Miners and Mining Communities

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Characteristically, he was generous in his remarks and we appreciate it.

The last pit in my constituency, Easington colliery, closed in 1993, at a time when coal provided 50% of the UK’s electricity production. The decision at the time to close the British coal industry made our country dependent on imported coal, which until 2014 still accounted for 35% of energy generation. Coalfield communities have never fully recovered from de-industrialisation, as was proven in the new “State of the Coalfields 2024” report published by Sheffield Hallam University and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. In response to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the all-party group continues to take up causes and issues, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).

The Government continue to undermine the local economy, as evidenced in the excellent report, despite the regular trumpeting of levelling-up policies. In reality, the Conservative party chooses to invest levelling-up funding in places like Richmond and Cheltenham, rather than in places like Horden, in my constituency, which is in the top 1% of the most deprived areas in the country. Levelling up offered hope, but the ready-to-go Horden masterplan for regeneration was sidelined by a Conservative- led coalition from Durham County Council that favoured a single bid from Bishop Auckland, a constituency represented by a Conservative MP and a former Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Government have ignored and neglected our most deprived mining communities. Far from levelling up, Conservative Ministers have widened economic inequalities.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the levelling-up agenda the Government are pursuing is that it is mainly about capital investment? Although that investment is desperately needed in coalfield areas, Durham County Council has also lost £240 million from its grants, so the services that our constituents rely on have been devastated over the past 14 years.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I was going to talk about the levelling-up bidding rounds. He and other hon. Members are well aware of the costs that were incurred by the county council—£1.2 million—in preparing bids that were not approved by the Government. We should have a means-based system; it should not be a beauty contest. Those communities, including the mining communities that are among the most deprived and urgently need regeneration, should be prioritised. Unfortunately, that is not happening. The evidence is quite clear and is laid out in the “State of the Coalfields” report. I know other hon. Members will mention that, so I will not dwell on that point.

Coalfield communities undoubtedly face numerous challenges: a lack of job opportunities, limited public investment, and higher council taxes. We could have a separate debate about the flawed council tax that penalises areas with relatively low property values, like mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Demand on social services is increased in coalfield communities because of an ageing population, many of whom have health legacies associated with working in pits and heavy industry, and generally have lower disposable incomes. Under these conditions, local economies struggle to thrive, lacking sufficient income to support vital small businesses and employment opportunities.

Low wealth coincides with low wages, making my region, the north-east, the lowest paid in the country. The Government could alleviate this, in part, by addressing past injustices and ensuring retirement security for mine- workers and their widows by reforming the mineworkers’ pension scheme, in line with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee recommendations published April 2021.

A legacy of mining is industrial disease, cutting lives short, including those of my own father and grandfather, who were both coalminers who passed away in their 50s, before reaching retirement age. My father died in the belief that his pit pension would provide security for my ageing mother, who happens to be celebrating her 88th birthday on Sunday. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] We know that some pensioners receive as little as £10 a week from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Our miners created the wealth that made this country great, with the mineworkers’ pension scheme being among the UK’s largest pension funds. However, money that should be used to provide security in retirement is being siphoned off by the Treasury, taking half of all the pension fund’s surpluses.

In a parliamentary response to me in December, Ministers confirmed that they had taken £4.8 billion—billion not million, as was reported on the TV last night—out of the pension scheme. I note also that this figure has not been adjusted for inflation, so can the Minister tell me what the figure would be if it were adjusted for inflation? This money should be used to enhance pensions, not only providing extra security in retirement, but supporting our local economies, coalfield communities, employment and small businesses. The vast majority of retired miners and their widows continue to live in our coalfield communities.

The moral case for reform was strengthened by an unfulfilled promise of a disgraced former Prime Minister. I must remind Members—particularly those on the Conservative Benches—of the promise made by Boris Johnson when addressing miners in Mansfield and Ashfield during the 2019 general election campaign. Once again, he deceived voters, failing to fulfil his promise on the surplus sharing arrangements, which remain grossly unjust. The Government and the Minister have the opportunity to put that right today.

I commend my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who chaired the then Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committee, which provided a blueprint for reform. The Select Committee report on the mine- workers’ pension scheme offers a road map for retaining the Crown guarantee, releasing the £1.2 billion in the investment reserve fund, returning the surplus, and protecting the taxpayer. With key Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Bristol North West, for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North likely to hold crucial positions in a future Labour Government, I am confident that we can achieve pension justice for retired miners and their widows in our coalfield communities. I urge those on my own Front Bench to provide a clear commitment on this issue at the earliest opportunity.

Finally, I want to mention my constituent, Ray Patterson, who sadly passed away last year, aged just 62. He was one of the 11,291 people arrested and one of 9,000 sacked during the miners’ strike. His life was changed forever by his imprisonment on the ancient charge of unlawful assembly—a law that can trace its origins back to 1328. After the strike, the Government abolished unlawful assembly and introduced the Public Order Act 1986. Ray was innocent and at any other time he would not have been arrested, charged, or convicted.

I was 24 during the miners’ strike and saw how the Conservative Government tried to starve workers and their families into submission. I saw a police state on the streets of east Durham, intent on crushing miners fighting to protect their jobs and communities. The Government, courts, police and national media were part of a criminal conspiracy against working people in coalfield communities.

Ray, who was imprisoned and lost his job and pension, spent the rest of his life rebuilding. He left us too early, but his legacy will live on through his family. Ray maintained his innocence and fought to exonerate himself —I am sorry, Ray, that we could not deliver justice in your lifetime. We need the truth. While Scotland has taken steps with the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022, England and Wales lag behind. The policing of the strike was notorious, marked by perjury and fabricated evidence, which were willingly accepted in the Government’s war on the miners.

Four decades later, it is imperative that Ministers commit to uncovering the truth about the strike, particularly events in relation to Orgreave. Many convictions from the strike are unsafe, warranting the erasure of criminal records, with only a few exceptions. From Orgreave to Hillsborough, a pattern of criminal misconduct in public office emerges, with South Yorkshire police at its centre.

Coalfield communities face numerous challenges in achieving justice and economic growth. We require a Government committed to levelling up, fair taxation, and justice. Despite slogans such as “big society”, “northern powerhouse”, and “levelling up”, the Conservative party has failed to deliver tangible interventions, particularly in the areas of greatest need, such as Horden, Easington, Peterlee, Murton, Blackhall, South Hetton, Haswell, Shotton, and Seaham. Residents in these communities have little hope of opportunity and change under the Conservative Government, so those on the Labour Front Bench must address this challenge by bringing investment, growth, and opportunity to these former mining communities, which are in need of a real alternative.

Future of Rail Manufacturing

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of rail manufacturing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union and chair of the Unite parliamentary group. I am also a member of the RMT and ASLEF parliamentary groups and I am on the Transport Committee.

For several years, industry organisations such as the Railway Industry Association, trade unions and manufacturers have urged timely action to prevent significant job losses in rail manufacturing here in the UK. The industry employs over 30,000 people in the United Kingdom and contributes at least £1.8 billion annually in gross value added. It is currently facing a very dangerous—indeed, critical—situation. The Minister, a former Chair of the Transport Committee, is very familiar with the situation. I have engaged with him on a number of occasions recently and in the Select Committee, so I am fully aware that he understands the nature of the problem.

In December last year, I raised an urgent question following evidence given to the Transport Committee by Nick Crossfield, the managing director of Alstom—Alstom is based in Derby. He impressed on the Committee the need for urgent action from the Government to expedite the bidding process for new British-manufactured trains. Four months later, it is clear that the Government have been too slow to prevent potential job losses at the Derby train manufacturer.

Similarly, I met workers at the Hitachi train manufacturing facility in Newton Aycliffe, next door to my constituency, who are also members of Unite the Union. They warned that we could see redundancies as early as June this year if the Government continue to drag their heels on extending the contract to build further trains for the west coast main line.

British railways are rooted in the north-east of England. The Stockton and Darlington railway was inaugurated in 1825 and was the world’s first passenger railway. It also linked the coalmines near Shildon in County Durham to the River Tees at Stockton, facilitating coal exports from Teesport. The Stockton and Darlington railway’s success, alongside growing demand for transport, spurred the development of a national railway network. The railways transformed Britain, enabling all social classes to travel further, and the network was developed to move coal from thriving collieries in County Durham to global markets. However, County Durham continues to struggle with the legacy of the loss of its coal industry, with limited skilled employment due to insufficient investment in levelling-up efforts, alongside a lack of a coherent industrial strategy under successive Conservative Governments.

In 2015, Hitachi opened a plant in County Durham, bringing skilled jobs to the region and reviving the north-east’s rail manufacturing tradition after 90 years. The 750 skilled jobs at Hitachi, and about 1,500 jobs in the supply chain, are fundamental to the success of the local economy.

Today, the excellent Sheffield Hallam University has released its “State of the Coalfields 2024” report, which shows evidence of a lack of jobs and businesses in the former coalfields despite recent growth. Job density in former coalfields is only 57 employee jobs per 100 working-age residents; that compares with a national average of 73 jobs per 100 residents, and an average in major regional cities of 88 jobs per 100 residents. There is a disparity, and a long way to go.

The report from Sheffield Hallam illustrates, as clear as day, the ongoing struggle for prosperity in former coalfield communities.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just the number of jobs that Hitachi has brought to the region but the improvement in the skill base? Hitachi is training apprentices and increasing the skill base locally through investments in higher education and other things. That helps not only Hitachi but the regional economy.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the broader benefits to the economy. Indeed, the loss of rail manufacturing in County Durham or Derbyshire would devastate their respective regional economies and threaten British rail manufacturing.

Alstom, Hitachi, Siemens and CAF—Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles—remain the only train manufacturers in the UK. A similar situation arose with the steel industry. To a reasonable person, it would seem illogical for the Government to permit the UK to lose its capacity to build trains, especially as our existing network is in need of modernisation.

The Minister and I have fenced about the age of the rolling stock and trains, but the UK still operates trains built before privatisation, with the average age of trains on the Chiltern line estimated to be 30 years; that was in March last year, from the Office of Rail and Road report. Additionally, nearly half all operators use trains over 22 years old. The Railway Industry Association has urged the Government to upgrade or replace approximately 2,600 vehicles by 2030, and to renew around 1,650 diesel trains that will be 35 years old after 2030.

The industry-wide consensus is that our rolling stock is outdated and inefficient. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: why are the Government not protecting British rail manufacturing, especially given the rising demand for new trains to enhance the passenger experience and to meet our net zero targets? In relation to our environmental targets, all 2,898 diesel and 912 bi-mode trains in the UK emit carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, with nitrous oxide—N₂O—having various health impacts and being up to 280 times more potent than CO₂ in warming the planet over a 20-year period. That is according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the United Nations.

To achieve net zero by 2050, a solution must be found to replace diesel trains, which are currently used by 14 operators—especially since only 38% of the network is currently electrified. My constituents, who travel on unreliable, second-hand ScotRail Sprinter trains—no offence to my friend from Scotland, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—built in the 1980s, find it inconceivable that the rolling stock companies’ profits are sky high while our UK-based rail manufacturers are crying out for orders. Taxpayers are forced to travel on substandard trains purchased with Government funds, while subsidies remain at twice pre-pandemic levels. The system is inefficient and does not serve the taxpayer or the travelling public.

There are needless links in the chain. The Government should streamline the system by directly purchasing trains and bypassing the ROSCOs or rolling stock companies. Indeed, RMT president Alex Gordon and general secretary Mick Lynch have been vociferous, voicing concerns about leasing costs, which have risen by over 30% over the past five years while rail industry staff costs have remained static.

A decade ago, leasing rolling stock accounted for about 13% of train operating companies’ costs; today, it accounts for 25% or a quarter. Does the Minister think that is fair or are the Government protecting profits when other areas of the network, including the staffing elements, are facing dramatic cuts?

Clearly, there is something wrong with how we procure rolling stock in Britain. Despite needing modern, carbon-neutral and sustainable trains, the Government have ignored warnings from both Alstom and Hitachi. The Rail Industry Association warned the Government that recent administrations have been a “canary in the coalmine” before the potential decimation of train manufacturing in the United Kingdom. Unite the Union warns that the industry’s performance relies heavily on Alstom Transport and Hitachi Rail, which hold 55.3% of market share.

The industry’s fate is dependent on key players like Hitachi and Alstom. However, recent forecasts indicate a bleak outlook, with revenues projected to decline at a rate of 8.1% annually over the next five years. Hitachi and Alstom face challenges, as their order books require clearing past orders before they can commence construction and setting up production lines for the HS2 trains, which are currently 18 to 24 months behind schedule.

Government intervention must go beyond rhetoric to provide tangible support to the industry. We are not asking for a bail-out—just a commitment to honouring existing contracts, and to establish a sensible industrial strategy for the industry. Beyond extending existing contracts, a focused industrial strategy is imperative. Research conducted by Make UK reveals that 99% of manufacturers support the need for an industrial strategy. Six in 10 cite the lack of an industrial strategy as a factor affecting growth in the manufacturing industry. Some 87% believe a strategy would provide their businesses with a better long-term vision on which to decide investment in future employment plans. To prevent another Alstom or Hitachi scenario, we must reassure the industry that the Government are prioritising its interests. I am hopeful that the Minister is going to give us some positive news, but the consequences of inaction are dire. Jobs and livelihoods are at risk, and it is time now for some decisive action.

The industry requires a steady stream of orders to sustain manufacturing and maintenance bases, alongside a proactive approach to replacing retiring engineers. We must abandon costly leasing, opting for direct purchases through Government procurement to bolster UK train manufacturing, which must be central to a long-term rail and industrial strategy, driving economic growth, innovation, and meeting our future transport needs.

Draft Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 8th December 2021 General Committees

[Mr Jones]

I would not challenge your ruling, Mr Robertson, but the point is that it is the smart technology that allows people to get different tariffs and cheaper rates, and the people I am talking about will be at a disadvantage.

The hon. Member for Cheadle makes a good point, which I would support; I would have no problem with what she suggests. But again, will people have to drive and leave their car overnight at a community charging point in order to get the cheaper rates from that smart meter, rather than having access to them? I doubt whether they will do that, because there would be security issues in relation to the vehicle and things like that. However, the initiative that the hon. Lady suggests is a good one.

Before I go on to security, I will talk about wi-fi, because it is a related issue in terms of smart technology. The explanatory memorandum says:

“Charge points will rely on a network connection to meet the smart requirements within the legislation, for example using Wi-Fi.”

That is great—if people have access to wi-fi. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said from the Front Bench, it is patchy, to say the least, in some areas and certainly in rural communities. If we are not careful, it will mean that parts of the country, especially rural communities—I know certain parts of my constituency where wi-fi connection is not good at the best of times—might be disadvantaged, because they will not be able to connect their smart meter to the wi-fi network.

It is okay to agree on the regulations, and I will come to electricity grids in a minute, but there has to be a holistic approach to how things will work. I accept that if someone does not have access to wi-fi or the coverage is intermittent, the meter will still work—that is what the regulations say—but some people will be put at a disadvantage. Again, that needs to be thought about.

I turn to cyber-security. I accept that the regulations say that cyber-security needs to be taken into consideration, but I have a direct question for the Minister. Who is monitoring the components that are going into the smart technology? Following Huawei’s involvement in the telephone network, we found that there could be—I know there is a lot of nonsense said about it—an issue with cyber-security because of the components. I would like to understand who is monitoring the components going into the smart meters, because otherwise we could open up our networks to potential cyber-attack.

I would also be interested to know what the market is, because one of the issues around Huawei was that the Chinese had come to dominate the market over successive years, as Huawei and two other companies were providing part of the technology. Do we have robust enough components and smart metering companies providing the technology, to ensure that there is a real market in which the consumer has choice, which obviously gets cost down, and, more importantly, that there is investment in technology and cyber-security?

The regulations say that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport looked at this issue. I would be interested know whether the components and structure of smart meters have been looked at by the National Cyber Security Centre to ensure that not only the components but the technology and how it works are as robust as possible. That could lead to a vulnerability: if someone got into a network and could close things down or disrupt them in some way, that could have a devastating effect like we have seen recently in the United States, where there was cyber-hacking of the petrol network that supplies fuel. The principle is the same. There, the hackers got in and stopped the pumping of petrol through pipelines. An equivalent of that would be if someone could get into the network and disrupt charging points. Their maintenance and ensuring that the components are safe will be very important for the future; otherwise there could be vulnerabilities, which would be an issue.

Finally, I want to talk about the resilience of the network. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, it is fine to have electric vehicles and charging points, but it is no good having an electricity grid that is not robust, as we have seen in parts of the north-east in the last few days. People did not have electricity for 10 days, with some even experiencing their 11th or 12th day without electricity. Again, this is important, and I would like to understand how the issue will be linked to the urgent need to look at the resilience of the electricity grid system, as I have called for this week.

I do not oppose electric vehicles, but we need to get realistic about how quickly this will happen and how safe it will be. More importantly, we should not end up with a two-tier system whereby only some consumers have access to cheap electricity for charging.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I want to briefly raise an important point about that disparity, particularly in relation to people who are less well off. My understanding is that VAT is applied to electricity drawn from community charging points at a rate of 20%, whereas if someone is fortunate enough to have a charging point on their drive, VAT is payable at only 5%. That makes a massive difference. I stand to be corrected, and I look to the Minister for guidance. It is an issue that should be of concern to us all.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. If that is the case, it is another example of a market where those who can afford least will pay more. That cannot be right. In the gallop towards the nirvana of net zero that the Government are trying to achieve, we cannot create situation where markets will be fixed so that those who can least afford to pay will pay more. Our considerations should not be just about charging points but the whole issue—network security, affordability and some practical issues about where these charging points will work and where they will not.

Rail Services: North-East England

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member. Chester-le-Street in my constituency is a commuter town for Teesside and Tyneside, and it relies on good public transport.

The timetable got worse, and by January it had still not been fixed. Between 1 January 2020 and 24 January 2020, 17 TransPennine services were out of action. The managing director of TransPennine said that performance was “not up to scratch”, but I think some of my constituents would use more forceful language to describe it. The Department for Transport said that it was “completely unacceptable”, which again is a bit of an understatement.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is absolutely correct. It is not just in North Durham but in my constituency that the services are a disgrace. The trains are often filthy and they often have only two carriages so people cannot get on to them. We were promised that the ancient Pacer trains would be replaced by Sprinter trains, but they are actually trains of the same age. How can we address the problem of the regional disparities and level up on transport infrastructure investment in rail services, given the terrible state of the services and the terrible record that we have to cope with at the moment?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have seen a lot of promises recently about investment in transport infrastructure in the north, but there is a combination of two things here. It is about cash, but it is also about competence in running the network. Before we start opening up new lines, we need to ensure that the existing ones work properly. The franchising system in this country has clearly failed. His constituency, like mine, is next to two large conurbations, Tyneside and Teesside, and his constituents should be able to travel there easily. Again, if it was in the south-east of England, they would be able to do so.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I cannot disagree with that. I come from the perspective that we need to plan interventions on the basis of evidence, but how can we do that without current and relevant data on child and adolescent mental health? We certainly need that data. On the structure of the contracts, I am a firm believer in integration. There may well be issues with block contracts. The Health Committee received evidence from the south-west indicating that there are vast areas of the country where there is very little access to certain types of in-patient mental health provision, which is clearly unacceptable. One might have thought that a large block contract would make that less likely, but apparently that is not so. However, I am not an expert in commissioning; I am simply trying to identify the policy areas.

Having spent a number of years in local government, I have no doubt that local authorities wish to tackle some of the barriers that young people face in accessing mental health services. It is a complicated area, and we need to enable local areas—the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) just referred to larger block contracts—to commission better services, and perhaps that is better done on a more local level.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the problems with block contracts is that, because of their size, they freeze out small voluntary organisations that could deliver services on a local basis?

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is true. Some of the organisations that submitted evidence to the Health Committee and subsequently provided briefings made that point.

Another issue of concern is the complex commissioning landscape for CAMHS, which can result in poorly co-ordinated services and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities, leading to gaps in provision and poor transitions from child to adolescent and from adolescent to adult. The service is certainly underfunded. We often talk in this place about parity of esteem. As other Members have reported, CAMHS nationally is receiving about £1.8 billion of the £14 billion that is spent on mental health. Local authority-provided services, which are often having to bridge the gap, are facing huge financial challenges. My local authority, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), has had to cope with cuts of £250 million over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is forcing councils to make extremely difficult decisions about which services are funded.

I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, but I also fully understand the difficult decisions faced particularly by authorities in the north that seem to be suffering disproportionate cuts. Councils are embracing their new public health responsibilities—

Health and Care Services

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is an excellent point. I am sure that Members across the Chamber will have experience of that. On Friday gone, we had a crisis meeting of the county MPs and senior politicians in my local authority area of County Durham to determine how to cope with a further tranche of cuts. The situation is becoming serious. It is said that the allocations have been ring-fenced, but the local authorities’ discretionary spend is all being absorbed into social care and expenditure for children and the elderly, and there is very little room for manoeuvre.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Okay—

[Mr Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Am I allowed to give way to my hon. Friend, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Grahame M. Morris]

With all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that my hon. Friend was at the same meeting as me on Friday, and he will probably have a relevant point to make about that, so if you do not mind, I will give way to him.

[Mr Jones]

With respect to the Deputy Speaker, the point I wanted to make was that at the meeting last Friday we were told that Durham county council has to take £210 million out of its budget. Does my hon. Friend think that areas such as ours, which has a growing elderly population, will face more pressure than some others?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. The pressures are becoming intolerable. Some of our great northern cities, such as Liverpool and Middlesbrough, seem to be shouldering a disproportionate share of the cuts, and it is a difficult task to try to balance the budgets and deliver the services that people require. There has been a discussion about whether the councils are in a position even to deliver their statutory requirements.

As the right hon. Member for Charnwood said, the NHS has been set productivity targets of 4% per year, as the Government seek to make savings of £20 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. As the report identifies, the Government believe that those savings can be made in part by prioritising competition over co-operation. I find that questionable, and we need a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences in regard to the value for money of outsourcing. There has been a lot of criticism of PFI schemes, and questions have been asked about whether they provide value for money for the public purse. To date, efficiencies have largely been achieved by freezing staff salaries and cutting the tariffs paid to NHS providers. Neither of those is sustainable, and both fail to meet the spirit, if not the letter, of the Nicholson challenge.

There are signs of falling morale in the NHS, and that is due in no small part to the Government’s attacks on pay, pensions and conditions of service. It is not helpful that Ministers seek to blame NHS staff for problems caused by the Government’s cuts and reforms. These are not the innovative changes that we need to see from a restructured NHS. In the main, we are seeing the picking of low-hanging fruit. Some of the cuts are rash and damaging, and they are being made to satisfy the Government’s need for cuts across the board.

I understand that the current Secretary of State for Health has joined his predecessor in receiving a vote of no confidence from the health care professionals at the British Medical Association conference. I only hope that the next Secretary of State for Health will seek to work with health care professionals, not against them.

The NHS Confederation’s survey of NHS chief executives indicated that 74% of respondents believed that the NHS’s financial situation was either the worst they had ever seen or “very serious”. Despite the Government’s claim to have ring-fenced funding, which has been called into question, NHS executives are not confident that the situation they face is good for their organisations or their patients, with 85% expecting things to get worse in the next fiscal year.

There is no doubt—the figures are there in the report—that the NHS is facing the biggest financial challenge for a generation, as a result of unprecedented demographic changes, an increasing demand for health and care services, co-morbidities, and people living longer with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and dementia. The Nuffield Trust has warned that, unless we improve the way in which services are delivered, growing care needs will result in a shortfall of up to £29 billion a year in NHS funding by 2020.

The NHS faces new challenges in the 21st century. The last Labour Government corrected the chronic under-investment following 18 years of the previous Conservative Government. Investment in the NHS trebled under Labour. We built more than 100 new hospitals, replaced much of the ageing infrastructure, and developed the new walk-in centres, primary care centres and a new generation of modern community hospitals. There were extended GP opening hours, and more doctors and nurses than ever before.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I do not find this at all funny. I would find it really worrying if this report is an indication of what is in store. It is rather ironic that the Secretary of State quoted from the Labour party manifesto. Perhaps it might be instructive if I were to quote from the Conservative party manifesto. It said that the Conservatives would

“defend the NHS from Labour’s cuts and reorganisations”.

If this Bill is not the biggest reorganisation that we have ever seen—[Interruption.] Well, it is, even though the Conservatives said that they would not proceed with any such huge reorganisation.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Would not the Secretary of State be able to clear that up tonight by giving a categorical assurance that no hospital will be transferred to or run by a foreign entity?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am happy to give way to the Minister, if he wishes to give that assurance from the Dispatch Box. It would reassure staff and members of the public. Perhaps we can read something into the Minister’s reluctance to give such an assurance.

The Government, despite the spin, are delivering one of the most radical reorganisations ever and in the view of many Opposition Members it will undermine the basic principles of the NHS. When the Health Secretary was shadow spokesman for the then Opposition, at no point did he explain his plan to apply 1980s-style privatisation mechanisms to the NHS. I am an avid follower of health policy and the idea of creating an economic regulator—as we have discovered through a series of parliamentary questions, the costs of Monitor could be £500 million in a single Parliament—is again ironic when we hear the Government talk about waste and bureaucracy.

As for exposing the NHS to competition law, I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), which was also made by my own Front Benchers, that it is not the provisions on the face of the Bill but the changes to the architecture of the NHS that will expose the NHS to European competition law—the same law, as we have heard, as applies to the utility companies. Health would be considered a commodity and £60 billion of the NHS budget would be handed over to private bodies, by which I mean those bodies that were the GP commissioning consortia, now renamed clinical commissioning groups. Despite the assurances about openness, transparency and accountability, those would be private-sector companies and my understanding is that they would not be open to FOI requests. That must be of huge concern to people who champion civil liberties, freedom and transparency. Over the past six years or so, we had no indication from the Secretary of State that he was planning such a radical change.

On the subject of the new failure regime, as set out in the amendments, having sat through the Public Bill Committee on the initial Bill as well as that on the re-committed Bill and having listened intently to the arguments, I cannot decide even now whether this is a U-turn or a side-step. I have read this huge document—the weighty tome that makes up the Bill, with all its various chapters and parts—as well as the impact study and the whole justification behind the Ministers’ arguments was that the NHS needed a market and a failure regime to boost productivity. Has that whole idea been left by the wayside?

Economic Development (North-East)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Well, it is a double whammy for those areas because not only has the money gone that was devolved to them from One North East, and which was spent very effectively in Northumberland, County Durham, Teesside and Tyne and Wear, but local authorities are now also struggling to afford to fund important things like tourist information centres. It is an absolute scandal for the tourism offer for a world heritage site such as Durham not to be well packaged.

It seems that this Government just do not get it. The Minister has never been to the north-east, for example, even though the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I asked him to visit a few months ago. They just do not get it. By way of example, I cite the idea that regionalism is bad, whether it be the regional office or One North East, and that other sectors will somehow meet the funding challenge, when in fact they will not.

I ask the Minister and the Government to listen not only to politicians, but to the people in the region who know. They are not necessarily elected officials. They might be people like Geoff Hodgson, who has a highly successful business career in the publican sector, and who knows something about what the private sector in the region needs. The Minister should listen to people like him.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the coalition Government’s decision to suspend grants for business investment, which I understand brought £112 million into our region and supported 25,000 private sector jobs?

Hospital Services (North-East)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the success stories in his constituency has been the local primary care trust’s anti-smoking policy—the area has seen some of the largest drops in smoking anywhere in the country? Does he also agree that the fact that that policy will be abolished too will add to the health inequalities in his constituency?

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a very good point and the development of community health infrastructure has been integral to the proposal for the new hospital. It is key to improving health and tackling health inequalities.

I have some sympathy with the Minister, as it seems that the proposed hospital suffered at the hands of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as he searched to save around £2 billion in June. However, regardless of the changing economic circumstances that saw Britain’s budget deficit improve by £10.4 billion from the original pre-election forecasts, I do not believe that it is too late for the Minister to give the proposed new hospital a second chance, following a reconsideration of the evidence.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Yes, they will, and there is something else that they will do. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Ipswich, who made an excellent maiden speech, talked about prison reform, saying things that he really meant, on an issue to which he is committed. However, he will soon be disabused of that, when he finds that the prison reforms being put through the Ministry of Justice have nothing at all to do with the penal system, and everything to do with budget restraint.

As for the other measures , the VAT increase will have a disproportionate effect on my constituents and those in regions such as mine, because it is, in part, one of the poorest communities. As for the Liberal Democrats—we saw a half-hearted attempt earlier to defend the increase in VAT—the measure will indeed affect the poorest.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On the point raised by Government Members about the impact assessment, will my hon. Friend comment on the impact of the VAT increase on the third sector? I had meetings at the weekend, and I know that many in the voluntary and community sector rely on trading activity and are concerned about what the increase will do to their income levels.

[Mr Jones]

The increase is going to affect every single organisation that provides public services, including local councils––the increase will cost them a lot of money. As we saw earlier, certain commitments were given on VAT, and I have here the Liberal Democrat poster from 8 April—and I must say that it is very good. I am sorry if I am going to pour more scorn on to the Liberal Democrats, but I enjoy doing it, and I am sure that some of their Tory colleagues will enjoy it as well. The poster says:

“Tory VAT bombshell.

You’d pay £389 more a year in VAT under the Conservatives”.

The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) made quite a few comments on VAT before the election. He referred to it on the “Today” programme on 7 April 2010, saying that VAT

“let’s remember, is a regressive tax”.

What has changed since then? What is being proposed will affect the poorest in our society.

The Deputy Prime Minister is not the only one who has form in this area. When the then Leader of the Opposition appeared in Exeter in something called Cameron Direct on 8 May 2009, he said:

“You could try as you say put it on VAT, sales tax, but again if you look at the effect of sales tax, it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you.”

So what is different now? What has actually changed, apart from the fact that the Government now have their posteriors on the Treasury Bench and in their ministerial limousines?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

There will indeed be a double effect on those families. It is all very well saying that people can shop around, but in my constituency—a rural constituency but, as I said in my maiden speech, one with urban problems—they cannot do that when they have no access to a car and the only option is public transport. Those are the communities who will be hit hardest, and I am sure that they exist in all constituencies. The new hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire, for instance, spoke of the pockets of deprivation in his own constituency. Those rural poor families will be hit harder than most.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The VAT increase will have an impact not only on small businesses and enterprises, but on working men’s clubs. Tonight there was a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on non-profit making clubs, which is very concerned about the increase. Many clubs in our area are operating on the margins, and it will have an immediate impact on their costs because the transport costs are all passed on to them. Has my hon. Friend any thoughts about the impact on such clubs, which provide a real social centre for many people?

[Mr Jones]

As a member of the Sacriston workmen's club, I have to concur with my hon. Friend. As he knows, following the smoking ban, the change in the way people access alcohol and supermarket price cutting, many such clubs in the north-east of England have been struggling. Many have closed, sadly, in my constituency. We hear a lot about rural pubs, but we hear very little about the Club and Institute Union movement. In many places, including his constituency and mine, those clubs are the centre of the community. Once they have gone, they will not be replaced. The VAT increase will be a severe blow for them at this difficult time, when they are struggling already.