There are a number of reasons to be suspicious, if not highly alarmed, of the motives that underlie this most significant constitutional change to our National Health Service. The Coalition Agreement published following days of negotiations between the Tory high command and their soon-to-be Liberal Democrat partners declared their commitment to “stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care”. The document did also fleetingly mention enabling GPs “to commission care” on behalf of their patients, however the role of the primary care trust (PCT) seemed safe and there was even talk of directly elected individuals sitting on the board of the local primary care trust (PCT). In his evidence to the Health Select Committee the Secretary of State said that it was not his intention “immediately before the Election or in the Coalition Programme” to abolish primary care trusts due to the invention of GP-led Commissioning, however this was the unintended consequence of these NHS reforms.

At the heart of his reforms, Andrew Lansley’s rhetoric is a determination to “entrench that sense of greater ownership on the part of patients”. How this ideal can be met by these sweeping fundamental reforms to commissioning is indeed dubious and raises some serious questions about the real effect of the Tory-led Coalition’s proposals to our National Health Service.

Any fundamental reform to the operating of the National Health Service will cost money and this cannot be the time to implement uncosted and unpiloted ideas thought up in Tory Head Office. The coalition’s commitment to cut NHS administration by one-third can only be at odds with another major top-down reform. There is also the issue of how the coalition’s commitment to increased democratic participation in the NHS can be met, now that they are abolishing the PCTs on which their directly elected board members were to sit.

It must be considered why the Secretary of State for Health would look to GPs to take control of the largest slice of the NHS budget. It is in the main agreed, even by the proponents of GP-led Commissioning, that GPs (although on the frontline of healthcare) do not possess the expertise to commission health services and would therefore need to build their own bureaucracy in order to fulfil their requirements. Some have suggested that many staff will drift from the abolished primary care trusts straight into GP Consortia in order to administer the new commissioning groups. Indeed, if the 151 PCTs in England were to be replaced by around 500 GP Consortia then it would be fair to suggest that the overall administration and commissioning costs to the NHS would increase; a larger number of commissioning groups would lead to unnecessary duplication of administration and to higher costs due to commissioning for smaller population groups. Of course speculation such as this is only necessary due to the complete lack of measured research and any attempt to pilot this scheme by the government.

Therefore the decision to utilise GPs for the commissioning of health services is not clear. However, it is worth considering the role of GPs in, or should that be outside of, the NHS if we are to truly understand the significance of coalition health reforms. Although the vast majority of GPs will earn most of their money from the National Health Service, they are effectively independent businesses with loose contractual arrangements with the NHS. Therefore, on the face of it, this government is handing billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money straight out of the NHS bank account into the hands of private organisations that will decide what services to provide for patients. Coupled with other coalition plans such as pushing NHS hospitals outside of the NHS into the private sector, health provision in the UK will be a lucrative business for any international company to move into with billions of pounds now in the hands of naive private GP-led consortiums seeking low cost health solutions in a private market that will dominate due to these reforms. Foundation Trusts will be re-classified and will not appear on the government’s books. What will be left of our NHS at the end of this £80 billion gamble is sure to look very different to what we have now.

Tory Health Ministers and there close links to private health companies were highlighted in the press prior to the general election and now their fundamental restructuring of the NHS will create a vibrant private market for such companies. Under their new system, with hospitals working outside of the NHS, every hospital will be free to dedicate as much time as it wants to private patients with the cap on what a trust can earn from private work removed. In addition, the removal of national waiting time guarantees alongside the brutal market-led environment being created, private patients will once again have a natural precedence in our healthcare system.

How our NHS cares for those with more specific healthcare needs, such as those with  mental health problems, will once again become a postcode lottery. Whether you wait 8 weeks or 8 months for an operation with again be a matter of luck and not a guarantee or a patient right. All in all, the NHS that we know and rely on now will not remain as the British institution that Labour has made it over the last decade. It will be an NHS that works for the private sector and for profit. Patient care will once again take a backward step.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is a charity. It does not carry out consultancy work; it isn’t part of a university or funded by a few politically partial donors. It is for this reason that the rebuttal of Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg – who wrote off the IFS’s conclusions as “partial” – now cement ‘Cleggy’ as no more than the chief PR man to the most right-wing Tory government since Thatcher.   

George Osborne labelled his Budget with the terms: responsibility, freedom and fairness. His Budget speech said that “everyone will be asked to contribute” and “everyone will share in the rewards”.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that tax and benefit changes between June 2010 and April 2014 will cost the poorest 10% of households £422.83 yet those earning at the top end will be only £339.12 worse off. This Budget is not asking people to pay their ‘fair share’, but asking the poorest in society to pay for the mistakes of the richest. In percentage terms, the poorest 10% will lose 5% of their income, whilst the richest 10% will lose less than 1% of their income.

The IFS report goes as far to say:

“Our analysis shows that the overall effect of the new reforms announced in the June 2010 budget is regressive, whereas the tax and benefit reforms announced by the previous government for introduction between June 2010 and April 2014 are progressive”. From this analysis it clear to see why Nick Clegg felt the conclusions of the report were partial; however the Institute for Fiscal Studies is not making a value judgement between Labour’s Budget and the Con-Dem Budget, it is rather stating the economic impact of one Budget against the other.

The Treasury’s response was to claim that the IFS had ignored “budget measures such as helping households move from benefits into work, and reductions in corporation tax”. This line of argument is a shocking throwback to the failed Tory economic ideology of the 1980s. It is the flawed belief that wealth will ‘trickledown’ to the poorest if only government can reduce the amount of tax big business pays. It is also laughable that the Con-Dem Budget contained measures to help people off benefits and into work. Britain is now facing record graduate unemployment, hundreds of thousands of public sector job losses, and support for industry – such as the Sheffield Forgemasters in Nick Clegg’s own constituency – wiped out. Burgeoning unemployment as a direct effect of this Budget will put the economic recovery at risk and resulting benefit payments will negate any increased tax revenue or economic growth.

It is worth remembering that David Cameron’s Conservatives – with the full backing of the right-wing press, millions of pounds of Ashcroft money and a Labour Party considered to be in disarray – failed to win a majority of seats and could only muster 36.1% of the vote. However, the Tories have been able to implement their smorgasbord of true-blue regressive policies courtesy of a Liberal Democrat party that actually lost 5 seats in the House of Commons in the General Election.

The Labour Party is at present considering its political lexicon in response to the Tory and Liberal Democrat coalition. Labour strategists are pondering the possible political advantage of Lib Dem attacks or Tory bashing. How we decide to rebuke each of the two parties will be crucial to our revival and future electoral success. Shying away from attacking the Lib Dems that are propping up the Tories in power and voting through each and every policy is misguided. As is a full-blown Lib Dem offensive which pays little heed to the Tory gang masters.

Instead, we must look at the short game and the long game. The Con-Dem Coalition is only in its infancy with the consequences of cuts yet to be felt in earnest. However, it is already plain to see cracks emerging in a growing number of Lib Dem MPs feeling ever more uncomfortable as the lobby-fodder for Tory policies. I know that my constituents do not want to see the effect of five whole years of Tory policies in a community only beginning to recover from the decimation caused by Thatcher.

Therefore we have to consider how best we can pull apart this marriage of injustice otherwise we will be letting down those people who voted for Labour’s progressive policies and neglecting our duty of Opposition. Many Liberal Democrats have taken solace in the promise of reform of the voting system. I have never been convinced by the merits of the Alternative Vote or for that matter Proportional Representation. I know that there will be many in the Labour Party who do believe in voting reform, however it cannot be the right time or the right circumstances now to work with this Lib Dem coalition partner to their own end. The greater need is the need of those people who we seek to represent that will lose so much if we fail to stop the regressive policies of this Con-Dem Coalition.

I want to see the Labour Party under its next Leader take the fight to the junior partner of this government and show itself to be a strong committed opposition fighting tirelessly in parliament for the most vulnerable in society. Every effort must be made to destabilise this government and pull it apart at the seams. Pressure must be put on each and every Liberal Democrat MP in their constituencies and they must be made to face up to the real life impact of the policies they are supporting. Pressure must be applied in parliament where the Labour Whips can ensure we organise a gruelling schedule of late-night sittings when it is possible to do so – for instance on issues of constitutional reform. And a newly invigorated Shadow Cabinet that will face down the Con-Dem coalition from morning ‘til night on television and in the press.

If five years do pass and this coalition still remains then its regressive policies will have made an indelible mark on society. At this point we would face a General Election and our strategy would be determined by how best to beat a heavily discredited government. For now, we must fight with optimism to prevent the destruction of our communities and the destruction of our young people’s future by tearing down this marriage of injustice.

Grahame Morris MP speaking in the Westminster Hall Debate on The Future of Hospital Services in the North East

To read the full debate on the Future of Hospital Services in the North East please follow the link below:

Westminster Hall, 2.30pm Tuesday 27th July 2010.

As several of my colleagues have said, to represent the people of your home constituency-in my case, Easington-is a great privilege. It is all the more special for me as I represent the constituency in which I was born and where I have lived, brought up my family and worked all my life. As hon. Members may be aware-or perhaps not-Easington has an illustrious list of former Members of Parliament and a proud tradition of trade union and Labour party representation. The area that I now represent has returned Labour Members of Parliament since 1921, when the great socialist Sidney Webb was first elected. He was a leading member of the Fabian Society, one of the founders of the London School of Economics, and author of the Labour party’s original clause IV.

Labour’s Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald was one of my predecessors. The House would do well to take note of his experience of peacetime coalition Government. When he split with the Labour party, his 1931 coalition leading the Tory and Liberal Democrat-sorry, I mean Tory and Liberal-parties, with an agenda of severe cuts in public spending, was opposed by the Labour Party. At that time the Labour Opposition developed a progressive socialist alternative and opposed the cuts that were to hurt ordinary working people and the unemployed. The following election saw Labour gain 102 seats, and the election after that was a Labour landslide.

The eminent Manny Shinwell served the people of Easington for more than 35 years. As Minister for fuel and power he achieved the nationalisation of the coal industry in 1947. It is recorded in Hansard that following angry exchanges in this House, Shinwell crossed the Floor, not in the usual fashion, but instead to strike a blow at the face of a Conservative MP. More recently, the popular Jack Dormond represented his local seat of Easington and served as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party for several years.

However, it is my direct predecessor John Cummings about whom I can talk without reference to history books or the parliamentary archives. Like me, John was born in Murton, a small village in Easington, and he worked in the coalmines from the age of 15. He was a political activist in the Durham Colliery Mechanics Association and the Labour party. He was later elected to the Easington district council and became its leader. In 1987, he was elected to this House and he has served the people of Easington with passion and diligence for 23 years. Indeed, I had the privilege of working for John and witnessing his extraordinary commitment on behalf of the people of Easington during his 23 years of public service. The whole House can be proud to serve in a democracy where a boy who went down the pit aged 15 could rise up to serve as a distinguished Member of this House. John is a friend who has been an inspiration to me, and I wish him well in his retirement.

Easington consists of a series of small villages and the larger towns of Peterlee and Seaham. It has natural beauty in abundance. Our east Durham heritage coast is an undiscovered masterpiece which enticed Lord Byron and Lewis Carroll to the area two centuries ago. The communities of Easington are former coal mining communities. The House should understand the importance of this proud history but also the lasting legacy of coal mining. Easington’s pits produced the nation’s wealth, its communities were created and built around a life in coal mining. Areas like Easington were a microcosm of the welfare state before any national Government had the foresight to implement it. Part of Easington’s proud tradition was its self-reliance and its widespread socialised community provision, which included socialised medicine, health care, pensioner housing and even funeral arrangements.

The lasting legacy of coal mining in Easington, however, is tarnished by the joblessness and economic activity that followed the reckless actions of previous Tory Administrations. Easington has prospered and seen significant improvements over the past decade, but more recently it has been at the forefront of job losses and economic decline, due to the global financial crisis and recession, which is why the successes of Caterpillar in Peterlee and the automotive industry-directly related to the success of Nissan in Sunderland-are so important.

The achievements of the last Labour Government are exemplified by the physical regeneration of large parts of Easington and the laying of the foundations for economic revival. Our new restaurants, cafes and retail outlets, such as Dalton Park-the biggest outlet shopping centre in the north-east-have brought jobs and a new dynamism to east Durham, its surrounding areas and the whole of the north-east. We have new Sure Start centres, new primary schools, such as Trinity primary school in Seaham, and new secondary school buildings, such as Shotton Hall community school. They have given hope, optimism and a sense of purpose to the people of Easington, especially young people.

Most of all, the last Labour Government protected the elderly people of Easington. The winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments stopped pensioners having to choose between heating and eating; a rising state pension, the pensioner guarantee and help with paying council tax gave them financial security; and the free bus pass gave them their independence. Easington, in its transition from its coal mining legacy, was always going to need the support of the Government to assist in building a new economic infrastructure. It is a shame that the people of Easington had to wait until 1997 for that support to come, when a generation had already been lost to unemployment and ill health. However, significant progress has been made and the face of Easington is changing.

I have been elected to serve the people of Easington at a time when the coalition Government have committed to cut spending, to cut the support to business through the regional development agencies, to cut support for jobs through the future jobs fund and to cut support for education by jeopardising the flagship Building Schools for the Future programme and through unidentified cuts to the education budget. The work of the RDA, One NorthEast, which was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North and for Sunderland Central, has been pivotal in encouraging new businesses and jobs, not only in Sunderland and Newcastle but in areas such as Easington.

The House has only to look at GT Group in Peterlee, in my constituency-a cutting-edge manufacturing company specialising in environmental engineering-which, with the support of One NorthEast, has safeguarded 200 jobs and guaranteed 200 new jobs. That is not just my perception. In the words of GT Group managing director, Geoff Turnbull, “The major investment programme” in GT Group

“would have been very difficult without the assistance of One North East and Durham County Council, both of which have shown a real commitment to ensuring our business has the support it requires to be a pioneer in this important technology.”

I hope this coalition Government will consider seriously the policies of the previous Labour Government, which harnessed the resources of the state to encourage the creation of new businesses and the expansion of businesses such as GT Group.

The European consensus on renewables, green technology and combating climate change, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), the shadow Foreign Secretary, is a prime example of the need for co-ordinated Government policies that cultivate a positive response from private business in these sectors. One NorthEast was created by the previous Government and was funded to deliver its ambitious plans for regeneration. We now understand that it faces cuts of up to 40%, which will effectively cut the legs from beneath it. We have also lost our north-east Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who provided leadership and a coherent strategy across a range of issues in our region, not least in his support for the Centre for Creative Excellence south of Seaham.

I am most grateful to you for permitting me to make my maiden speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am most thankful to the House for its courtesy and attention. I look forward to more robust exchanges in future and to many more opportunities to represent the views and interests of my constituents in this Chamber.”

Tara Saville, Liberal Democrat, 5,597

Richard Harrison, Conservative, 4,790

Cheryl Dunn, BNP, 2,317

Martyn Aiken, UKIP, 1631

Turnout 34,914

Here in Seaham, the achievements of the last decade can be clearly seen. From the huge investment in our coastline, designated a heritage coast in 2001, to the new restaurants and cafes, Surestart centres and the new Trinity Primary School, Seaham shows how with significant investment and the hard work of local agencies, councillors and residents we can regenerate our communities and build a vibrant local economy to create new jobs and improve our people’s quality of life. Anyone with eyes to see can appreciate what we – with Labour in government – have been able to achieve in Seaham.

Through the significant public investment of the last decade we have seen Seaham beach entirely restored with the Turning the Tide project winning the Outstanding Achievement in Regeneration award in 2002 at the annual Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Seaham Hall is now a five-star luxury hotel and spa and we have a new shopping centre in Byron Place.  We also have a growing artists’ community based on the Seafront – a great organisation called the East Durham Artists Network.

It has even been written by one journalist – in last weekend’s Independent on Sunday – after visiting Seaham and having a smoothie in Lickety Splits that “There’s nowt grim about taking a break up north”. Londoners flocking to Seaham may be an unexpected outcome of our regeneration, but a growing tourism market is something we should embrace as a driver for employment and new business. Through our regeneration projects the charms of our surroundings are being rediscovered and we’re not going to be able to keep them secret for very long. We can be proud of Seaham’s history and the natural beauty which enticed Lord Byron and Lewis Carroll here two centuries ago.

The regeneration of Seaham has allowed us to meet the challenges of the global economic recession and as we move forward we are well placed – with new housing developments, a strong infrastructure for business and new jobs and public services in the community to provide for our residents. During my lifetime I’ve seen our coastline change dramatically and when I drive along the seafront it’s impossible not be impressed by the natural beauty and the new cafes and restaurants. I think we could give any seaside town on the south coast a run for its money and I expect to reading about Seaham in many more travel brochures in the years to come – something that would have been unimaginable only a decade ago.

Across Easington we can also take pride in work that is already underway in our health services and educational institutions. Because providing a better standard of living for our residents must remain a key priority here. The new state of the art acute hospital at Wynyard will provide single room accommodation giving people access to the highest possible standards of health care, previously only available to a privileged few. Construction work is well advanced on the new Shotton Hall Community School – a prestigious new twenty million pound development – which is the first of six secondary schools in Easington being rebuilt through the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative.

Those of you who know me will know that I am fiercely proud of the communities where I’ve lived all of my life. I could not be prouder than having the opportunity to fight this General Election in Easington and – with the support of local people – to fight for the needs of ordinary people in Parliament. Therefore, I hope you will forgive me if – just for a moment – I am mildly political.

As we move out of recession we require policies that are ambitious but affordable. I am fighting this election on Labour’s manifesto that will secure the economic recovery, renew our society through improved public services and restore trust in politics through greater transparency and accountability.

What this means is important:

• New industries and good jobs in the North East supported by government in the low carbon and renewable technology sectors
• Further improving hospitals and schools as like those in Easington I mentioned a minute ago
• And elected representatives that work transparently and that can be held to account by the public

On the economy – Labour’s £1 billion Future Jobs Fund is providing funding and practical support to encourage business, the public sector and charities to create new and meaningful job opportunities. Durham County Council has recently announced 50 new job opportunities through this scheme – improving their services to the community and giving paid work to young people. Labour has guaranteed young people between 18 and 25 a job, training or work experience after 6 months unemployed.

On public Services – Labour has invested significantly over the past 13 years. Our NHS budget has tripled and people working in the public sector have seen wage rises above anything that could be imagined under the Tories. Of course, the media and Labour’s political opponents will try to tell people that nothing has improved in the last decade.

And on reforming politics – it is Labour that has been the most constitutionally radical government in our history and I personally would ensure that my costs are transparent and that I am accountable to local people.

I want to see Seaham continue to thrive. The return of the Seaham lifeboat George Elmy has restored a part of history to this town. The links between our history and our future must always be appreciated. Just last night lifeboats were sent out after a man was missing following kayaking in Seaham harbor. Unfortunately there has been no good news as of yet. But we all feel something when events like this happen and hope for the best. We also remember and reflect on absent friends who have joined us in past years. 

The work that the East Durham Heritage Group has done in bringing the George Elmy home must be congratulated. Projects like this remind us of our history, a proud history, but also how dramatically things have changed. The camaraderie and closeness of our communities is one thing I remember growing up in Easington, and we must draw on these strengths in order to build a better future for us all. Seaham really is a great example of how working together with the support of government we change things for the better.

Over the last 13 years there has been significant investment across East Durham. The Tory leader does not seem to understand that much of the investment here has been focused on encouraging new trade and business in order to create jobs and ensure a more vibrant local economy. The North East Regional Development Agency, One North East, would have an uncertain future if the Tories were elected. One North East has been central to creating the right conditions for new businesses that are looking to move into the region such as the new Film Production Facility south of Seaham and the expansion of the GT Group in Peterlee, which is creating 200 new jobs over the next few years. Without  government support over the last decade many new industries would not have considered the North East as a base. Just like the 1980s the Tories would be happier to see terminal decline in the regions outside of London and would do nothing to support ordinary people.

Labour’s Liam Byrne, the Chief  Secretary to the Treasury, said:

“Alarmingly for regions outside London [David Cameron] claimed investment in the regions like the North- East was unsustainable, while at the same time saying that tax cuts for millionaires were sustainable.

Employment figures published earlier this week show just how vital it is to keep up support for jobs and the economy this year until the recovery is secure. To withdraw this support would threaten the recovery and put jobs, especially in the North East, at risk. It is vital that we continue to support the economy now. To follow the Tory plan and withdraw support would threaten the recovery and put the economy and jobs at risk. The most recent unemployment figures show a rise of 43,000 in the ILO measure of overall unemployment in the quarter to February, after falls in previous months, confirming Labour’s argument that it is too soon to cut support for jobs and the economy. The March figures for the numbers on unemployment benefit fell by 33,000 – the third consecutive drop – and the claimant count is now 84,000 lower than the peak in October last year.

The youth claimant count for March fell by 12,200 – the fifth consecutive month in a row, and the number of young people unemployed more than 6 months also fell – showing that Labour’s youth guarantee is making a difference. Whereas in the past a generation was lost to unemployment without any support from government, Labour is committed to giving young people skills, work experience and paid employment opportunities during the difficult economic times to ensure they best placed to find good jobs in the future.

There remain some notable critics of Home Information Packs who, even when faced with the evidence, have refused to change their positions and support these new protections. It is not surprising that the Tories have remained staunch in their opposition. Together with the right-wing reactionary tabloid press, they have ignored the professional advice of industry experts about the benefits and protections that HIPs offer to both the buyer and the seller.

The far more ludicrous claim that HIPs are a burdensome cost is simply beggars belief. The cost of having a HIP carried out has continually fallen as suppliers have adapted to demand and the process has been streamlined and made more efficient. Home Information Packs will normally cost the seller between £200 and £300 and actually provide the buyer with essential information about a property before the need to commit to a sale. Furthermore, the HIP is made up of a collection of the legal documents required at the conveyancing stage of buying a home. The provision of these documents through the mechanism of the HIP, rather than having lawyers ordering the documents and charging clients for their time, has reduced the cost by 40%.

EPCs are provided as part of the HIP and have served to inform consumers about the energy efficiency of their properties, and what they can do to improve it. Recent research from the National Energy Services has shown that 68% of buyers have acted on recommendations contained in the HIP to improve the energy efficiency of their property, enabling them to reduce their bills as well as carbon emissions. The Conservatives say that they would keep the EPC, because they recognise its effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions. In reality, it would be impossible to deliver the EPC effectively without the HIP. 

Although the Tory arguments against the HIP are deeply flawed they often resonate with those who have not been through the process of selling their home or buying a new property. One Tory claim is that the HIP is restricting the supply of properties to the market. This ludicrous claim suggests that someone seriously intending to sell their home would be put off by the £200-£300 cost of a HIP. In fact there are a range of no-sale, no-fee or deferred payment schemes available. Another Tory claim is that the HIP is pointless, as lawyers commission their own searches. In fact, recent research conducted by the Property Codes Compliance Board has proven that the searches in the HIP are identical to those ordered by lawyers, and so re-ordering is completely unnecessary. Therefore the HIP often actually allows the completion of property transactions seven days faster, with every extra day saving buyers and sellers money.

To ensure that Labour’s safeguards and protections for property buyers remain in place it is important that the misleading claims that are being peddled by the Tory opposition are exposed. Scrapping HIPs would be a step backwards and would leave buyers and sellers in the dark during the biggest financial commitment of their lives. The populist Tory promise to scrap the HIP would take several months to implement and would certainly stifle the market at a particularly fragile time.

The current market situation in the pub and brewing industry is one that sees the four largest global brewers controlling over 80% of the market. This market dominance allows large pub companies to operate a “beer tie” that forces pubs to buy from a limited range of beer at prices inflated by up to 40%. Although the closure of pubs in the UK is often blamed on government and the taxation of alcohol it is clear that the industry itself could do a lot more to make the pub trade fairer for licensees and consumers and give pubs a better chance of survival during difficult economic times.

However, CAMRA’s Charter does also set out how government can make the system fairer for responsible community pubs. I would like to see a tax system that differentiated between the community pubs that promote responsible drinking such as those in Easington and the so called ‘super-pubs’ often a feature of town or city centres that offer cheap booze and encourage binge drinking. Furthermore, I want to see an end to supermarkets selling alcohol as a ‘loss-leader’ to encourage shoppers through the door, where the supermarket actually sells alcohol at a loss. Such practices leave little chance for fair competition between the pub trade and shops.

The Labour Party Manifesto contains a number of pledges in relation to protecting the pub trade. CAMRA has recognised that Labour’s commitments have the potential to create a freer UK pub market with a competitive environment which would benefit consumers. The government needs to take action to improve the range of beer and quality pubs in our communities through fairer competition rules. Action on this front will assist the industry in creating a fairer market place and lower prices for consumers.

I was born and raised in this constituency and have lived here all of my life. I understand that good quality pubs and social clubs play an important role at the heart of our communities. Responsible pubs allow people of all ages to socialise, enjoy good quality low alcoholic drinks responsibly and are often a place for vulnerable and older residents to relax and meet friends. It is clear to me from talking to constituents like those in Old Shotton, who are concerned about the impact of the closure of the George on the outskirts of Peterlee, that many pubs are a social hub especially for smaller more isolated communities. 

The Labour Party has recognised that too many pubs owned by pub holding companies have closed that could have been sustained by local people. Therefore in our manifesto we have set out plans to support pubs to stay open through community ownership in 2010-11 and by promoting the use of community shares that support investment in pubs. Labour is committed to protecting “the places where people come together” through practical solutions such as making it much more difficult to demolish pubs or change their use. There are further commitments to stop pub companies placing restrictions on property sales. The next Labour government would also make it easier for pubs to provide related services such as music and entertainment without the need for separate licenses.

Labour has also pledged to change the beer-tie practice, mentioned above, which is commonly used by the large pub companies to extort from hardworking licensees. Labour is committed to act if the industry fails to make progress on this issue. Labour’s recent appointment of a Pubs Minister John Healey illustrates how saving the local pub has moved up the political agenda.

Grahame Morris with Terry Jones, Vice Chair of Peterlee PubWatch

It is also important that our local pubs and clubs are safe places where people can have confidence that they can enjoy an evening without fear of violence or inappropriate drunken or anti-social behaviour. I am a keen supporter of our local PubWatch and have attended a number of local meetings in Peterlee. The system operates in practice in East Durham where landlords can come together on a regular basis with the police and local authority. These meetings allow landlords to exchange information between one another and local agencies and where troublemakers can be identified, the Watch can vote to exclude them from all the pubs in the area for a time limited period or indefinitely.

Reversing the number of pub closures will require a range of measures at the international, national and local level and as Labour has recognised we need action to be taken by government, by the brewing and pub industry itself and by individuals and communities at a local level. Only by working together can the multitude of difficulties facing pubs be overcome. As a staunch defender of the community spirit and social life that is exemplified by all our quality pubs in East Durham and around the country I am pleased to be standing on Labour’s manifesto that will give real support to the pub trade.