NHS

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I fear my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know Warrington hospital well and the pressures that have been on it, and I agree that ambulance response times have increased across the country because so many ambulances have been held in queues outside A and E, unable to hand over patients to A and E staff because it is full. That has left large swathes of the country—particularly in rural areas—without adequate ambulance cover, and very serious incidents have taken place across the country, not least in the Minister’s area of Norfolk where people have not received ambulances on time. That is the consequence of the pressure on A and E not being addressed, and it is threatening to drag down the rest of the NHS.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech that goes to the very heart of our NHS and the staff who work in it. North East Ambulance Service is one of the highest performing services in the country and reaches 80% of most seriously ill or injured patients within eight minutes. Last week, however, it had to hold an emergency summit because staff morale is at an all-time low. Assaults on staff are increasing dramatically, and the stress and pressure of waiting outside A and E to admit patients is having a deeply damaging impact on the wider NHS. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the NHS was safe in his hands?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend’s point was also made powerfully by ambulance staff at an A and E summit held by the shadow Front-Bench team in Parliament before Christmas when a paramedic spoke of the phenomenon she has just described. He mentioned an occasion when staff were at the door of A and E waiting to hand over a patient to A and E staff, when the patient had a heart attack. The staff did not know what to do and had to go back to the ambulance to try to stabilise the patient. Those sorts of joining points or disconnects in the system are leading to real pressure on staff who do not know what to do in those difficult circumstances. The system is in danger of being overwhelmed, and the pressure on staff must be addressed urgently.

Education Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not.

My point—[Interruption.] My point, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to it, is that children have a right to a broad and balanced curriculum, and his prescriptive English baccalaureate is taking us away from that. The body that has independently advised Ministers, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, is being abolished, so what can we expect in the future? We can expect ministerial whim replacing independent expert advice. As the Education Committee pointed out last week, a mix of academic and vocational options is more likely to keep young people engaged and help reduce behaviour problems.

We welcome provisions in the Bill to ensure that every young person has access to independent careers advice, but we fear that this is yet another instance where rhetoric will fail to live up to the reality. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State’s mismanagement of transition arrangements to an all-age careers service and front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets have meant that careers advice is disappearing?

Why does the Bill remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to enforce the new legal participation age of 18? Is it because, with the scrapping of EMA and the other measures that I have described, he knows that full participation until 18 will never be achieved? Alongside the clauses on higher education, no wonder ASCL talks of a Bill with

“serious implications for social mobility”.

In the ways that I have described, the Bill takes power from pupils and, in the words of UNICEF,

“risks narrowing the educational agenda and limiting children’s rights within schools.”

Let me turn to how the Bill takes power from parents. The National Children’s Bureau has called this a Bill which

“chips away at hard-won parental rights”.

It removes their ability to challenge decisions about admissions and exclusions and to make local complaints. The Bill abolishes the local admissions forum. ASCL raises concerns that there

“may now be a void in policing admissions”.

Admissions forums involve local parent representation, governors and heads. They exist to give parents avenues of redress and to help them get a fair deal. As with many provisions in the Bill, their abolition seems at odds with ideas of localism. With no group co-ordinating fair admissions, the NASUWT says that there are real risks of increased inequality, back-door selection and covert discrimination.

We welcome the extension of the schools adjudicator’s powers in relation to academies and individual cases, but we fear that this move is undermined overall by a weakening of the adjudicator’s role and his ability to change admission arrangements. ASCL has said that it is

“essential that parents have a well defined route to deal with their grievances relating to admissions” ,

yet the Bill repeals parents’ power to complain to the local commissioner.

The Secretary of State mentioned Tony Blair and our reforms. They were all about empowering parents, just as in the health service we empowered patients with guarantees. The Bill strips away those powers from parents. That is why we do not support it.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in addition to the powers being stripped from parents by the Bill, they are also losing the right to legal aid for education cases? Parents without means finding themselves in difficult and challenging situations when fighting for their children will therefore be left without any recourse for help.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It brings me on to the subject of parents whose children have special educational needs or disabilities. Her point is particularly important in respect of such parents. Concerns have been raised about the measures in the Bill disempowering parents in relation to exclusions. The removal of the ability of appeals panels to tell schools to reinstate a pupil who has been expelled has been described by the National Children’s Bureau as

“counter to the principles of natural justice.”

These changes affect the rights of every parent and the life chances of every child, but they have big implications for the most vulnerable.

Parents of children with disabilities and special needs already face a battle to get them a good education. With its changes to admissions and exclusions, which will see schools become judge and jury, the Bill stacks the odds against those children even further. Poor behaviour can arise from a failure to identify or support a child’s special needs, yet in future any exclusions that might result will be much harder to challenge.

The changes must also be seen in the context of the diminishing ability of local authority to fund and co-ordinate specialist services that help children facing the biggest challenges. The Education Committee has noted that some pupils could be left

“without access to critical support”.

The autism charity, TreeHouse, fears that councils will no longer be able to plan services for children with complex needs.

That brings us to a central problem with the Government’s rush to reform: the Bill has been brought forward before the long-promised Green Paper on special educational needs. The National Autistic Society has stated:

“The impact of certain aspects of the Education Bill on children with SEN and disabilities… will not be known until the Green Paper has been made public.”

That means that the Government are asking Members to vote on these measures without giving them either answers to the questions posed by TreeHouse or the ability to feel sure that the most vulnerable children in their constituencies will not be adversely affected. That is profoundly wrong. It is an abusive process and an affront to this House, but, much worse, it sends a clear message to the parents who are most affected that their children are an afterthought for the Government.