decade. The facts and figures were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, so I will not repeat them.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that another key role that One North East played in the region was to ensure that European regional development funding was drawn down and invested in the region? Some £329 million was made available, but £129 million remains un-invested directly because of the loss of One North East. No one is drawing down that funding and no regional funding can match that investment in the region.
Grahame M. Morris: Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. That was another vital element that the RDA contributed towards jobs and growth in the north-east, and it is sadly missed.
Although the Chancellor told us that the Budget is overall fiscally neutral, its impact by region, class or earnings is anything but. For example, VAT—a regressive form of taxation—remains at 20%, which hurts those who have no choice but to spend their wages on life’s basic essentials and depresses demand. The continuation of wage freezes throughout the public sector will make life even more difficult for ordinary people, as will the rise in fuel duty.
In his Budget, the Chancellor has failed the people whom I represent in Easington and in the north-east. There was the increase in VAT, the granny tax, the pasty tax, the philanthropy tax, increases in fuel duty and the loss of tax credits for modest earners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, was right to call it a Budget for millionaires when what we need is a Budget for jobs and growth in the north-east.
Westminster Hall
Tuesday 17 April 2012, 9:30am-11am
Effect of the Budget on the North East Economy
Osborne’s ‘Budget for Billionaires’
Blog / April 16, 2012 / Comment now
Families with children will lose an average of £511 a year following the Coalition Government’s changes to tax, benefits and tax credits according to new research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
The analysis follows last month’s Budget and is on top of tax rises already introduced, like last year’s VAT rise which is costing a family with children an average of £450 per year.
New government figures obtained by the Labour Party show that 1750 families in the Easington Constituency are set to lose all of their Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit.
1400 families in Easington on modest incomes will lose all their Child Tax Credit, worth around £545 per year. 350 working couples earning less than around £17,000 per year will lose all of their Working Tax Credit, worth up to £3,870 per year, if they cannot increase their working hours.
The IFS figures also show that government policies mean pensioners will be an average of £315 a year worse off from April 2014 once cuts to their allowances announced in last month’s Budget – what has been dubbed the ‘granny tax’ – have kicked in.
While families on middle and low incomes are facing the Coalition Government’s tax credit bombshell, David Cameron and George Osborne have chosen to give the top 1% a £3 billion tax giveaway by cutting the top rate of tax for millionaires.
The Government policies are not only unfair but they are also not working. The economy is flatlining, unemployment is rising, and growth has stalled.
Due to the Coalition’s failed economic policy they will have to borrow £150 billion more than planned while the public continue to suffer the biggest attack on their standard of living for a generation.
Instead of cutting the top rate of tax for millionaires and the richest in society, the Government could have chosen to stop the Tax Credit cuts hurting millions of hard working families.
After George Osborne’s budget for millionaires, and not the millions, is it any wonder that the Chancellor can no longer bring himself to say – “We are all is this together”
Labour’s NHS Party Election Broadcast
Blog / April 11, 2012 / Comment now
Click here to watch Labour’s latest Party Political Broadcast with Professor Robert Winston
Labour sets out key health pledges for local elections
Blog / April 11, 2012 / Comment now
May’s local elections are fast approaching and Labour has now set out five key pledges to protect the NHS in local government, meaning that a vote for Labour is a vote for the NHS. In complete contrast a vote for either the Liberal Democrats or Conservatives will see their damaging reforms gather pace at a local level.
Whilst the Health Bill may have completed its passage through Parliament, the fight by health professionals and the public to protect the NHS on the ground is only just beginning.
Only by electing Labour representatives at a community level is there any hope of challenging the sustained attack on the NHS by David Cameron.
Labour’s five pledges set out a realistic way in which we can protect the NHS at a local level. Labour mayors and councillors will be champions for patients and defenders of NHS values.
Labour at a local level will protect the NHS in the following ways:
1. Protecting an NHS that is free for all, resisting the encroachment of charges and unwarranted restrictions based on lifestyle choices.
2. Preventing a postcode lottery. Patients in some areas are already being denied routine treatments, such as for varicose veins, that are available on the NHS elsewhere.
3. Maintaining Labour’s waiting standards for cancer care, operations and in A&E. Since the election there’s been a 25% rise in people who waited longer than 18 weeks for operations.
4. Promoting collaboration over competition, preventing the market from destabilising valued NHS services. Labour will call for a “one NHS” approach in every community.
5. Putting patients before profits. There are already signs that financial incentives may mean NHS patients get sub-optimal care. Labour will always be vigilant in protecting patient choice and preventing profiteering.
The more mayors and councils we have after May 3, the stronger that last line of defence in your community.
A vote for Labour in May’s elections is a vote for the NHS.
