St Helier and St George’s Hospitals

Debate between Jim Shannon and Siobhain McDonagh

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

My recollection of that particular consultation was that that was really the scorched earth strategy of deciding that St Helier and Epsom were going to close and St George’s would take the strain. I thank God that that never happened, because we could be in an extraordinarily difficult position had it ever happened.

I might sound cynical when I talk about the NHS and its bias against my constituency and against services being at St Helier Hospital, but I have been here several times before. A freedom of information request revealed that those running the programme only distributed consultation documents to targeted areas around their preferred site and to just a handful of roads in my constituency. But my constituents care passionately about their local health services and will not be ignored, and 6,000 local residents responded to the programme by calling for St Helier to retain all its services on its current site.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I sought her permission to intervene beforehand because I am always very interested in health issues, and I am here to support her as well. Centralising the health service means that the ill and the vulnerable and pregnant women are expected to travel for miles to get medical assistance. That is totally absurd. Surely the health of the patient must always be put first and foremost.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is about not just distance travelled but who is travelling that distance: do they have access to a car, or do they have public transport? The NHS constitution requires that equalities legislation is taken into account, particularly looking at disadvantaged people who are in poor health and how they access services, because they access services differently.

As I said, my constituents care passionately about local health services, and when they responded to the consultation 6,000 of them sent in cards explaining how they felt and saying that they wanted St Helier to retain all its services on its current site. Can you imagine the anger when I found out that their responses had been discounted by the programme? Why? Because they were not on the official documentation—the same documentation that had been disseminated in those targeted letterboxes far away from my constituency.

To the public, the trust portrayed a neutral stance whereby a suitable site across south-west London would be selected for their acute services. To the stakeholders in Belmont, it confessed its desire to move the services to their wealthy area, and to mine, it pretended that the consultation would genuinely seek the views of the public. But as my mum always says, much gets more. I would like to put on record that while I fundamentally disagree with the desire to take services away from my constituents, I do recognise Mr Elkeles’ hard work and dedication in leading St Helier Hospital.

We now fast-forward to the present day and the latest brand, “Improving Healthcare Together 2020-2030”, a programme built upon the unstable and unscrupulous foundation of its predecessors and that once again considers the pros and cons of moving St Helier Hospital’s acute services 7 miles west to Epsom or south to leafy Belmont in Sutton. The programme was launched last summer—they always choose the summer—undertaking an initial public engagement that is expected to transition to a public consultation this coming summer. But just 837 people responded to the public engagement, and that is including hundreds of NHS staff and 169 comments on Twitter or Facebook. That is an utterly abysmal response considering the £2.2 million of taxpayers’ money squandered on the programme already. Does the Minister agree that this is a complete misuse of taxpayer funds at a time when our NHS is under such overwhelming pressure?

This is about more than just the future of St Helier Hospital. My constituents tell me that if St Helier Hospital were to lose its acute services, they would turn not to Epsom or Sutton but east to Croydon University Hospital or north to St George’s. That is a completely terrifying prospect. Before Christmas, my constituent, Marian, was left queueing outside St George’s Hospital with her left leg badly infected, because the A&E was full. And that was the calm before the storm, with St George’s A&E facing its busiest ever week just a fortnight ago. We all remember the winter crisis last year, but the first full week of February this year was 16% higher than last year’s equivalent, with a simply staggering 600-plus visits every single day. This is a hospital that already relies on St Helier as its safety valve. The maternity unit at St George’s had to close temporarily in 2014 and 2015, directing women who were already in labour to St Helier Hospital.

That is why a letter sent in November from the chair of the St George’s trust to those running the programme is completely astonishing. In the letter, the chair expresses her concern that

“there is no formal requirement to take account of the impact on other providers”

when deciding where to relocate acute health services across south-west London. It is hard to put into words just how dangerous that disregard is. I should like to pause briefly to thank the chief executive of St George’s Hospital, Jacqueline Totterdell, for her hard work and tenacity in steering one of London’s largest hospitals at a time of such difficulty.

St George’s is a hospital already under immense pressure. The plumbing, ventilation and drainage facilities are at breaking point, leading to a bid for £34 million of emergency capital from the Treasury. Does the Minister agree that a recent outflow of sewage in the hospital A&E is a clear sign that such emergency funding is justified and, more importantly, urgent? How busy does she think the same A&E would be if the local NHS were to get its way and move St Helier’s major A&E to wealthy, leafy Belmont? Will she step in today and require any proposal to reconfigure health services to wholeheartedly take into account the impact that such a decision would have on all other nearby health providers?

Merton Council recognises the devastating impact that these proposals could have, and I would like to put on record my thanks to leader of Merton Council, Stephen Alambritis, the cabinet member for social care, Councillor Tobin Byers, and the director of community and housing, Ms Hannah Doody, for their unflinching support. It is so disappointing that those at Sutton Council can stand so idly by.

By law, when deciding where acute services should be based across a catchment area of this size, it is fundamental that the level of deprivation and local health needs are accurately understood and thoroughly assessed. So I read from cover to cover the deprivation and equality analysis produced by a range of external consultancy services as part of their £1.5 million programme fee. At a time when the NHS is so strapped for cash, it is extraordinary that my local NHS seems to have carte blanche to employ so many consultants on such extraordinary rates. But even I was absolutely astounded by the monumental gaps in the analysis that these consultants have delivered.

In the pieces of analysis on deprivation and equality, areas that rely on St Helier Hospital are either absent from the documents or actively described as falling outside the catchment area. Take Pollards Hill in my constituency, an area that would be considered deprived in comparison with much of Sutton or Epsom. Wide Way Medical Centre is the largest GP surgery there, and it directs 34% of its patients to St Helier Hospital, but Pollards Hill is deemed to be outside St Helier’s catchment area. Why does this matter? Because if areas that rely on St Helier Hospital are not even considered in the analysis, how can the potential impact of moving acute services from the hospital be adequately assessed? Pollard’s Hill is not alone. The report does not mention Lavender Fields despite almost a fifth of Colliers Wood surgery patients and Mitcham family practice patients being directed or referred to St Helier from the ward.

I urgently brought the gaps in the analysis to the attention of those operating the programme and Jane Cummings, the NHS’s chief nursing officer. I was pleased that everyone agreed that such significant analysis shortfalls would be addressed and rectified.

Uganda: Democracy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Siobhain McDonagh

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on bringing this debate to the House. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and as my party’s spokesperson on human rights. I hear some incredibly disturbing stories regarding breaches of human rights, and the stories coming from Uganda most certainly bring a chill. I am a friend of Uganda and its people, but when I see wrongs, they must be spoken of in this place and the voice of its people heard. We are the voice for the voiceless, for those discriminated against, abused, attacked or brutalised.

As a democratically elected Member, I have had my share of social media attacks on the run-up to election. Unfounded or grossly exaggerated tales, media spin—you name it, I have seen it. I accept it because there is a reason people say politics is a dirty game, and no family member is safe from the mud-slinging, but when I read the stories of the so-called elections in Uganda, my skin crawled. When I realised that the UK Government have no way to be certain that UK relief funding is not being spent on training forces that go on to arrest and torture elected Ugandan MPs, my skin crawled some more and I must admit I questioned our ongoing support of Uganda.

I must be abundantly clear here. I am not questioning the relief that is given to on-the-ground bodies for humanitarian aid. Between December 2016 and February 2018, we provided food for over 1 million people, supported 64,000 women and 146,000 under-fives with immunisation and food supplements; ensured that 2,000 children have access to education services; ensured that 73% of the refugee population in Uganda accessed water through sustainable water systems, at an average of 17 litres per day; and provided relief items—blankets, kitchen sets, jerry cans and mosquito nets—to 11,000 people. We also challenge UN agencies to reform and to ensure that they deliver effectively for the most vulnerable and provide value for money for the UK taxpayer. We are clear in what we say here.

As of March 2018, contributions to the global goals and other Government commitments have achieved 248,000 children under 5, women and adolescent girls being reached through nutrition-related interventions; 572,000 additional women and girls being provided with modern methods of family planning; 56,000 children being supported to gain a decent education; and 130,000 people being given sustainable access to clean water and/or sanitation. That is right and proper, but a Department for International Development report outlined that only 25% of projected aid to Uganda goes to humanitarian projects. It is clear that a huge amount of aid goes elsewhere, which raises questions. We in this House have every right to ask those questions and to seek the answers. How much of the money is used for the training of troops and officers? How do we justify training a military that seems to do simply what the President demands, without any evidential base? That is completely incredulous and unacceptable. How can we, as a true democracy, turn a blind eye to the absolute desecration of democracy, and support a Government who allow—indeed, carry out—abuse and beatings of elected representatives for opposing the Government?

The hon. Member for Stockton South referred to the alleged massacre, which I did not know about. Let us in this House do something about that today. I am proud that we help those who cannot help themselves, which we highlight in debates all the time. However, our role is not to prop up or support regimes that flagrantly disregard the basic principles of democracy and seek merely to wear a cloak of democracy over a decrepit body of dictatorship.

There are questions to be answered. I look to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, to assuage my fears, and the fears of everyone here, and outline how we will ensure that every penny of funding for Uganda is for humanitarian aid and not for training an army to be used against any dissenting voices, which is completely unacceptable.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Law, spokesperson for the Scottish National party. Convention gives you five minutes.

Whole Company Pay Policy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Siobhain McDonagh

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I start by placing on the record the fact that as of last month I am the owner of a single share in Sainsbury’s. It was my golden ticket to attending its annual general meeting earlier this week—but more about that parallel universe experience later in my speech.

First, I turn to fat cat Thursday. By lunchtime on Thursday 4 January, the top chief executives in the UK had earned more than their average employees would over the course of the entire year. The chief executives of FTSE 100 companies earn an eye-watering £898 per hour, which results in astronomical figures more like telephone numbers than salaries. I have no qualms about those at the top being paid well. I am not calling for a salary cap or a widespread cut to chief executives’ pay. My call is far simpler: for consistency, parity and fairness, for the importance of the contribution of those at the bottom being recognised in tandem with the contribution of those at the top. Put simply, I am calling for organisations to determine the pay and reward schemes of all their employees in one whole company pay policy.

I would like to discuss the common themes of pay ratios, remuneration committees and the living wage—the most wonderful of ideas that is disappointingly littered with loopholes. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister an organisation that, in my opinion, epitomises all that is wrong when a company does not have a whole company pay policy. But let us start with pay ratios.

In 2002, the pay of a FTSE 100 CEO was an extortionate 79 times that of their average employee. Fast forward 16 years to 2018, and it has sky rocketed to 150 times. Let me put that into perspective. These are chief executives who are paid an estimated 132 times more than a police officer, 140 times more than a teacher, 165 times more than a nurse, and an astronomical 312 times more than a care worker. I am in no position to prescribe the highest acceptable pay ratio, but there can surely be no doubt in anyone‘s mind that those ratios are unacceptable, unjust and unfair.

Of course, there have been some developments in public policy. From 1 July 2019, companies with more than 250 employees will be obliged to reveal and justify their pay ratios. That can only be a good thing, because it will directly pressure the companies with the most extreme pay ratios to explain and to change them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an important issue, at a very late hour. Does she agree that, while raising pay scales sounds good, the fact that people are no longer paid for breaks, and the fact that other bonus schemes no longer operate, means less in the pockets of workers? Does she agree that such contracts should no longer be forced on any existing staff, at Sainsbury’s or, indeed, anywhere else?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree. The downside of the living wage is that companies have often sought to recoup some of their funds by reducing the conditions of long-standing members of staff.

Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to determine correctly the pay ratios of companies that outsource their low-paid roles to look more equal than they actually are and what mechanisms the Government intend to introduce to ensure that such extreme ratios do not occur in the first place? May I suggest that he note the example of Sweden—which, incidentally, is ranked one of the happiest countries in the world— where companies with big pay gaps face fines if they fail to close them?

It is not just extortionate salaries that generate these unjust pay ratios, but extraordinary incentive schemes, often reserved for those who sit at the very top of organisations. The Companies Act 2006 made it clear that non-executive board members were responsible for all stakeholders, rather than just for shareholders, and that, of course, includes all staff. However, it is still commonplace for many organisations to fail to recognise that company performance is based on the contribution of all staff, not just those at the very top. I have no problem with the retention of incentive pay for executives, but such incentive schemes should be available to all staff on the same terms. Why should any organisation have a rule for some employees that is not a rule for all?

In December 2017, the Financial Reporting Council produced its proposed revisions of the UK corporate governance code, requiring remuneration committees to

“oversee remuneration and workforce policies and practices, taking these into account when setting the policy for director remuneration.”

That seems to me to be a common-sense way of providing sensible alignment between workforce and executive pay. It is a straightforward, practical, whole company pay policy.

The need for such a policy becomes all the clearer when we consider exploitative “pay between assignment” contracts. The theory behind such contracts is a guarantee of a basic level of pay when an agency worker is between assignments and thus out of work, but, in reality, staff are often kept on the contracts even when they have been working in the same job for years without such a gap “between assignments”. Let us take, for example, an Argos distribution centre where agency staff earn £7.50 an hour, while core staff can earn up to £11.86 per hour—63% more than their agency counterparts—despite performing exactly the same role with the same responsibilities and despite having worked at the organisation for the same length of time. Repealing these contracts has been continuously recommended by parliamentary Committees and even the Taylor report. I understand that the Government are currently deciding whether to subject these contracts to greater enforcement, but I completely agree with the Communication Workers Union that the need instead is for these contracts to be abolished once and for all.

Then there is the issue of the national living wage, referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In theory it is an excellent idea, but in practice it is a deceptive tool used by some of the biggest organisations to cut terms, conditions and salaries. When it was introduced, former Chancellor George Osborne declared that Britain would get a pay rise. The infuriating reality is that a huge number of high-profile organisations have instead used its introduction to save funds by negatively impacting their most long-standing staff—their basic salary goes up, but to the detriment of the rest of their working conditions. These organisations should be named and shamed: I am referring to the likes of Marks & Spencer, B&Q, Zizzi, Ginsters, Le Pain Quotidien, Caffè Nero and countless others that have sought legislative loopholes against the spirit of the law.

Put simply, there should be more fairness. If someone is promised a pay rise, they should receive a pay rise. Organisations can dress it up however they like, but we, as politicians of all parties, need to call it out. That is exactly what I am doing today.

I have called this debate because I believe I have found an organisation that epitomises all the problems I have described so far, and more. Since 1869, Sainsbury’s has been a pillar of the great British high street. Over 148 years, it has established a reputation as a leading retailer that looks after, and out for, its colleagues and customers. But the organisation’s lack of a whole company pay policy has led to the most disgraceful discrepancies, whereby new contracts will see thousands of shop-floor staff have their salaries slashed while senior staff take home bonuses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. If shop-floor staff do not sign these unscrupulous new contracts, they will be forced to resign. Here is the reality: 9,000 loyal and long-standing Sainsbury’s staff will see their wages fall by up to £3,000 per year by 2020. They will lose their paid breaks; their Sunday premium pay will be removed; the nightshift will be shortened; and their bonus scheme will go.

Some might argue that this is an unavoidable cost-cutting exercise for a key player in the struggling retail sector. Sainsbury’s itself argues that it is an exercise in fairness, ensuring that all colleagues doing the same role are paid the same. But I would argue that this is an organisation crying out for a whole company pay policy owing to those at the top being treated independently from those at the bottom. Either that, or I have misunderstood the definition of fairness, because while Sainsbury’s has scrapped the bonus scheme for its shop-floor staff, it has, astonishingly, awarded an eye-watering bonus of £427,000 to CEO Mike Coupe as part of his £3.4 million pay packet. No wonder he sings “We’re in the money.”

But this is no laughing matter. Many of these 9,000 staff have given decades of dedication to this organisation and tell me that they simply cannot afford to continue working there. While their salaries crumble, their bills, their mortgages and their rent are all still the same at the end of each month. I wonder if Sainsbury’s remuneration committee gave even a moment’s thought to these staff when they signed off their executive bonuses. Losing up to £3,000 per year might not seem like much to Mr Coupe when his pay packet equates to his taking home over three times that amount every single day, but for the thousands of staff losing out and their families every penny really does count.

I have done all I possibly can to raise the case of these staff with the Sainsbury’s board, which I expected, at the very least, to show some regret at the despair it is causing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will let you be the judge of how regretful they are. Take the meeting I had with Rebecca Reilly, group head of communications, and Simon Roberts, retail and operations director, where I was astonished to hear the most long-standing colleagues who are losing thousands of pounds a year described as “anomalies”. Or take chief executive officer Mike Coupe, who, after his recent bruising session with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, refused to speak to me and raced away down the Portcullis House corridor. Or take the chaotic scenes at Sainsbury’s annual general meeting where, I am bewildered to report, my every move was followed by two senior Sainsbury’s staff.

After the meeting, I decided to use the opportunity to speak directly to the board members. This was their chance to justify their decision to me in person. Can you imagine how furious I was to see them hurried out of the room as I approached, surrounded by colleagues acting like bodyguards? I do not think I am scary, and I certainly do not think I am significant, but Sainsbury’s shop floor staff are significant and Sainsbury’s should be absolutely ashamed of the disgraceful disloyalty that they are showing these staff. Take Michelle, who has worked at Sainsbury’s for more than 20 years and stands to lose over £1,000 a year. She says that she has always loved her job, worked with amazing colleagues and been a proud and loyal employee for a good employer. That is why she found it so hard to speak out. Her petition on change.org has now been signed by 125,000 colleagues and customers from across the country.

Or take Mr and Mr Wilson, who have given over three decades of service to Sainsbury’s between them and yet anticipate that they will lose almost £6,000 a year as a family. Or, finally, take Mrs Taylor, who works in one of the 150 branches of Argos that are now located inside Sainsbury’s stores. Once the new contracts are introduced, Mrs Taylor can expect her hourly pay to be £1.20 less than that of her Sainsbury’s colleagues, despite working in the same store. That is what makes Sainsbury’s insistence that this is an operation in fairness so much less believable.

Could the need for a whole company pay policy be any clearer? What is needed is a policy where the pay for all staff is decided collectively at one point in time by one committee in the organisation. The consultation on these new contracts at Sainsbury’s is coming to a close. Hundreds of MPs have signed letters of support, and thousands upon thousands of colleagues and customers have spoken out. Even the Prime Minister has expressed concern. Perhaps the only hope left for these loyal staff members is a strong statement of support from the Minister this evening.

After a hard day’s work, the very least that an employee deserves is to take home a fair wage that is proportionate to that of their colleagues. Without a whole company pay policy, organisations such as Sainsbury’s can justify treating each level of their staff hierarchy independently and rewarding the minority at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. The damaging decomposition of workers’ rights under this Government has been widely felt. The enforcement of whole company pay policies would be the first step back to a country where hard-working employees can expect to receive a fair deal at work.

Local Authority Funeral Charges

Debate between Jim Shannon and Siobhain McDonagh

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I am sure that, like me, he would like to congratulate our hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for all her work in that regard; I will refer to her again later.

The rising cost of funerals has left a huge number of families trapped in a state of funeral poverty, which manifests itself both financially and emotionally, with University of Bath research identifying depression, anxiety and insomnia as funeral poverty’s common associates. It is no wonder, therefore, that funeral services were the most common item for credit card usage in the UK in 2013, with one in 10 people having to sell belongings to cover funeral costs. Grief leads to exploitation, exploitation leads to debt, and I personally cannot think of many worse debts to hang over a person than that arising from a family member’s funeral. I even hear that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions was told of a sobering case of a mother who was reportedly unable to afford a funeral for her son. Consequently, she was forced to freeze his body for months on end while she saved the necessary money to pay the funeral fees. That is just one of the terribly tragic human stories behind the facts and figures of widespread funeral poverty.

Such extortionate costs are not only faced by individuals but by local authorities. I am particularly disturbed to hear that several councils, including Monmouthshire County Council in Wales, carried out multiple public health funerals using shared graves last year, identifying a shortage of land as the reason for such an inhumane practice.

Despite the wide-ranging issues in relation to funeral poverty, it is the specific problem of burial costs and their widespread disparity across local authorities that led me to call this debate. A constituent of mine, Rachel, experienced the problem at first hand. When Rachel’s grandfather died in 1976, her family bought a plot for six graves in Honor Oak cemetery, which is in the London Borough of Southwark. In 1988, her grandmother passed away and was subsequently buried in the family plot. Rachel’s family now live in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden, in the London Borough of Merton, which is just a few miles south of Southwark.

Sadly, Rachel’s mother died in July this year. When Rachel and her family applied to open the plot in Southwark so that Rachel’s mother could be buried alongside her own mother and father, Rachel was advised that the charge to do so would be trebled, just because her mother was not a resident of Southwark at the time of her death and despite the fact that her family owned the grave space. The cost for Rachel’s family was a staggering £3,977.

I believe that was unfair; Rachel knew it was completely unfair; and, fortunately, after a little hesitation the head of the cemetery also agreed that it was unfair. Five days before the funeral, he accepted that Rachel’s family could bury their mother in the plot for a resident’s fee, which, at £1,326, is already expensive.

Rachel’s story of that anomaly is a story about the widespread national exploitation of grief. I, for one, do not think that Rachel or her family should ever have been put in that position in the first place. Rachel believes that the varying costs that families face from borough to borough is both unjust and unfair, calling it an

“extortionate death payment that is decided by the borough”.

Rachel has also said:

“Although we eventually managed to avoid paying the non-resident charge, there are others who are less able to fight the injustice, especially at a time when they are at their most vulnerable and grieving the loss of a loved one.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for bringing this very important issue to Westminster Hall for consideration. In Northern Ireland, the average cost of a funeral is £3,000 and the funeral grant scheme should be available to more people than it is currently. Does she share my concern that the age and number of dependents is not a condition, when it should be, and the reality is that someone with five children just would not have a spare £3,000 to pay for a funeral?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

The position of families should certainly be considered at that desperate time.

The compassion shown by the head of Honor Oak cemetery was an isolated incident in what is a national problem—a rule for one that has not been the rule for all. For example, my constituents, Ann and her brother William, came to see me at my weekly advice surgery. Ann and her husband are joining us today to hear the Minister’s response to the story of the turmoil that their family have been through.

Just like Rachel’s family, Ann’s family have owned a grave space for decades—in their case, since 1965 in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. It holds both Ann’s grandmother and her father, who died in 1992. Before Ann’s mother passed away, she owned the grave space, which resulted in a £95.50 charge for Ann to transfer the ownership of the grave to her and her brother.

Does the Minister agree that that fee is both extortionate and unjustifiable? How can a resident in Hammersmith and Fulham be expected to pay £95.50 when a resident in Barking and Dagenham only pays £39 for the same process? And spare a thought for people in Hounslow, who would be charged £168 if they wanted to transfer the ownership of a grave.