Zero Hours Contracts Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a terrific speech, and I am proud to support his private Member’s Bill. I completely agree with his points about the hospitality sector. May I also draw his attention to very profitable companies where there is no real excuse for the employer to switch from existing contracts of employment to zero hours? I am thinking of JD Sports, for example, where 90% of the work force were switched from standard contracts to zero hours. It is sheer exploitation so that the workers cannot be paid pensions and other benefits.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and powerful point.

Given that there is an inextricable link between job security and consumer confidence, do we really think that workers with little or no job security, living in a climate of fear, are the foundation of a successful Britain in a globalised world? In the previous two centuries, tremendous and hard-fought-for progress was made on workers’ rights and conditions of service, and it is madness to spend the 21st century going into reverse.

The principle enshrined in the Bill is simple: if someone works regular hours they should have a regular fixed-hours contract, along with all the rights and protections afforded to regular workers. It is unacceptable that a person who works as a full-time employee, sometimes for many months, or even years, remains on a zero-hours contract.

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

I will not give way for the moment.

How else can we explain the fact that of the £63.4 billion of public expenditure cuts forecast by 2015, 29% of them fall on disabled people who make up only 8% of the population? Even worse, how else can we explain the fact that those with the most severe disabilities, who make up only 2% of the population, have to endure 15% of the cuts? In the face of that, can we continue to regard ourselves as a civilised society? What kind of civilised society seeks to finance its deficit recovery programme out of the suffering of the poorest and most vulnerable while managing to target tax cuts to the most privileged?

Thirty-one people died in the three years to October 2011 waiting for their appeals against the assessments which said that they were able to work. The BBC’s “Panorama” programme reported in July 2012 that, on average, 32 people died every week whom the Government had declared could be helped into work in the medium term.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent and powerful points. Does he agree that the work capability test is not fit for purpose and that taking a template from an American health care model on the descriptors is absolute nonsense?

[Ian Mearns]

I am about to discuss that, and I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.

Put bluntly, this Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and their agencies are telling us, repeatedly, that people who are dying are fit for work. Between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 employment and support allowance claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end. This Government have repeatedly refused to release updated 2013 statistics on deaths within six weeks of the end of an ESA claim, calling such requests for information “vexatious”. Four people a day are dying within six weeks of being declared fit for work under the WCA—it is scandalous and an indictment of this place. Some might consider this bad taste, but I am told that there was a story doing the rounds that when the bones of Richard III were discovered in Leicester, Atos carried out an assessment and judged him fit for work. It would be funny if it was not so sad. It is a sad truth faced by 12,000-plus families who every year face their own personal tragedies of this nature—it is a reality.

As if not bad enough, workfare and welfare reforms are of course only part of the impact; cuts to local government expenditure also have the heaviest impact on the most vulnerable. The largest share of adult social care users—older people, people with physical disabilities and people with mental health problems—have to bear the brunt of reductions in social care. The recent joint inquiry by the all-party groups on local government and on disability showed that four in 10 disabled people are failing to have their basic social care needs met and that nearly half of disabled people say that services are not supporting them to get out and about in the community. Three quarters of the 4,500 respondents to “The Tipping Point” survey said that losing some of their disability living allowance income would mean they would require more social care support from their local council, at a time when the councils with the largest numbers of chronically sick and disabled people are suffering the largest cuts in grant funding from central Government.

In my youth I was actively involved in many Amnesty International campaigns, such as those on Chile and South Africa, and those against oppressive regimes in central and Latin America. I never would have imagined then that in 2014 the UK would be the subject of an Amnesty campaign, yet at its annual general meeting in 2013 Amnesty UK passed a resolution recognising that the human rights of sick and disabled people in the UK had been dreadfully compromised.

The convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009, makes provisions for access to support services, personal assistance access to social protection, and poverty reduction programmes for disabled people and their families. The Government’s cold and callous welfare changes are in direct contravention of all those stipulations. The time has come for a grown-up debate, to move beyond the smearing of poor, disabled and chronically sick people—demonising them should stop. We need to move to a debate on how we design a society where all UK citizens are supported and given opportunities to contribute. I utterly support today’s debate and I will vote in favour of the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for introducing it. I also thank the many groups and individuals who have taken the trouble to lobby their MPs and come to Parliament today and earlier this week. I give a special mention to Jason Roche from the Royal National Institute of Blind People in my constituency, who does such sterling work raising issues for the blind and partially sighted, to Simon Duffy from the Centre for Welfare Reform, and to Philip Connolly from Disability Rights UK. They have done a terrific job and we should acknowledge the efforts of disability activists and supporters in this campaign in collecting such a huge number of signatures to secure the debate.

The dedication shown by members of the public in getting this debate held in Parliament’s main Chamber indicates the strength of feeling and the widespread concern about the extent of the Government’s cuts. We are short of time, but there are issues such as housing, the bedroom tax, income cuts, policies such as changing RPI to CPI, the social care cuts highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and the general cuts to public services that directly impact on people with disabilities. People with disabilities tend to rely more heavily on libraries and other public services, and it is ironic that in my constituency an organisation called EDPIP—the East Durham Positive Inclusion Partnership—which is a charity set up some years ago to support some of the most disadvantaged families, is closing today. That is another indicator of the pressure that disabled people, their families and carers are under.

This is a trust issue, and I hope the Minister will take note of that because the Prime Minister pledged that the cuts would be made fairly. He said that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden, and that people who are sick, vulnerable and elderly would always be looked after. We must remember that the sick, the vulnerable and the disabled were not responsible for the economic crash, yet they seem to be bearing the brunt of the economic burden.

We have heard from other Members about the impact of the loss of income and services. Disabled people are suffering nine times more than those who are not disabled, and disabled people who require social care 19 times more. If the cuts had been made fairly, they would have fallen on the better off, and the changes contradict the promise made by the Prime Minister that those in greatest need of help would not suffer under austerity.

A measure of the civilisation of any nation is how well it treats the weakest members of society, and by that standard the Government are failing miserably. Rather than being protected in a time of hardship, sick and disabled people seem to have been targeted. The services they rely on are being attacked from all directions, resulting in greater inequalities, poorer health and a growing sense of anxiety, fear and trepidation over their future. The cuts have not been made fairly, and they are not spread evenly across public services or entitlements. The cuts have been targeted, with more than 50% falling in just two areas—benefits and local government—affecting sick and disabled people disproportionately.

[Ian Mearns]

Does my hon. Friend share my massive concern that the company that has been delivering the flawed—as we have heard many times today—work capability assessment, has now been given the job by the Government of harvesting the whole population’s health data from their GP practices?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I think that is cause for alarm. It certainly alarms me that Atos, which has been involved in the debacle of the work capability assessments, and which has raised concerns and asked to be released from its contract, is apparently being awarded the contract for the collection of highly sensitive care data from GPs, but that is another Minister’s responsibility.

Social care for children and adults makes up 60% of all spending over which local authorities have any control. The huge 40% reduction in local government funding spells disaster and will have a huge impact on adults and children who depend on vital public services. An interesting statistic is that by 2015 and the next general election, £8 billion will have been cut from social care in England—about 33% of the total. Last year, 320,000 fewer people received local authority brokered social care compared with 2005. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, one reason for that is the change in the eligibility thresholds that many local authorities have been forced to make. As well as being unjust and denying people adequate social care, that has unsustainable consequences. It is a false economy. By removing care in the community, we are putting pressure on other public services, for example accident and emergency.

At the same time, changes to benefits are having an appalling impact on those who rely on them. Other hon. Members have touched on the consequences of the abolition at the end of the year of the independent living fund, which currently supports more than 21,000 people with severe disabilities. Funding cuts already mean that in many areas services for sick and disabled people are reduced to a minimum.

With such large-scale and rapid change to the services that disabled people depend on, the Government owe it to those who have been affected to have an understanding of what the impact is. That is why I support the War on Welfare campaign’s call for the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of the changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people and their families. We were not elected to this House to represent and fight for the interests of the powerful and privileged. Without a cumulative impact assessment, the Government will be failing in their responsibilities.

Free Schools

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on securing an important and timely debate.

I want to respond to some criticisms by the Secretary of State for Education of the schools in my area. I believe that they are an attempt to garner support for a free school in an adjacent area. I am not by nature boastful, but I want to begin by boasting about the achievements of schools in my constituency. We have seen year on year improvements, which have continued in 2013 with the academy at Shotton Hall, the Seaham school of technology and Easington academy achieving record results. Dene community school, which continues to improve year-on-year, also saw record-breaking results, and St Bede’s Catholic comprehensive school achieved its best-ever results, with more students exceeding the Government’s benchmark of making three and four levels of progress in both English and Maths from year 7.

We would all agree that the achievements of east Durham’s schools constitute something of a success story and are testament to the ambition and hard work of the teaching staff and students and to the drive of head teachers in my constituency. The success of east Durham’s schools ought to be cause for celebration and Ministers ought to congratulate them on their efforts. Sadly, that has not been the case. For some unexplained reason, the Secretary of State for Education launched an inexcusable and unfounded attack on east Durham’s schools earlier this year, saying:

“When you go into those schools, you can smell the sense of defeatism.”

He added that the schools had a “lack of ambition”. He was quick to condemn the schools, but he will not visit them, despite having been invited.

The Minister for Schools does not share the Secretary of State’s unduly pessimistic view of the schools in my constituency. Following Easington academy’s latest results, the Minister wrote a letter of congratulation, in which—I will read out the highlights only—he identified that the school stood out in two ways:

“First, you were ranked number one in your table. Second, over 10 per cent more of your pupils achieved five good GCSEs including English and Maths than is typical of a school with your intake. This is a fantastic achievement that you should be very proud of.”

He continued:

“You are also one of the 56 top performing secondary schools in England on this measure.”

That is praise indeed.

I pay tribute to the hard work of the students, teachers, parents and the head teacher of the Seaham school of technology, which has had some fantastic results in the face of real challenges, given the condition of the school building. Those results have come in spite of the fact that the much-needed new building, which had been promised by the previous Labour Government, was withdrawn by this Government to divert, I believe, funds towards the Secretary of State’s pet free schools project.

I want to compare the capital and revenue funding of schools in my area with that of free schools. The Durham free school, which at the last count employed nine members of staff but had only 30 pupils, is one such school. According to the Secretary of State, it represents excellent value for money. According my calculations, however, that is a ratio of nearly three students to every teacher. How does that represent excellent value for money?

[Ian Mearns]

I understand my hon. Friend’s chagrin at the criticism levelled at schools in and around his constituency, but I wonder whether it may have something to do with the fact that one of the Secretary of State’s special advisers, Dominic Cummings, was connected through a family member to the establishment of the Durham free school.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an interesting and serious point. If the Secretary of State seeks to promote a political ideology in the form of a free school with political backing and in so doing is undermining the education opportunities and funding for pupils in my area, quite frankly, it is an outrage.

How much better would the results have been at the Seaham school of technology, which has more than 640 pupils, if it had enjoyed the fantastic ratio of one teacher for every three students or if it had at least received the much-needed new building that it had been promised? The Secretary of State’s free school pet project is motivated neither by achieving better results, nor by the desire to obtain better value for money. Such schools are free only at the expense of the success of existing local authority schools. I therefore do not understand how they can be considered to be cost-effective.

The truth is that the free schools project is ideologically motivated and free schools are being driven to succeed, with teachers and students everywhere else being made to pay for it. Free schools have been unaffected by budget cuts and receive a disproportionate share of capital and revenue funding, as pointed out by several hon. Members, at the expense of local schools, despite the fact that they educate only a tiny proportion of all pupils.

The Secretary of State has turned down several invitations to visit east Durham, but it would be instructive if he came and listened to students and teachers at schools in my constituency. They would ask him for just a little of what he is spending on free schools to improve students’ learning experiences and life chances. Through the Minister, I urge the Secretary of State to wake up to the facts. Free schools mean less oversight, less democracy and poorer value for money. They are failing the taxpayer, teachers, parents and, most importantly, children. If the Secretary of State does want to come down to earth from his ivory tower, there is no better spot for him to land than in east Durham.

Finally, I ask the Minister to pass on one more invitation to the Secretary of State to come and see how things are being done, to witness the state of the building at the Seaham school of technology, to speak to the pupils, teachers and head teachers and to change the habit of a lifetime by listening to those doing the hard work. A person is never too old or too clever to learn—even a Secretary of State for Education.

East Coast Main Line

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as always. I want to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate, one of several about the east coast main line that we have had in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.

The Government have yet another opportunity to listen to what the overwhelming majority of the British public—not just in Easington or the north-east—are saying. Polling evidence shows that they believe that the east coast main line should remain a publicly operated service.

The last time we had a debate on this matter, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), referred to me—and, if I recall correctly, my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—as dinosaurs for believing that public services should be run for the benefit and in the best interests of the public.

I do support the renationalisation of the railways, and I certainly oppose the re-privatisation of the east coast main line—especially when there is evidence that Directly Operated Railways is providing a better service and returning more money to the taxpayer than the private sector. Furthermore, on two occasions when the private sector was operating the franchise, it failed. If my view makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

In numerous surveys, 70% of the public have regularly supported calls for the railways to be completely publicly run. That applies throughout the country and even in the south and south-east. Trains there are very congested, and there are similar concerns about the fact that private sector franchise holders are not delivering.

We have been given an example, in the success of the east coast main line under Directly Operated Railways, of how a public rail operator can work and deliver for the taxpayer. As my hon. Friends have said, more than £800 million in premiums will be returned to the Exchequer by Directly Operated Railways. The east coast main line receives the lowest net subsidy of any operator—only 1% compared with an industry average of 32% or more than £4 billion. The numbers tell the story. Let us not forget what happened previously, when National Express ran the service. It returned only £370 million in premium payments and turned its back on the franchise, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces. Directly Operated Trains had to step in.

We have had private sector failures on the line and the operators have not delivered on their commitments, but the Government will not prevent National Express or other failed operators from bidding for the rail franchise. Labour Members have raised queries about that. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford confirmed in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn):

“National Express and its subsidiaries are permitted to submit for the pre-qualification process”—

that is, the bidding process—

“to run passenger rail services in all franchise competitions including the East Coast Main Line.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 970W.]

We should ask questions about that, given that the private operator has a track record—if hon. Members will excuse the pun—of failure.

[Ian Mearns]

Given the statistics that my hon. Friend has reeled off about the public subsidy going into private sector franchises, there is a good argument that the new rolling stock in the private sector franchises has been put in not by private sector investment, but by public sector subsidy. The public pay for private profit.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are privatising the profit and nationalising the cost and risk of the investment. That is a bizarre approach to the public finances. In my view, companies in either sector that fail to deliver on commitments or promises to the taxpayer should not be allowed to take over franchises—they have shown that they are not competent to run them.

It is very expensive to travel by rail in the United Kingdom, compared with other countries. British train tickets are now the most expensive in Europe. A typical season ticket costs 14p per kilometre in the UK, compared with just 8p per kilometre in Germany. Holland and France are the next most expensive countries. A day return in the UK costs 26p per kilometre compared with 17p per kilometre in Germany. As to season tickets into the capital, a 24-mile commute into Paris would cost £924 a year; a similar commute would cost £705 to Berlin and £654 to Madrid—but for someone travelling to London it would cost £3,268 a year. Those are huge sums, and after a decade of price increases. Those are never welcome, but at a time of austerity when wages are effectively frozen and, in many cases, falling, an intolerable strain is being put on family budgets.

While fares have been shooting up, dividends to shareholders in the big five transport companies contracted to run UK rail services reached nearly £2.5 billion. When people ask, “Where is the money going?” the answer is that a big chunk of it is going there—in dividends to private train operators. There are examples of excessive boardroom pay. Some of the highest paid directors receive more than £1 million.

East Coast offers a genuine alternative, with all profits reinvested back into services—money that otherwise would go as dividends for shareholders. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by hon. Members and the British public and end the failed franchise bidding policy.

Funding for Local Authorities

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate and on gaining the support of Members across the House, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time.

I will make some general points, but I would also like to make specific points regarding my region, the north-east, and my local authority, Durham county council. It is tempting to characterise the debate in terms of urban against rural and north against south—I can see the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is smiling. We are not allowed to refer to pictographs, but when we analyse the figures produced by the Local Government Association and the Association of North East Councils, it is clear that it is not simply a rural versus urban issue—and particularly not a north-south issue—because many of the affected regions are in the south-west. Many inner city London boroughs are badly affected, as are our great northern cities.

I shall make some general points to begin with and then get down to some of the specifics about my own area. The Minister on the Front Bench is responsible for the fire authorities so I thought it would be remiss—given that we met representatives of our fire authorities this week and found that they were extremely concerned about the implications of the settlement—not to mention that issue. The scale of cuts that the fire authorities are going to have to make will amount to taking out an entire brigade from the north-east region. I am not suggesting that that would happen, but taking out the whole of the County Durham and Darlington brigade would be the consequence if the cuts fell on a single brigade in our region. The level of cuts is unprecedented. My fear is that austerity is failing, not just our region but Britain. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the evidence of cuts to local government funding.

My local authority has made written representations to the Minister, and I hope he will consider very seriously the points it has made. Indeed, after the comprehensive spending review of 2010, local authorities faced significant spending cuts in the emergency budget. We knew, and warned at the time, that these would inevitably impact on services, jobs and growth. Various figures have been quoted, but my local authority, which is Durham county council, has needed to make savings of £123 million during the course of this Parliament. That has resulted in nearly 2,000 job losses—approximately 20% of the work force—and it has certainly hit front-line services and vital support for the local community.

Along with all local authorities, mine understood that local government would be expected to contribute to reducing the national deficit, but, as a number of Members have pointed out, the consequences of this level of cuts have been astounding. Local authorities certainly did not expect to be targeted for disproportionate cuts when the Government were unable to address the problems that had to be faced in any other way.

I am worried because the Government have missed a number of economic targets that they set for themselves and because the very slow recovery we have seen—probably the slowest for over 100 years—is being exacerbated by the scale of the cuts in local authorities, particularly when it comes to discretionary expenditure. There is no money left for economic development. I see some Government Members shaking their heads, but I am afraid that that is certainly the case for Durham county council. As a large unitary council, it had a successful track record of working in partnership with both public and private sector organisations to deliver major infrastructure projects and to make a contribution towards jobs and growth. Its capacity to do so, however, has been completely taken away by the scale of the cuts.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he intended to eliminate the deficit by 2015, he promised in the 2010 comprehensive spending review statement that there would be “fairness”. He said:

“Fairness also means that, across the entire deficit reduction plan, those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 951.]

Frankly, those strike me as quite nice words, but it was a hollow promise. We now know that the Government will miss their deficit reduction plan, and it seems that the most deprived areas and the most vulnerable people are having to pay most for the Government’s extra years of austerity. Clearly, disproportionate cuts are being imposed on hard-pressed local authorities, particularly in regions such as mine. Durham county council now faces cuts amounting to more than 40% of its budget. It no longer needs to find savings of £123 million; it is now expected to find savings of more than £222 million by 2017. The austerity and spending cuts will extend into the next Parliament.

According to a report by the Association of North East Councils, the north-east region faces a “disproportionately high share” of the £5.5 billion cuts in council budgets that will be made between now and 2016. That means an average cut of £296 per household in the north-east, compared with a national average of about £233 per household. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Local Government Association has forecast that, during the period of the current Parliament, local government’s core funding will fall by 43%. That confirms that councils are being hit harder than other parts of the public sector.

Some councils, especially those in parts of the south, have been relatively unaffected by the cuts, and are able to continue as they were before. However, the Government must listen to local authorities—particularly in areas that face challenges and are experiencing high levels of deprivation—which, along with their parliamentary representatives, are warning that such large cuts are unsustainable, and pose the risk that councils will be unable to provide statutory services.

While funding is being cut, demand for services continues to rise. More than 60% of Durham county council’s expenditure goes towards children and adults services, and the proportion is set to increase in the years to come. That is not because the council is being profligate, but because of demographic changes, an ageing population, and the fact that my area formerly had a tradition of heavy industry such as coal mining, shipbuilding and steelworks. The Government need to recognise that the legacy of that heavy industry continues to push up demand for adult social care for the elderly and disabled. Safeguarding Children is also experiencing greater demand: the number of complex cases requiring co-ordinated interventions by a number of services is increasing significantly.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The levels of demand for children’s services, especially in complex cases and those involving a high level of need, has been growing exponentially in some parts of the north-east. In my borough of Gateshead, the number of youngsters taken into care has increased by nearly 50% in the last four years. It may be said that that is disgraceful, but if social services departments leave such children in situ with their families, the consequences are often tragic. Those increased demands need to be taken into account.

Firearms Controls

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. Thank you for allowing time for this important debate. In my remarks I will try not to be party political or partisan. I recognise that the first role of Government is the defence of the realm, but equally important is the duty to protect public safety. On firearms controls, it is important that lessons are learned from recent tragedies, to ensure public safety.

This debate has arisen following the tragic deaths of Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull and Tanya Turnbull at the hands of Susan McGoldrick’s partner, Michael Atherton, on new year’s day 2012. At that time, rather than be steamrollered into making rash comments and judgments, I appealed for a calm and considered public debate.

The shootings claimed the lives of four people—including Michael Atherton, who took his own life—and they came as a shock to the tight-knit former mining community of Horden. Following such incidents, when emotions are running high, there is inevitably a demand for immediate action, which can lead to ill-considered changes to the law that, in the fullness of time, are considered to be counter-productive.

I stress that there has been no such kneejerk reaction in this particular case, and I am grateful to the Minister and to Labour Front Benchers for meeting Mr Turnbull and other family members to listen to their point of view. Indeed, the victims’ family have conducted themselves with the utmost dignity. Bobby Turnbull, who sadly lost his mother, sister and aunt in the shootings, has campaigned tirelessly to try to bring some positives out of a most tragic situation. I pay tribute to him because he has ensured that firearms controls remain on the political agenda, and his fight for tougher gun laws is a message that has been delivered to Ministers and shadow Ministers. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, for meeting my constituent Bobby Turnbull.

Two inquiries into the Horden shootings—an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the report of the coroner, Andrew Tweddle—have now been completed. Both inquiries have reported, and they highlight a number of serious failings, both in the existing licensing process and with the decisions to accept Mr Atherton’s application and to return firearms to him following repeated incidents that should have raised questions about his suitability to possess such deadly weapons.

I welcome the Government’s proposal to revise the existing guidelines, which are both complex and convoluted, running to in excess of 200 pages. Considering all the available evidence, I believe that the only way to safeguard the public is through legislation mandating that chief police officers conduct a full review of background checks on applicants and that those checks involve GPs, the police and, equally importantly, previous and current domestic partners.

There should be a presumption to refuse applications where there is a pattern or evidence of behaviour indicating violent conduct; I do not mean a single violent outburst, but a clear pattern or evidence of domestic violence or where there are concerns about mental illness or substance abuse. Such an approach is in stark contrast to the current legal requirement for the police to make just a single home visit prior to issuing a licence.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, one in three women killed by their domestic partner is shot with a legally owned weapon, which is an incredible number. According to the stats that I have seen, two women a week are killed—not necessarily with a firearm—by a husband, partner or ex-partner. I am surprised by the statistic that, in some areas of the country, police are reporting that as many as one in five calls received relate to incidents of domestic violence. That indicates the scale of the issue.

A history of domestic violence should be a clear marker that an individual applying for a licence is unsuitable for gun ownership. I stress that I am not making a case for outlawing gun ownership. I am not anti-guns; I simply want to ensure that the legislation that we have is fit for purpose and for protecting public safety.

I have previously raised concerns about the effectiveness of strengthening the guidance, particularly if those processing the applications are not aware of the existing guidance. I am pleased that the Minister is here, because I previously asked him how effective any new guidance would be given that there is evidence that not all officers involved in the licensing process are aware of the current guidance from the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers. He told me—I am sure it was not his intention to mislead me or the House—that he is sure that officers do understand the guidance, and he said that new guidance would be issued by the end of the year, which it has been.

I advise the Minister, however, that the 12 March 2013 report on the Horden shootings by the coroner, Andrew Tweddle—I understand that the Home Office was sent a copy—states that

“not all individuals involved in the licensing process were aware of the existence of the Home Office and ACPO guidance documents both published in 2002 let alone the detailed contents thereof.”

It is all very well to say that we have the toughest licensing regime in the world, but if the officers charged with implementing the guidance have not read the guidance, or are not familiar with it, there is a major failing in the system.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It has come to my attention that, across the police authorities in the north-east of England, there has been a relatively significant increase in the number of firearms licences issued in the past couple of years. I am concerned about that, given everything that my hon. Friend has outlined. I am particularly concerned about the number of legitimately owned firearms used in domestic violence cases, often leading to the death of one of the partners.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, which makes an important point. In preparing for this debate, I looked at statistics on page 66 of the Office for National Statistics document on crime in England and Wales in 2000. In England and Wales, one in three women killed by their partner is shot with a legally owned weapon. Some 64% of those murders involve shotguns.

The figure regularly cited by the Home Office and Labour party in press releases is that the incidence of domestic violence murders is two a week. According to the most recent figures, for 2011-12, 88 women—about 1.7 a week—were killed by their partner or ex-partner. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a large number.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

Point taken. I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am not suggesting that all cases of domestic violence result in deaths from firearms; I am suggesting that if it is possible for licensing officers to assess history and patterns of domestic violence as part of the process, that could substantially reduce the number of fatalities. That is the point that I am trying to make, in a rather laboured fashion.

[Ian Mearns]

Given the significant proliferation of legally held weapons in our society—in the north-east of England, where the population is about 2.6 million, there are about 90,000 legally held firearms licences—and the proliferation of domestic violence cases, when a domestic violence case is reported and there is a pattern of it in a family, the police authorities or chief constables should be asking officers to check automatically whether a firearms licence is held by the perpetrator of the domestic violence.

Firearms Controls

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will come to some suggestions about how we might address that issue.

The Association of Chief Police Officers firearms and explosives licensing working group has called for a single form of certificate that

“remains desirable for safety and economic reasons”.

In terms of public safety, and in contrast to a section 1 firearm, shotgun applicants are not required to demonstrate a good reason for wanting a shotgun. I believe it important that people demonstrate that they have a need or use for a firearm, before they are granted a licence.

In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Mrs Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network said:

“The starting point should be that guns are lethal weapons and the onus should be on the applicant, somebody who wants to own a gun, to prove that they are”

a fit person to have one.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The House should be concerned about firearms licences and licensees. Just after the summer, it was reported that no fewer than 3,000 legitimately owned and licensed firearms were reported lost, missing or stolen in the previous 12 months.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That alarming statistic is one of a number that should exercise the minds of hon. Members, and it adds weight to the need for a full public debate.

It should no longer be acceptable to have a shotgun without a good reason. A good reason would have to be demonstrated by the same criteria that current firearms certificate holders must meet. Good reasons for holding shotgun licences include dealing with vermin or game, target shooting at an approved venue or club, or for professional use in employment, but evidence is needed to justify those reasons. It is difficult for many, including me, to comprehend why someone would need access to firearms in a domestic setting when there is little need for immediate access to a weapon.

One of the greatest weaknesses identified by the shooting fraternity is the variation in standards across police forces. For that reason, a national licensing authority has been proposed to provide central oversight, and to ensure the consistent application of licensing procedures. Such an authority would also have the advantage of removing the police from the administrative aspect of firearms licensing, and will allow them instead to focus on the enforcement of gun controls. The financial burden of the licensing regime could also be removed from the police while ensuring that public safety remains paramount. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Bedfordshire police presented a cost analysis that showed that the firearms application fees in place since 2000 never represented the true cost to the forces processing applications. Rather than the current firearms certificate fee of £50, a fee of £150 has been proposed. I am not advocating that—an appropriate fee could be determined by any new central licensing authority.

Regional Pay

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I shall come to that point. Under the last Government, the GVA differential was considerably reduced over 10 years. I do not have much time, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of the Westminster Hall debate, he will find all the information there.

In trying to justify his proposals, the Minister mentioned the evidence base, as did the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). That worries me. Pay review bodies and police boards oversee a pay bill of about £95 billion, and any changes in the distribution of that money would have major consequences. The reverse multiplier and the taking of moneys from local economies are a huge issue, and the benefit changes have already had a terrible effect on the economy in the north-east.

I refer the Minister and the hon. Member for Stourbridge to the Government’s own evidence to the current review, which includes some key sets of figures that I found intriguing. According to that evidence, statistics from the Office for National Statistics on regional price levels relative to national price levels show that, if London is excluded, price levels throughout the United Kingdom vary by only 5.3%, from 97% in Yorkshire and the Humber to 102.3% in the south-east. In my region, the north-east, the price level is 98.2%. Those figures show the smallest variation in price increases throughout the United Kingdom. If the Government proceeded with their proposal to vary pay levels in the public sector, those in the poorest regions, such as the north-east, would be worse off while the wealthiest regions benefited to the tune of billions.

[Ian Mearns]

All of us in north-east England are calling for an economic stimulus to create demand and grow the economy. This measure would apply an economic sedative to regions such as ours.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis.

The other likely negative impact of the Government’s policy is a brain drain from the regions with lower pay to those with higher pay. In my opinion, the Tory party has never understood the values and principles of our public services, which were founded on fairness and equity. What is truly outrageous is that Ministers waste their time targeting low-paid public servants when the real crisis is in the private sector. I believe that those are diversionary tactics, and that, if implemented, they would take more money out of the northern regions, which are already suffering from a lack of demand throughout our economies.

The United Kingdom is crying out for a serious new industrial policy that would reduce regional inequalities and close the north-south divide. A regional pay policy of the sort that the Government propose would only make the position worse, and it lacks an evidence base. Any comparison between public and private sector pay is a very crude measure. There are far more highly qualified workers in the public sector, there is a smaller gap between the top and bottom levels of pay, and there is a smaller gender pay gap. The majority of low-paid work in catering or cleaning, for example, is in the private sector. Similar roles in the public sector are often outsourced, which skews the figures still further.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about figures relating to growth rates and relative performance. Under the last Labour Government, the rate of growth in my region, the north-east, went from being the lowest in any region during the 1990s to being the second highest during the last decade. Between the mid-1990s and the global economic downturn of 2008, employment growth increased by 11.2% in the north-east and by 9.2% nationally. Between 2002 and 2008, private sector employment in the north-east rose by 9.2% while public sector employment grew by 4.1%, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). Between 1999 and 2007, the number of businesses in the north-east rose by 18.7%, which compares favourably with London’s business growth of 19.6% during the same period.

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but there is a danger of fragmentation, even with some of the models that she mentions—for example, in the national health service and social care. If we are trying to promote integrated services, a plethora of private sector and even voluntary sector providers works against that ethos. That is a risk.

My argument is that public sector workers and service users know the difference between private profiteering and public services. Let us not forget that the key difference is that the first duty of a business is to its shareholders and the pursuit of profit.

The coalition Government are trying to do two things in developing their own brand of public service reform, which is quite distinct from what the Labour party did when in office. First, they are trying to tie down companies with more stringent contracts in the belief that setting targets will guarantee performance—ironically, the Government argued against targets in the national health service and wanted them to be ditched by public sector providers. Secondly, they believe that with stricter conditions for private sector providers, there should be no limits on where those providers should be allowed to tread within the public sector.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is developing a pertinent point. If we outsource public services—a public commodity—to the private sector, in some way, shape or form the private sector has to make a profit to give to its shareholders. That seems to be the logic from the Government’s perspective, but it will be impossible for public services to become more efficient or reinvest savings back into the development of the service.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is an excellent point, and we should be guided by the evidence. If the Minister can demonstrate that that is not the case, I will be interested to hear his response. Certainly, in relation to the national health service, the detailed impact assessment published with the Health and Social Care Bill proved that in-house services were considerably cheaper than those offered by the private sector, as well as being more responsive, accountable and fitting in with the wish for better integration.

A little earlier, different models of provision were mentioned. The coalition Government are promoting different models for outsourcing different services within different Departments—for example, academies and education, the utilities model and the NHS, or payment by result for welfare and benefits. However, although those are different models, the driver is the same. Emergency 999 call centres have been privatised and outsourced together with the administration of the benefit system. The roads on which we drive are the latest to go, as the pace of outsourcing to the private sector speeds up.

East Coast Main Line Call Centre

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

The accent is regarded as reliable and trustworthy when it comes to providing call centre services, and that is why the north-east has become a centre for call centre operations. Conversely, it is sad to reflect that unfortunately British customers are averse to call centres based offshore.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I, too, compliment my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this issue, which is important to the north-east and has some national significance. In view of today’s statement on the McNulty report and the arguments being made by Ministers about needing to reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry, is this not another example of false economy if the method of reducing the subsidy is to transfer overseas UK jobs that support the economy, particularly in areas such as the north-east?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At a time when the Government claim that supporting growth in the UK economy is their priority, surely exporting good quality jobs from the north-east to India cannot be defended. There is also the issue of the public’s perception of the level of service they will get as a result.

The Secretary of State denies responsibility for this while passing on millions in public subsidy. The company received £40 million in direct funding from the taxpayer in the nine months to 31 March 2010 by way of a working capital loan facility agreed with the Secretary of State. Given the investment from the UK taxpayer, surely there must be a moral obligation for a state-owned company to retain jobs in the UK. There should at least be some consideration given to those jobs being taken in-house by the operator. That work is not going to go away. It is a much-needed, public-facing aspect of the train service operation and there is no evidence that the transfer will improve the service afforded to the public.

The Government’s stance could be regarded as hypocritical. They declare their commitment to growth and rebalancing the economy, and day after day they preach to private business about the need to help the economy to recover by creating new jobs, but in the case of East Coast—a company that we fully own—they sit back and permit the export of jobs from a company that belongs to the taxpayer. Let me be clear: my primary concern is for the people whose lives are affected by this, but equally important is the impact on industry of exporting real jobs, particularly customer contact jobs, to another country, which represents a retrograde step away from an integrated transport policy. Despite the McNulty report’s failure seriously to consider the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership, many in the House are convinced that the evidence demonstrates that the reason why railways in Europe are cheaper for the taxpayer and the fare payer is that on the whole they are in public ownership and are less fragmented.

There is a wealth of evidence to show that overseas call centres are not the answer for companies that are looking to cut costs. In May 2004, a Department of Trade and Industry study found that work force costs that had not been fully factored into business evaluations of offshoring included the additional costs of employing local law specialists, consultants and accountants, as well as the cost of redundancies, redeployment and reskilling displaced UK workers. It revealed that staff turnover at Indian call centres in particular was about 25% compared with about 15% in the UK, with an average job tenure of about 12 months compared with three years in the UK. Higher attrition rates surely cannot be beneficial to good-quality customer service.

In July 2009, there was a huge outcry when the Association of Train Operating Companies moved 200 National Rail inquiries jobs from the UK to India. Subsequently, it was widely believed that the quality of service to the British travelling public had decreased. At the same time, BT decided to move 2,000 call-centre jobs back from India to the UK as part of a long-term strategy to cut costs by £1 billion and to reduce dependency on third parties. In 2005, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported that customer satisfaction surveys found that UK consumers did not like businesses they believed had offshored their services, preferring to deal with call centres in the UK.

In subcontracting jobs abroad, the company has made a narrow, short-term financial decision. No account has been taken of the impact that the loss of skills and jobs will have on the north-east region, its community and the local economy. Nor has any account been taken of the obvious cost to the UK in benefits of whose who will be made redundant as a result or of the reduction in tax revenue for the Exchequer. The McNulty report states that value for money is not just about pounds and pence, but about how the railway realises its wider benefits to society. Through fragmentation and privatisation, those benefits will be lost.

The industry’s most valuable asset is its work force. These redundancies mark a wasteful loss of knowledge and skills that have been honed through years of experience. They damage the shared commitment to the overall service that a proper public service ethos can bring. They impose a hidden cost of increased interfaces in the industry, blur transparency and accountability and de-clarify lines of responsibility, which would be the hallmark of a more efficient railway.

The blow to the economy of the north-east cannot be overestimated. The loss of these jobs to the region is yet another blow to the local economy and to our local communities. Tyneside already suffers a level of unemployment above the national average. The growth in call centre work has been an important factor in providing new employment in the north-east after the decline of manufacturing and, in particular, heavy industry, which arguably was caused mainly by a previous Government of the same nature.

As we all know, the Government are determined to reduce workers’ rights in the UK. They call it removing red tape and are strongly tempted to try to remove the rights of workers through Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. However, TUPE has been rendered irrelevant in this situation. A worker having the right to follow their work to the new company is simply not a realistic or viable option for those at Baron house, who now face the complete closure of their workplace, with a move for a few possibly to Plymouth or the bulk to India of course being impractical.

The awarding of this customer contact centre contract to a company with operations in Mumbai should not be seen in isolation. It is the next stage in trying to make the company more attractive to potential bidders in preparation for the eventual re-privatisation of the franchise in 2013. Already this week we have witnessed the end of a buffet car service on the east coast main line and the direct service from London to Glasgow has already been greatly reduced. Clearly the aim of the game is not customer service, or even value for money.

Despite the overwhelming social, environmental and economic benefits of retaining services from London King’s Cross to Glasgow, the direct services have been dramatically scaled back from 13 trains a day to just two, one in each direction—the 6.50 am service from Glasgow to King’s Cross and the 3 pm service heading in the opposite direction.

In the context of the McNulty report, clearly the east coast main line has a troubled history. I will not go into that now, but it is important that we think about the Government’s responsibility to manage that franchise. They do have a responsibility and they can change this decision.

Public Health Observatories

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that important and contemporary report. I completely agree with Sir Michael Marmot’s findings— and Marmite is also very good for public health. Building on the work of Professor Townsend and Sir Douglas Black, Sir Michael Marmot states as one of his recommendations:

“Action taken to reduce health inequalities will benefit society in many ways. It will have economic benefits in reducing losses from illness associated with health inequalities. These currently account for productivity losses, reduced tax revenue, higher welfare payments and increased treatment costs.”

I mentioned the economic benefits of insulating houses. It would be a real step forward if the Marmot report’s six principal recommendations were incorporated and linked to quality standards in the public health outcomes framework that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is working on.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the Black report, the Townsend report and the Marmot report, and I wonder whether Government officials and Ministers might in due course come to regard the Marmot review a little like Marmite—either loving it or hating it—in respect of its findings, because it is clear that the need to monitor what is going on in public health across the regions of England, such as the north-east, is vital for future policy developments.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. That is a critical issue. In some respects, the Government have taken their eye off the ball. I will develop that point a little later and would like the Minister to respond to it.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a clear and present danger of a reversal of health inequalities, which would be exacerbated by decisions taken elsewhere across Government. It is such an important issue, and one that I have long campaigned on. As someone who has worked in the health service and served on a local authority, I feel very passionately about it.

Remarkably, we are now considering proposals that risk losing our greatest weapon in tackling public health inequalities: evidence-based health intelligence. More recently, as my hon. Friends have noted, the Marmot review has restated the link between socio-economic factors and health, which are known as the wider determinants of health. One of the more serious threats to the future of public health intelligence is its future funding under the new arrangements proposed by the Government. In my view, the Secretary of State has shown little interest in the functioning of public health intelligence under these proposed structures.

Public health policies must take account of local circumstances as health inequalities remain stark, particularly in areas such as my constituency. For example, smoking-related deaths vary greatly across different parts of the country. Public health intelligence must drive public health practice. I appreciate that public health observatories self-generate revenue, alongside their Department of Health grant and moneys from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. They also have opportunities to gain commissions from universities and charitable organisations, but it would be extremely risky to proceed down the Government’s proposed route without the certainty of their core Department of Health funding, which I understand is to be reduced by 30% this year.

Staff and people associated with the service have reported to me that valued employees are already being laid off at the north-west public health observatory, which is based at Liverpool John Moores university, and there is a similar situation at the north-east public health observatory. Local authorities commission the majority of public health services from a ring-fenced budget. What assurances can the Minister give me on safeguarding through this hiatus—this period of transition—and for the long term under the new arrangements?

I also thank David Kidney, the former Member for Stafford, who is now head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, for his assistance in preparing for this debate. The institute has stated its view that Public Health England must be established with a degree of independence, a point I made earlier, and with the ability to oversee arrangements for collecting, analysing and disseminating valuable data for public health services.

In short, it is now time for Ministers to provide concrete assurances that the role of public health intelligence, the collection of the evidence base and, in particular, public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future.

Hospital Services (North-East)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

Okay, thanks. The cost difference is very marginal, when we factor in things such as NHS inflation and so on. The Minister has already given some clarification, but my point is that by not continuing with the proposed new hospital the cost of delivering health care may in fact—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I have to say that the figures that the Minister has just given in his intervention on my hon. Friend seem to make the Government’s position even worse than I thought it was. What we are actually talking about is a margin of difference of £11,000—based on the figures that he has just given us here in Westminster Hall—across the 35-year operating programme. Now, I am not sure if that is actually correct. I wonder if it is a bit like the lists given out by the Secretary of State for Education; the figures and the numbers keep altering on us. But based on the figures that the Minister has just given us, we are talking about £11,000, and that is the cost of not having a brand spanking new state-of-the-art hospital to serve five constituencies: my own constituency; the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North, for Hartlepool and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), and the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).

[Grahame M. Morris]

There seems to be some confusion here with the figures. However, in my mind, perhaps in the minds of other Labour Members and certainly in the minds of the good people of Easington, it only shows what a bad decision it was. I do not believe that it is being made for the stated financial reasons, but instead seems to form part of some type of idelologicallybased course of action taken by the coalition Government.

It is clear now that the saving of £464 million—the figure that was widely quoted to the media at the time of the hospital’s cancellation—is completely misleading. At some point, I hope that we will also get to the bottom of the true costs to the taxpayer of cancelling and pulling the plug on this new hospital development, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool has indicated, has been in the planning since 2005.

On 2 May 2010, in an interview with Andrew Marr, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) talked passionately about how a responsible society should protect the vulnerable. This is what he said:

“The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times.”

I am sure that many of my colleagues knew at the time, as I did, that that statement lacked substance.

Easington is one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. Health inequalities still play a large role in Easington; there is shorter life expectancy and poorer quality of life. Life expectancy in Easington is a full two years lower than the national average. The proposed new hospital was part of a clinically led strategic reorganisation of health provision for one of the poorest areas in Britain, which would have gone some way to tackling some of the worst health outcomes in the country.

The latest figures that I have been able to access are the 2007 statistics on standardised mortality rates per 100,000 population. They show clearly that death from illness that is amenable to health care—that is, deaths that would have been preventable with health interventions—accounted for 256 deaths per 100,000 of the population in the Easington local authority area, compared to an average of only 195 across the rest of England and Wales. For all causes, the figure for Easington is 713, compared to 582 for England and Wales. For coronary heart disease, the figure is 112 per 100,000 in Easington compared to 90 per 100,000 across the rest of England and Wales. For cancer, the figure for Easington is 219 per 100,000 compared to 175 nationally.