Blog
« Older Entries Newer Entries »Budget 2012 – Out of touch Tory policies are hurting but not working
Blog / April 3, 2012 / Comment now
LABOUR ACTION TO TACKLE THE CRISIS OF LIVING STANDARDS
These are tough times, but the out of touch Tories are making them even tougher with policies that are hurting but not working.
Labour is determined to stand up for you and your family, by showing that even when there is less money around we can make a difference. This week, Ed Miliband launched our action plan for family budgets, with 5 ways to ease the squeeze on living standards that could happen now without any extra spending:
1. Stop the Government’s raid on pensioners and block its £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires
2. End rail rip-offs by capping fares increases on every route
3. Force the energy firms to cut gas and electricity bills for 4 million over-75s
4. Stop excessive fees charged by banks and low cost airlines
5. Defend working families from the raid on their tax credits by reversing the Government’s pension tax break for those earning over £150,000
THE TORIES ARE OUT OF TOUCH ON THE COST OF LIVING
The Tories’ £3.3 billion “Granny tax” raid on pensioners means nearly four and a half million pensioners lose an average of £83 a year next April. And people turning 65 next year are hit particularly unfairly, losing up to £323.
George Osborne’s “pasty tax” is symbolic of a Government which has got its priorities mixed up – it will add 20 per cent VAT to pasties, pies and other hot food, hitting ordinary families and impacting on jobs and businesses such as Greggs. The detail of their policy also looks unworkable with tax rates dependent on how hot a pasty is. The Tories should put these changes on hold and think again.
TORIES SELLING DINNERS WITH DAVID CAMERON TO FAT-CAT DONORS
Tory Co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas was caught red-handed trying to sell cosy dinners at 10 Downing Street with David Cameron for £250,000. The Tories have admitted that rich donors who have given more than £23 million to the Party have had secret hospitality at Number Ten and Chequers.
In the Budget David Cameron gave millionaires just what they asked for – a £40,000 tax cut – while pensioners get hit with a “granny tax” and families get squeezed. We need a government that works for everyone, not just for people who hand over millions to the Tories.
Speech on the Publication of the Transition Risk Register of the Health and Social Care Bill
Blog / March 28, 2012 / Comment now
Grahame M. Morris: I have got out of my sick bed to be here today, because this is a vital debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in it. I often feel that these debates are a bit like the siege of Stalingrad: we are rolling back the forces of oppression. I content myself, with my cough and sore throat, that at least the red army was victorious on that occasion.
In response to the point that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who chairs the Health Committee, made about the ruling by the Information Commissioner, I think we should reflect on the fact that it was indeed a ruling. It was not advice that he was giving. Mr Christopher Graham has some expertise in this field, and although the detailed reasons have not been published, the arguments that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the co-applicants from the Evening Standard—that it was in the public interest to publish the risk register—were obviously accepted.
If I may, I would like to remind the House of what the Information Commissioner said, which was upheld on appeal. Mr Graham said:
“Disclosure would significantly aid public understanding of risks related to the proposed reforms and it would also inform participation in the debate about the reforms”.
Earlier on, Government Members were shouting “Frit!” at Labour Members. I really did not understand what that meant—I am just a simple working-class lad from Easington—but I now understand that it means “You’re afraid”. However, if the Government have complete confidence in the direction of their reforms, surely it is they who are afraid, because they should have the confidence to publish the document.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): It is beyond doubt that the Information Commissioner considered all these matters before reaching his decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the risk assessment had supported the Government’s case, the Government would have got it out like a shot? That they have not done so exposes the fact that they are playing fast and loose with one of the nation’s most treasured institutions, and that they are trying to hide that.
Grahame M. Morris: Absolutely; good point, well made. If the Government had nothing to hide and were not concerned, they would have published the contents of the risk register. We have had a flavour of the contents of the other risk registers that have been compiled at strategic and other levels, and I believe that the Government are concerned about them.
We know that the Bill will increase the risks to the national health service. Indeed, the chief executive of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, told the Health Select Committee, of which I am a member:
“I’ll not sit here and tell you that the risks have not gone up. They have. The risks of delivering the totality of the productivity savings,”—
that is, the Nicholson challenge; the £20 billion—
“the efficiency savings that we need over the next four years have gone up because of the big changes that are going on in the NHS as whole.”
It is clear that local and national risk registers, as well as the strategic risk registers to which we have had access, have highlighted serious concerns with patient safety, increased costs, the break-up of care pathways—which we have seen on Health Select Committee visits—as well as competition harming integration, about which the Committee was very concerned, and the specific risks during the transition stage.
John Healey: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that, in that session on 23 November 2010, Sir David Nicholson stated that the scale of the proposed change was enormous, and that it was beyond anything that anyone in the public or private sector had witnessed? That is why the risks involved in the reorganisation are so great, as is the imperative for the House and the public to know about them.
Grahame M. Morris: Absolutely; I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. These are huge structural changes to a beloved organisation, and it is in the public interest that we know precisely what is in the transition risk register.
A little while ago, I tabled early-day motion 2659, which called on the Health Secretary
“to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill reforms in advance of Report Stage in the House of Lords”,
so that we could have proper scrutiny in the Lords and in the House of Commons. We have not seen what is in the transition risk register, but we are aware of the existence of other risk registers. While the Health Secretary has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the publication of the transition risk register and, in the process, hiding the risks to the NHS in England, other NHS bodies and clinical groups have been compiling their own risk registers into the impact of the Health and Social Care Bill.
One such body is the Faculty of Public Health, the body for specialists in public health, which is a joint faculty of the three Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to Professor Clare Bambra, from the north-east, and Professor John Ashton, from the north-west, for providing this information. In a letter to The Independent newspaper, Professor Lindsey Davies, the president of the Faculty of Public Health, outlined his concerns about the pressure that clinicians were now under from their employers for criticising the Government’s plans to reform the NHS. He wrote:
“Public health professionals have the right and duty to speak out on issues which they perceive as threatening the health of the population they serve”.
The bunker mentality of the Health Secretary, and his determination to silence clinical and public opposition, have astounded the country as a whole.
In response to the Department of Health’s refusal to publish its own strategic risk assessment of the impact of the Bill, the Faculty of Public Health has undertaken its own study, in which it has highlighted a number of significant risks, not least the potential for a postcode lottery. It states:
“Clinical Commissioning Group flexibility to determine services will lead to an increase in geographical variation in service provision.”
It identifies the possibility of costs being pushed up, and states that the
“development of more overt market mechanisms, and the greater role for the independent sector in the provision of healthcare is likely to increase the overall cost of providing healthcare.”
It also raises concerns about issues of quality as a consequence of the reforms. If the transition risk register indicates that, we should know about it.
The delaying tactics employed by the Secretary of State are, to my mind, holding Parliament in contempt. He should publish and employ no further delaying tactics. Reports that Tory-Lib Dem Cabinet members banged their Cabinet table in delight and glee at the prospect of the health Bill finally being rammed through and becoming law at the end of today leave a very sour taste in the mouth. I urge all Members to support this motion and get the risk register published.
Speech: CPI/RPI pensions uprating
Blog / March 2, 2012 / Comment now
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us this opportunity, which has arisen out of an e-petition signed by in excess of 100,000 people.
I have also received many representations from constituents, in letter, in person and by e-mail petition, so I should like to make some points in the debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I shall try not to repeat those points that Members on both sides of the House have already made.
There has been a decision to change the index that is used to increase state pensions, public sector pensions and, indeed, large aspects of private sector pensions. In an earlier intervention, the Minister said that the change would not affect private pensions that already have RPI in their terms, but certain private pensions that have a statutory link will be affected, so perhaps he will clarify that point in his final remarks.
My concern—this is based anecdotally on evidence that constituents have presented to me in letter form and in person—is that some members of public service pension schemes might lose up to 25% of their pensions. It is difficult, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, to understand the complexities of RPI against CPI, but my fairly simplistic view is based on what is the bottom line for the people who are affected. I am concerned that many of my constituents, who are not well-paid public sector pensioners, will be adversely affected by the change.
To reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman made from the Conservative Benches, I note that it seems that the Office for Budget Responsibility underestimated the gap between RPI and CPI by about 100%. When the OBR made its forecast, it said that the difference would be about 0.7%, but it has turned out to be nearer 1.4%. In other words, the switch could cost pensioners in Easington and, indeed, throughout the country, many thousands or even tens of thousands of pounds over their retirement.
I do not believe that it is disputed that the change will save the Treasury and employers with private sector pension schemes billions of pounds, at the expense of those saving for their retirement. In an earlier intervention, I raised an issue that was raised with me by the GMB trade union, which suggests that we look at a bespoke pensions index that might more accurately reflect the cost of living faced by pensioners. When I read the suggestion, I thought that we should look at it a little further, given the controversy raging about which is the correct measure, but in response to an earlier point I must say that the previous Government used CPI as a comparator. I stand to be corrected if need be, but the traditional index that we have used in this country since the 1940s has always been RPI. The previous Government introduced CPI not for pensions but because the measure was used in the European Union and was more readily understood when used as a comparator across other EU states. I would never advocate applying it for the purposes of pension calculation.
Katy Clark: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. Does he agree that the British economy and, particularly, British housing costs have traditionally operated in a different way from those of many other parts of Europe? That is one reason why the retail prices index might be a better way of doing things—as other European economies work in a different way.
Grahame M. Morris: Absolutely; that is a very good point well made. I am certainly aware, from visits to Germany and elsewhere, that there is a much larger private rental sector in Europe, so it is quite right that we retain RPI as it takes account of mortgage costs, which are a significant factor for many people.
I support the motion because the change from RPI to CPI means that many people, both those already retired and those yet to retire, will receive less than they were led to expect. As my hon. Friend said in her speech, many of those people have made long-term decisions about their income in retirement, such as to pay off mortgages and other commitments, based on the fact that they would receive a pension that was linked to RPI. Retrospection is unfair, and the House should call on the Government to reintroduce the RPI measure immediately. For a typical firefighter on a full pension this year, the actual cost over 20 years of retirement is between £25,000 and £52,000—that was confirmed in a survey that was carried out by the Fire Brigades Union—and that is because the Government have imposed this measure. I emphasise that these changes have been imposed without any consultation.
The argument that CPI is a more appropriate measure for how pensions should be paid is false. Indeed, all three of the judges in a test case brought by the FBU stated that the move to CPI is merely to do with the desire to force through budget cuts. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Government Members are suggesting that it is not about deficit reduction, but it is certainly about budget cuts and placing the burden of those cuts unfairly and unjustly on to pensioners.
Katy Clark: On my hon. Friend’s point about the effect on individuals, he will be aware that one of the other changes proposed for many public sector pension schemes is to increase the contribution—the payment—that the individual makes while reducing the percentage that the employer pays. Does he agree that that, combined with the RPI/CPI change, means that employers will be paying less as their part of the contribution towards the pension while the employee is paying more?
Grahame M. Morris: That is an excellent point. It is a double whammy.
Research that I have seen shows that between 1989 and 2011, RPI was on average about 0.7% higher than CPI inflation.
Steve Webb: I would not usually interrupt the hon. Gentleman but, to set the record straight, he is grossly misrepresenting what the judges in the court case said. I have a copy of the judgment with me. He said that the judges found that the CPI shift was about forcing through budget cuts. Can he point to where in the judgment they said that?
Grahame M. Morris: I was alluding to the FBU’s response to the judgment. I apologise if I have misled the Minister in that regard.
It is worth noting that significant changes to public sector pensions were negotiated with the trade union side by the previous Labour Government. Those changes recognised some of the issues that have been highlighted about people living longer, which is genuinely a good thing, and about affordability. The trade unions demonstrated a genuine desire to reach an accommodation that was fair and just. The response to the switch to CPI that I am hearing says that it is an enforced settlement that is not fair or just.
John McDonnell: In order that nobody is misleading the House whatsoever, let me quote from the judgment. Judge Elias said:
“There can be no doubt that the immediate driving force behind the change from RPI to CPI was the need to secure cuts in the welfare budget.”
Grahame M. Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, as I did not have the judgment to hand. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note. [Hon. Members: “That was a dissenting judge.”] Even so, it is a fairly radical criticism of the justification for this change, and the Government would do well to take note of it from such a learned source.
The TUC’s general secretary, Brendan Barber, has said of the general pensions crisis:
“The real pension crisis in the UK is the retreat by employers from providing pensions in the private sector”— that point has been acknowledged by Government Members— “and the big unexpected looming bill for tax-payers is the cost of means-tested benefits for the millions let down by their employers.”
That is another reference to the issue of false economy, which the whole House should take into consideration. There are risks in implementing this strategy. If we try to balance the books now on the basis of future payouts to pensioners, we may well be storing up costs for the future as people decide to opt out of pensions altogether. That would mean that when they retired they qualified for means-tested benefits, so the cost to the Exchequer would be higher.
In the private sector, large numbers of pensioners are already starting to feel the pinch from these moves.
John McDonnell: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but as hon. Members said from a sedentary position, “That was a dissenting judge”, let me quote a second judge, who said that he accepted the submission of Mr Beloff QC for the Police Negotiating Board claimants on the basis that, on any fair reading of the evidence, the need for deficit reduction was the driver and that the other merits of CPI were essentially deployed in order publicly to justify the switch.
Grahame M. Morris: I am grateful for that point of clarification. By my arithmetic, that makes two judges out of three, which is a majority.
That strengthens the argument that the Government should at least be honest that this measure is not designed around fairness but is placing the cost of deficit reduction, or cuts in public expenditure—whatever terminology one uses—on to public sector pensioners instead of looking for an alternative. As my hon. Friends have said, there is a simple alternative. The case for more cuts to pensions and public services has now been lost on the back of evidence that growth in our economy has been falling for two years and unemployment continues to rise. The Chancellor himself has indicated that we are borrowing £158 billion more than he originally anticipated. We need to offer people security in their jobs and in their retirement.
The case put forward by Conservative Members, in particular—notably yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate—for rolling back workers’ rights, as well as slashing pensions, was this week shown the red card by the Bank of England in an evidence session in a House Committee. No less a person than Sir Mervyn King said that making it easier for companies to sack staff would make no difference to his economic forecasts. Instead, we need to get the economy growing. We should be creating jobs to boost the economy, giving people job and pension security. From the perspective of the economy, the bonus—I am not referring to bankers’ bonuses, because I do not think that those should be paid—is that that is more likely to cut the deficit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) indicated, many pensioners use that money directly in the local economy.
Reducing pensions has an immediate negative effect in local economies and the national economy. To argue otherwise is disingenuous and, indeed, nonsense. Cutting jobs and pensions will damage the economy now and in the future. What is worse, it will increase the deficit.
Like elsewhere in national policy, my view is that the Government have it wrong on this issue. We should be investing in housing and public transport. We should be looking at the issues that Labour set out in its five-point plan for jobs and growth. Given the news this week about tax avoidance and evasion, I think that we should be taking measures on that issue. I welcome the fact that the Government have closed one particular loophole, so that Barclays and others will have to pay their fair share of tax and not be able to dodge it.
However, the Government are penalising pensioners before even asking about the millions that Vodafone is refusing to pay in taxes on the profits that it made from activities in this country. That is an absolute disgrace.
In conclusion, the House should support the motion and send the message to the Government that their priorities are at best mixed up and at worst explicitly wrong. We should value the pensions that take care of our ageing population, and we should not put people off saving for their future.
Speech on the Publication of the Risk Register
Blog / February 23, 2012 / Comment now
Link to the full debate in the House of Commons
Grahame M. Morris: May I start by placing on the record my appreciation for all the staff who work in the national health service? I also want to make a declaration, unashamedly, that I love the NHS and will campaign tooth and nail to prevent any fragmentation, privatisation or postcode lottery or any diminution in the service to patients.
I tabled early-day motion 2659 calling on the Health Secretary
“to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill reforms in advance of Report Stage in the House of Lords”
so as to inform that debate. The motion we are debating in today’s important debate echoes the wording in my early-day motion, which almost 100 people have signed, including 15 Lib Dem MPs at the last count. I hope they will back up their signature with their vote in the Lobby today. Many Members on both sides of the House have received letters about this issue and there has been an e-petition from 38 Degrees, which has had tremendous support in very few days. In case Government Members need any encouragement, let me refer to a poll from this week showing that 70% of Lib Dem supporters trust NHS professionals more than the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary on the Health and Social Care Bill.
Most of the health care professionals—indeed 90%; the ones who were not invited to the summit—oppose the changes in one form or other. Also, 80% of Lib Dem voters want the risk register published—an even bigger percentage than that of Labour voters.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree with the Secretary of State about the huge support for the Government from GPs over these reforms?
Grahame M. Morris: A number of Members on the Government Benches have referred, in Health questions and at other times, to the huge support among clinicians and GPs in their area, but Clare Gerada, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has said that just because GPs are compelled to man the lifeboats does not mean they agree with the sinking of the ship. That sums things up.
Hon. Members on the Government Benches should be particularly concerned by some recent polling figures. According to a poll by ICM, the over-65s—the category of people who are most likely to use the NHS and most likely to vote—want to drop the Bill by a margin of 56% to 29%, or two to one, which is the largest such margin. Sadly, not one Conservative Member, as far as I am aware, has had the courage to sign the early-day motion or to call publicly on the Health Secretary to publish the risk assessment. I know that, privately at least, some of the more thoughtful Conservative Members have been advising the Secretary of State to publish, but he seems to be flatly ignoring them. The risk register contains an objective list of the Department’s view of the risks, an estimation of the likelihood of each specific risk occurring and an estimation of its severity if it did occur. To be clear, what the Health Secretary is determined to conceal are the severe and likely risks of his own reckless attack on the NHS.
The Prime Minister must also be held to account for his broken promises on the NHS, for allowing his Health Secretary to put the NHS at risk and for standing by him while he tries to cover up the mess that is the Health and Social Care Bill.
I remind the House that the coalition agreement that was signed by the Government parties stated:
“The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.”
How does that statement square with this decision? Where is the accountability now? No one in the country voted for these health reforms, the Health and Social Care Bill has no mandate and we in the House will be asked to vote on reforms in the knowledge that the Department of Health and the Health Secretary are complicit in hiding the associated risks.
Charlotte Leslie: That is very kind; I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that if we want to debate the health reforms, this is not the place to do it because we are talking about the risk register? Also, does he agree that all this is slightly disingenuous because Governments do not publish risk registers for good reasons, in that it would be far more risky for patients, whom we should all be considering, if Government Departments could not have frank and open discussions? The risks we should really be looking at are those to patients.
Grahame M. Morris: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but if she had been present for the whole debate, she would know that we have covered much of that in discussing the nature of a fundamental change—the biggest ever shake-up—in the national health service since it was established. We are not calling for the nationalisation of the railways or the abolition of the House of Lords. We are simply calling for the risk register to be published, in the interests of openness and transparency, to identify the risks associated with the changes proposed by the Government.
The changes are a matter of the most serious consequence. If the Health Secretary is suppressing a report that shows that the reforms could put patients at risk and worsen the functioning of the NHS—if that is in the report, which I do not know, as I have not seen the strategic risk register, at least the national one—he would be guilty of the biggest political cover-up in a generation.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned, in his ruling back in November the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said of the Secretary of State’s reasoning:
“Disclosure would significantly aid public understanding of risks related to the proposed reforms and it would also inform participation in the debate about the reforms.”
But almost three months on, we as parliamentarians are still being kept in the dark. We were told that releasing the risk register would jeopardise the success of the policy, but the Information Commissioner refuted that and said it would only enhance the quality of the debate and allow for greater scrutiny of the policy.
We were then told by Ministers that they had published the relevant risks associated with the reforms in the impact assessment. If that was the case, why would the Information Commissioner rule that they should be published to inform debate and why would the Health Secretary fight tooth and nail to prevent that?
Finally, we were told that publication would risk the frankness of future risk registers, another point that the Information Commissioner specifically ruled out. Before the general election, the Conservatives promised to “unleash an information revolution” in the NHS, yet in government they are giving us the biggest cover-up in the history of the NHS. The Prime Minister once described his priorities in three letters: NHS. So we should not be shocked by the professional and public outcry of “OMG!” since he has broken his promise of “no more top-down reorganisation” and deployed WMD—weapons of mass deception—to conceal the true nature of his reforms.
Opposition Members know the dangers for the future of the NHS with up to 49% of work carried out in NHS hospitals being done by the private sector, and every service provided by the NHS, whether it be radiotherapy or speech therapy, put out for competitive tender, making it vulnerable to private sector takeover. It is no wonder we are debating the threat to the NHS when so many pre-election promises have been broken.
I conclude by offering some advice to the Health Secretary. I leave him with this thought: history is littered with examples of people who have fallen from grace, not for their crimes, but for the cover-up. He should end his terrible attack on the NHS and have the courage to be open about his plans to fragment and privatise our beloved national health service.
Spending vs. Investment and bridging the North-South divide
Blog / February 16, 2012 / Comment now
It looks increasingly likely that unemployment will continue to rise, economists have warned, even if the overall economy begins to pick up over the coming months and years. The most recent figures show the jobless total is up by 48,000 on the previous quarter. This is a significant rise; however it is a slower increase than we have seen in recent months. The figures also show that the number of people in employment rose by 60,000 in the three months to December and stands at 29.13 million – however these figures need unraveling to understand what is really happening in the economy.
The misleading figure of a 60,000 increase in employment is the sum total of a rather unsettling equation. There has been a significant increase of 90,000 part-time employees at the same time as the number of people in full-time employment actually fell by 26,000. Whilst the government tried to sell this as a success, it is clearly nothing of the sort. People in part-time employment are often not working enough hours to make ends meet and continue their search for full-time work. 1.35 million people were in part-time jobs because they could not find a full-time job in October-December 2011 – the highest level since records began in 1992. The economy is failing to provide these people, as well as the unemployed, with the secure full-time work that they need. Unless the government takes action on the economy it is unlikely to do so any time soon.
Grahame Morris & Chi Onwurah with Geoff Turnbull MD of GT (Engineering) Group
The ‘call to action’ on the economy is not simple in itself. David Cameron’s often used line that ‘you cannot spend your way out of a recession’ is so inane that its only use is to deflect attention away from the real economic issues facing regions across the UK. Unemployment figures are helpful in that they highlight the regional and local aspects of our failing economy. The north-east has the highest unemployment of any UK region at 11.2% of the economically active. But the North East economy will not make any significant headway until a comprehensive and lasting economic infrastructure has been secured and this can only be done through planning and investment. As Ed Cox, Director of IPPR North, has said the North East economy is now suffering due to the unfinished business of a transition from an industrial economy, because restructuring has stalled as a direct consequence of Coalition policies.
The history of the North East is well known by readers of this blog. Our industrial heritage and reliance on heavy industries such as coal mining meant there was nothing to take up the slack when our industries were recklessly dismantled by consecutive Tory governments from 1979-1997. Since then businesses, such as call centres, have come and gone but a lasting economic infrastructure and purpose has not been laid down for the region. Progress was being made by the last Labour government and despite the rhetoric of the Coalition our Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were transforming the economic landscape. For every £1 spent by RDAs an average of at least £4.50 of economic output was achieved. This rose to an output of at least £6.40 when future benefits were assessed. Local Enterprise Partnerships have been set up to replace RDAs, however these bodies are unfunded and are dispersed across the region. Just as harmful as the two-thirds cuts in funding for regional development since May 2010 is the disbanding of RDAs themselves which provided long-term coherent regional plans for economic growth.
The UK is crying out for a serious ‘new industrial policy’ that could reduce regional inequalities across the labour market. Research by Gilles Duranton and Vassilis Monastiriotis of the LSE, looking at the economic north-south divide, suggests that intrinsic labour market unfairness across UK regions towards individuals is reducing (this is something that could be put at risk by government plans to impose regional pay across the public sector). Rather, regional inequalities now stem from differences in labour market composition. Therefore, whilst some inequalities in the labour market (such as gender pay) have been reduced and the minimum wage has lifted the wages of many, the north-south divide stills exists as a consequence of failing policies to create work in the northern regions.
If this is the case, then the direction of travel set out by the Coalition will only exacerbate regional inequalities. The dismantling of Regional Development Agencies and the cut in funding for regional infrastructure will delay any progress in reducing the north-south divide. Until the government accepts that it has an important role to play in all of this, the economies of the north face a torrid time ahead.
The new NHS Tory Bureaucracy
Blog / February 13, 2012 / Comment now
Structure of the NHS under Labour (2005-2010)
Andrew Lansley’s proposed new structure for the NHS
Next Public Surgeries with Grahame Morris MP
Blog / February 13, 2012 / Comment now
The next Public Surgeries with Grahame Morris MP will be held on Thursday 16th February 2012
Seaton Home, Easington (SR8 3BS) from 10am – 12pm
Robin Todd Centre, South Hetton (DH6 2TH) from 1pm – 3pm
Any queries please telephone 0191 526 2828
Speech: Adjournment Debate ‘Future of stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment in England’
Blog / February 8, 2012 / Comment now
Last August the department of health released the first ever England wide analysis of patient access to radiotherapy treatment. For those of us who represent constituencies outside of London and the South East, the results were shocking.
The disparity in the levels of treatment for cancer patients living in and around London as compared to the rest of the country is nothing short of disgraceful. The data on each of England’s 28 cancer networks showed that the further you moved away from London the smaller chance you have of receiving radiotherapy. North West London topped the list at 94%. The North East came bottom with radiotherapy provision at 27%. In fact the 5 bottom networks were all north of the river Trent.
The reality of this is that cancer patients in the Minister’s London constituency are three times more likely to receive the radiotherapy treatment they need than those patients residing in Northern England, and twice as likely as those living in the South West of England. I’m afraid to say that when this general radiotherapy data is analysed further, by that I mean looking at those radiotherapy centres offering conventional radiotherapy and those offering the more effective SBRT, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatment, believe it or not the picture is far worse.
The conventional method of delivery is unable to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy tissue so the treatment is delivered in short doses – often every day for four or five weeks – to avoid too much damage to the healthy tissue. Unfortunately, even these small doses accumulate within the healthy tissue over the treatment time resulting in many side effects. SBRT uses small, multiple and highly focused beams of energy to deliver the radiation directly on to the tumour.
SBRT ensures a minimal dose is received by the surrounding healthy tissue; consequently, there are little or no treatment related side effects. SBRT allows the patient to be treated over 5 days as opposed to five weeks and, unlike conventional radiotherapy, because of its accuracy it can be used to treat tumours which may be surgically inaccessible or in close proximity to critical organs in the body. Technology so accurate it can even kill tumours inside the human brain without damaging that complex human mechanism that makes us who we are.
So when we look at the postcode lottery that this dataset report presents us with we should also ask where SBRT is available and where is it not. The Minister must understand how important this comparison is. For cancer patients in my constituency the difference between having access to SBRT and conventional radiotherapy for prostate cancer for example, can mean the difference between a fifty mile car journey every day for five weeks or just five days and a quick return to normal life. And of course the cost savings to the NHS of using SBRT compared to conventional radiotherapy are obvious for all to see.
Like the Hon Member for Wells I to was approached just before Xmas by a constituent whose cancer needed SBRT, but his tumour could only be treated by the accuracy of the robotic system CyberKnife. There are only three Cyberknife systems in the NHS and they are all in London. Thanks to the incredible cooperation his clinicians got from Barts Hospital and the understanding of North Durham PCT, who immediately agreed his funding, he starts his treatment here in London in two weeks. Whilst my constituent is very happy that he is set to receive SBRT in an NHS hospital, it is scandalous that he has to travel over 260 miles to do so. What is equally scandalous is that the only reason there are three CyberKnife systems in NHS hospitals is because those hospitals raised charitable money to buy them.
I have since learnt that Birmingham hospital has also launched a charitable appeal to purchase a system and in my own region the Bear Appeal in Newcastle is also raising charitable money for a CyberKnife system. What an indictment of the NHS under this coalition government.
The NHS should not have to go begging for charitable funds to buy the latest life-saving equipment, especially when we know the Department of Health is currently holding back £300 million pounds in Whitehall coffers: Money for capital equipment but not given to the hospitals in the regions where it is most needed – like the North East.
If the Minister is serious about reducing health inequalities the North East would have this equipment and not be left to linger at the bottom of the radiotherapy dataset which the Minister says is ‘the benchmark’ for future provision.
Can I ask the Minister today if he will make a commitment that some of this £300 million will be invested in the capital equipment needed to reduce these disparities in the provision of radiotherapy in general, and SBRT in particular.
ENDS
Countering the Tory unfairness agenda
Blog / February 6, 2012 / Comment now
It is a sad and uncomfortable fact that the Tory-led government has been able to dictate the terms of reference and dominate the debate on welfare.
The coalition government has made a concerted effort to garner public support for a national cap on benefits and it has been allowed to lead the argument.
No-one wants to see people out of work earning or claiming more than someone working hard for their living.
Therefore the argument put forward by the government appeals to the public.
Taken at face value it is about fairness and for this reason there has been a complete lack of serious debate on the issues. In short, policy has pandered to people’s base instincts without any consideration for the facts.
Unless we are willing to take on the arguments of this government, which is without doubt the most right-wing and predatory government in living memory, the Conservatives will continue to make political ground.
The truth is, a national cap as proposed by the coalition would make a great deal of families in the south destitute.
It is not the families themselves that are benefiting, but instead it is landlords. The cap would force the poor out of any prosperous areas in the south and London into outer London ghettos.
Attempting a political balancing act of standing only one step behind the government on key policy issues, in a bid to seem tough on welfare, simply allows the government to get away with an onslaught against the poor and vulnerable.
Instead, our own leadership must understand that history’s great generals were, among other things, very good judges of the ground they should be fighting on.
While reforming and making benefits fairer is right and proper, we should not allow the public to believe that the reason for doing so is because the poorest had any role to play in the global economic crisis.
By not challenging the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, he can continue to insinuate that it is the poorest people in Britain, and the cost of welfare, that should remain at the top of the political agenda.
Unfairness is at the heart of government policy-making across the board. Forcing the poorest areas and the poorest people to be the victims as well as the scapegoats of a crisis caused by the richest must be opposed with vigour and passion and with solid, well-grounded argument.
While Fred Goodwin might have been “dishonoured” and lost his knighthood, he kept his lifelong pension intact and instead the government has chosen to vent its anger against the growing number of people who now find themselves out of work.
Compare that with the estimated £1,300-a-year income cut now faced by the poorest households thanks to the so-called “reforms” currently being steamrollered through Parliament.
A Cabinet composed of millionaires is still letting greedy bankers walk away with their seven-figure bonuses and salt away their millions behind tax evasion barriers, while expecting struggling families to further tighten their belts.
When President Nicolas Sarkozy proposes implementing a Robin Hood tax for banking transactions and our Prime Minister responds by offering up Britain as a so-called “tax haven,” it is clear this government has learnt no lessons from the past.
Let’s be clear. This is not about fairness – it is about cuts, plain and simple.
It is about expecting the needy to pay for the greedy.
My own north-east constituency has some of the most deprived areas in the country. And the poorest families are those with multiple needs covering joblessness, sickness, education and childcare.
Yet the “one-cap-fits-all” strategy takes no account of that.
Easington will be treated the same as Esher. That makes no sense.
To be fair, that point has been made by Ed Miliband and Liam Byrne, but in tactical terms we have let the government back-foot us at every crucial turn.
When the public were looking for someone to challenge and oppose the right-wing consensus they were left to rely on a few honourable bishops in the upper chamber.
And now even they have been stymied by the government’s sordid step to deploy a rarely used parliamentary device to block future meaningful amendments.
On welfare the opposition has to up its act.
As we approach this coalition government’s two-year anniversary, the Labour leadership must now look at how it can win back the agenda of fairness and discredit David Cameron’s rhetoric.
The Cabinet of millionaires which currently occupies Downing Street is adept at persuading the working poor to level the blame for our economic problems at the door of the unemployed poor.
Yet without a clear policy for job creation or full employment this is an opportunist and cynical line. We must have a credible opposition that can stand up and oppose this.
William Beveridge knew that the state had a pivotal role to play in creating full employment. Labour must make that argument.
Judging our political prowess along the lines of how much the left kicks up a fuss and the right-wing press applauds us, as we did in office, is not a credible route to back government.
Speech on Health Inequalities in the North East (Long Version)
Blog / January 25, 2012 / Comment now
NHS reforms contained in the Health & Social Care Bill are only one aspect of how government policies are going to increase health inequalities.
Across every government department, Coalition policies will also exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities, and ultimately health inequalities as indicated by Marmot.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is linked to smoking, occupational dust and pollution, and is particularly prevalent in the North East of England.
COPD disease costs the NHS an estimated £491 million every year and mortality rates in the North East are higher than in England (accounting for 6% of all deaths), and the inequality gap appears to be increasing.
Smoking kills over 1,700 people every year in the North East before they reach the age of 70, accounting for 29% of premature deaths in the region compared with 26% of all premature deaths in England.
The latest Regional Health Profile (November 2010) from the Public Health Observatories shows Female life expectancy in the North East is distinctly under the European median and is one of the lowest in UK.
The obesity and overweight rates are one of the highest in Europe. The percentage of regular daily smokers is very close to the European median and one of the highest of UK.
MP Grahame Morris (right) receives a petition about privatisation of the NHS from Stephen Barry and Ellin Hare at the Glebe Centre offices in Murton.
There are two significant issues in their debate: inequalities in access to health services and the broader problem of health inequalities produced by deep-seated differences of social class.
In the late 1970s the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Health, Sir Douglas Black, produced a report on the extent of health inequalities in the UK and acknowledged that the NHS could do much more, alongside other improvements across government through child benefit; maternity allowances; pre-school education; an expansion in child care and better housing.
The Conservative Government which came to power in 1979 published the report on a bank holiday to avoid public scrutiny. However, these findings have been refined and supported by subsequent research by Professor Townsend and Sir Derek Wanless, and recently by Professor Marmot.
There is a stark danger of a downturn in the progress made in addressing health inequalities due to decisions being taken elsewhere in government and severe cuts to services for the most vulnerable.
This makes the focus of the NHS on health inequalities all the more important.
In June 2008 the then Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, made a speech on health inequalities in which he said: “It is inconceivable today that any Secretary of State could be so dismissive of an issue so critical to the life chances of so many.”
Remarkably, health reforms look set to weaken accountability and the national infrastructure necessary to tackle health inequalities in the NHS.
The has been good progress under a Labour government on health inequalities.
By the measure of Infant Mortality Ratio the absolute gap has reduced by 0.9 to 0.5 by we can see by the tripling of investment in our NHS how access to healthcare improved dramatically.
And the affect of this on long-term health inequalities is probably yet to be determined.
The Health and Social Care Bill changes the fundamentals of the National Health Service. The fragmentation of the NHS; with privately-led commissioning groups; the reintroduction of the postcode lottery; an uncoordinated health system and greater competition… risks making inequality, in terms of access to health services and outcomes, entrenched.
I sat on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, and expert witnesses raised concern after concern.
Stephen Thornton, Chief Executive of the Health Foundation, talking about health inequalities, said that a duty: “needs to be placed on the national commissioning board and [commissioning groups] to embed shared decision making in all care and treatment”.
Only by reinforcing the duty on the commissioners themselves to reduce inequalities is there any chance of achieving it.
And when Dr. Hamish Meldrum of the British Medical Association was asked about equitable access to health services, he said it would be:
“the articulate, the new-media savvy, who will do well. Those who are less like that will not. It is not so much what is in the Bill or not in the Bill, but what is happening elsewhere and how much the Bill will help to address that—and I do not think it will be very much.”
Finally, I want to return to the issue of socio-economic factors on health inequalities. Labour commissioned the 2008 Marmot report, which reinforced that we cannot simply focus on lifestyle issues (telling people to lose weight or give up smoking) but instead we must tackle the root causes which are economic and social.
The cuts that are falling across every government department are hitting the poorest hardest.
The Association of North East Councils has shown that the North East will be worst affected by local government cuts between now and 2013.
Child poverty is rising in my constituency of Easington, and stands at 29% – eight points higher than the national average.
And TUC figures from November 2011 shows the North East has the highest ratio of jobseekers per vacancy in the UK. An average of 7.5 jobseekers per vacancy – however it is as high as 23.7 jobseekers per vacancy in some areas (Hartlepool).
In one year from September 2010 to 2011, Youth unemployment rose 20% in County Durham.
This Coalition government has no intention of reducing health inequalities. It knows its policies can only worsen the situation.
The Labour Government introduced the first ever targets to reduce health inequalities in the population, and the poorest were healthier when we left Government than the population average in 1997.
The Marmot review called for these targets to be continued so why does the Health and Social Care Bill only aim to reduce inequalities in healthcare?
This government has given up on cross-departmental action to reduce inequalities in life expectancy and health.
And whilst the Secretary of State for Health says he backs the Marmot report, he will not accept its recommendations in full and he has chosen to ignore another warning by Prof Sir Michael Marmot….
His open letter co-signed by hundreds of public health professionals rejects the Health and Social Care Bill because it will “do irreparable harm to the NHS, to individual patients and to society as a whole” and will “widen health inequalities”.
