Nurses and Midwives: Fees

Debate between David Anderson and Grahame Morris

Monday 23rd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Anderson]

That is absolutely what the debate is about. I will point out some glaring worries that have been described to me about the capability and the effectiveness of the NMC. It is not that people do not want to pay a subscription fee; people are forced to pay a fee to be registered, and if they do not pay it, they cannot work. If they cannot work, obviously, they will not make money. The question is whether they get value for money. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is here, and I hope that he will talk about the findings of the Select Committee on Health, which published a report a couple of years ago that was—to put it mildly—quite critical of the NMC.

I will provide some background about what the NMC stands for, what its objectives are and why it proposed a fee increase. I will explain why the NMC fee increase was so strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of nurses and midwives. The reasons for that opposition included the NMC’s historically poor financial oversight and management, which was highlighted in a damning report by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence in July 2012. The council criticised the NMC’s lack of focus on preventive measures to reduce fitness-to-practise referrals, the real-terms pay cut imposed by the coalition Government on hard-working nurses and midwives and the catastrophic impact that a fee increase would have on workplace planning. Finally, I will talk about the impact of future fee increases on nurses and midwives and on the care that patients will receive.

Despite heavy opposition from professional bodies and trade unions representing registrants’ views, the NMC chose to increase fees, effective from the end of last month. I want to talk about how fees could be reduced, which comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I congratulate those who supported the petition. Does he agree that one of the fundamental problems is that the Nursing and Midwifery Council is spending a disproportionate amount of its budget—about 75%—on 1% of the register through the fitness-to-practise cases? There must be a more cost-effective way for it to carry out its obligations.

[Mr Anderson]

That is the core of the debate. I am concerned about the fact that more and more cases are being referred. It appears that there has been a failure on the part of hospital management or health management in general, who are, in some cases, referring nurses and midwives to the NMC instead of using their own disciplinary procedures. They are giving away their responsibilities, and in doing so they are adding to the cost and the work load of the NMC, which should be dealing with other issues of equal importance.

Believe it or not, the NMC is the world’s largest regulator, with 670,000 nurses and midwives on its register. It is in the unique position of having a guaranteed income of £71 million a year. What other business or organisation has such a luxury nowadays? The NMC’s primary purpose is to protect patients and the public in the UK through effective and proportionate regulation of nurses and midwives. It is required to set and promote standards of education and practice, maintain a register of people who meet those standards, and take action when a nurse or midwife’s fitness to practise is called into question. By doing so, the NMC seeks to promote public confidence in nurses and midwives, and in the regulation thereof. However, the fee rise has done little or nothing to raise the confidence of the nurses and midwives whom the NMC regulates. Many, including some in my own constituency, feel that when they voiced their opposition to the fee increase, they were opposed or—even more worryingly—completely ignored.

For a nurse or midwife to practise in the UK, they must be on the register. They have no choice. It is illegal to work as a nurse or a midwife in the UK without being on the NMC’s register. To join and to stay on the NMC’s register, all nurses and midwives must pay the annual registration fee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

The fee increase is disproportionate, but the numbers of disciplinary and fitness-to-practise cases are also disproportionate. As we will hear, the number of nurses facing fitness-to-practise issues is grossly more than the number of doctors facing such cases. That means there is less money to spend on education and training to increase registration standards for nurses, which is what we all want.

Nurses lose at every level through the way in which the system is run. The review was not just about people saying, “Please don’t make me pay more money”; it was about, “Can we have a root and branch investigation into how this organisation is run? Can we make it run better? Can we make it run in everyone’s interest?”

[Grahame M. Morris]

There is a valid point about nurses and midwives who are returners and working part time. This burden is falling on the profession at a time when wages have been cut in real terms by between 8% and 10% over the past five years because of the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the pay review body. This is a double travesty.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is right. He will not be surprised to learn that I share his view. The Government are treating nurses and other public sector workers appallingly. At the same time as saying, “We will give you no pay rise,” the Government are saying, “We want 60% more off you, and if you don’t pay it, you won’t be able to work.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) said, these people are being pole-axed.

To join and stay on the register, all nurses and midwives must pay the annual registration fee. The fee is tied to their employment contract, which often stipulates that anyone who fails to pay the fee will face disciplinary action by their employer and a temporary lapse from the register. Since the NMC was established under the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 on 1 April 2002, there have been a number of increases in the annual registration fee. Historically, nurses joined the register for life and there was no annual fee increase. The order changed that, however. In 2004 the NMC annual registration fee was £43, which increased to £76 in August 2007.

In 2011, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence was tasked with investigating the NMC. It published a damning report that criticised the NMC’s lack of leadership, poor communication, inadequate governance and poor financial management. A new chairman and chief executive were appointed and, critically, the NMC accepted the report’s findings in full—the NMC accepted that it was not doing what it was supposed to have been doing as well as it should have been doing it.

In May 2012, the NMC indicated its intent to consult on a 58% fee rise from £76 to £120 a year. Following pressure from Unison, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing, the Government offered a £20 million grant to the NMC. The Secretary of State for Health agreed to the grant because he was also appalled by the regulator’s poor financial management—and he would know about poor financial management, given the state into which he has got the health service in general. The result of that grant was that the registration fee was kept down to £100 a year, although we should remember that it had gone up to £76 only a few years earlier, so there was a big increase at a time when people were not receiving pay rises.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Is there not an argument for placing a moral obligation on the Government to make a contribution in the wake of the Francis report, which identified failings in a number of organisations, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council? Surely the Government have an obligation to help to meet the costs in order to put things right.

[Mr Anderson]

I am happy to say that, although I do not completely agree with my hon. Friend. A review would allow us to have a discussion and get people involved. If the Government are too involved, some people will worry whether the NMC will lose the independence of which it should be proud, if it is running properly. I have no problem in principle with the Government helping out in any way they can, because that is part and parcel of ensuring that nurses are able to do the job that we and the public want.

The fee increase was significant because nurses and midwives have been subjected to a Government-imposed pay freeze while, outside in the real world, everyday items and household bills are increasing dramatically. As we know, figures from the Labour party and others show that people are £1,600 a year worse off than they were five years ago. It is a double whammy, to put it mildly, for hard-working nurses and midwives to be told, “You are going to be worse off—and by the way, why don’t you pay more for your registration?”

In May 2014, the NMC consulted again on increasing the fee from £100 to £120, an increase of almost 60% in two years. The Government could have offered another bail-out to allow the NMC more time to address the challenges it faces from fitness-to-practise cases, but they chose not to. The proposed annual registration fee increase was heavily opposed by all the professional bodies and trade unions that represent the views of registrants. Ninety-nine per cent. of respondents to the Unison survey opposed the proposed increase to £120 a year. In the RCN survey, the same proportion of respondents disagreed with the proposed fee rise. The anger felt by registrants is demonstrated by the e-petition condemning the proposed fee increase, which was signed by almost 114,000 people. Their feelings are reasonable and understandable.

I will now address the NMC’s poor financial management, which was highlighted in the 2011 report. The fee increase was felt to be inappropriate because it placed too big a burden on individual nurses and midwives to make up for the NMC’s poor management. The £20 million grant from the Department of Health was meant to contribute to the cost of clearing the backlog of historical fitness-to-practise cases. Despite that help, some 50 cases have been outstanding for three years or longer. The issue was reinforced by the report, and 50 cases have been on the books for the three or four years since then. In 2009, the NMC had a relatively small number of such cases, and had it taken appropriate action at that stage, there would never have been the need to increase the registration fee to such a level.

The NMC’s consultation paper on registration fees recognised that the key driver of increasing costs is the massive increase in fitness-to-practise referrals. Since 2008, the number of fitness-to-practise referrals has increased by 133%. The NMC holds two and a half times as many hearings as all the other regulators combined. Last year, the NMC spent £55 million of its £71 million budget on fitness-to-practise issues, which means that 77% of its budget is spent on fewer than 1% of registrants. In comparison, the General Medical Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, spent only 56% of its resources on fitness-to-practise cases involving registered doctors in 2013-14. The people who helped me to secure this debate support my contention that the NMC model is unsustainable and detrimental to the majority of registrants.

Employers are the largest group making fitness-to-practise referrals. In 2012-13, however, 40% of fitness-to-practise referrals were closed during the initial assessment. Employers were making referrals that were not fit to be heard but that had to be heard, and the cost of those hearings comes directly out of the purses and wallets of nurses and midwives. It has been suggested to me that, following the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, employers have become increasingly risk- averse and are using the fitness-to-practise referral process instead of internal processes and procedures to address performance and disciplinary issues. Instead of taking cases on themselves, employers are referring them to the NMC at unsustainable cost.

Inappropriate referrals block the system and add to costs, which is why it is important that the NMC assesses whether it is appropriate for employers to refer so many cases. The NMC could do that by including employers in reviewing the reasons for the dramatic increase in referrals since 2008. Is there a crisis? Is there a problem? Is there something wrong with the practice? If employers sit around the table with the NMC, perhaps they will get to the bottom of the situation.

The NMC should also take a more proactive approach to the promotion of education and standards as part of a preventive measure that could contribute to reducing the number of fitness-to-practise cases referred to the regulator. There should be an equally strong commitment to public protection, because that will prevent harm in the first place.

I have a quote from a full-time officer from Unison about his experience in dealing with NMC cases:

“The NMC pursue allegations against registrants that have little or nothing to do with patient safety and could not be said to have a public interest element. Despite the recommendations of the Law Commission review and its apparent endorsement by the NMC and the Department of Health, the NMC continues to bring cases relating solely to inter-employee and other issues wholly unrelated to their nursing practice. In addition the NMC insists on taking any cases with an apparent ‘public interest’ to a full hearing or meeting even where the registrant wishes to be voluntarily removed from the register. The lack of any clear definition of what is meant by the public interest makes the issue wholly subjective.

At a recent NMC hearing an NMC panel decided that a registrant’s apparent failure to approve staff applications for flexible working amounted to serious professional misconduct and was a public interest issue! This hearing lasted 10 days and probably cost well in excess of £30,000. It is absurd that nurses and midwives should be asked to foot the bill for such folly with ever increasing registration fees.”

That is the experience on the front line—that is what people are paying £120 a year for.

In an attempt to convey the affordability of the proposed fee increases, the NMC consultation paper compared subscription fees for professional bodies and those of trade unions with the NMC. However, that is not valid comparison. Unlike the NMC, trade unions and professional bodies are organisations that nurses and midwives can join voluntarily.

I would be delighted if the Government said that we could have a closed shop for trade unions and professional bodies. I am sure that you would agree, Mr Havard, but I have got a feeling that they may not be keen. Come 8 May, the next Government will be led by that wonderful gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), but I have a feeling that he also might not be too keen on closed shops in the health service or anywhere else. However, that is what we have got with the NMC.

I understand why that is the way it is, but for the NMC to pretend that, somehow, a comparison can be made with joining trade unions is completely unfair. It would be much more suitable to compare the NMC’s registration fees with Health and Care Professions Council registration fees. Under “Agenda for Change”, both regulate professionals in similar pay bands, but when we compare a nurse at the top of band 5 with an occupational therapist on the same band, we see that the nurse would pay £120 a year in registration fees while the OT would spend £80. That goes back to the point raised earlier about why on earth part-time workers and those on different bands should pay the same subscriptions.

Although the NMC recognised the economic difficulties nurses and midwives face in its consultation paper, it proposed the fee increase regardless. Effectively, it ignored the reality of how those people are struggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

Absolutely. I will come on to discuss the PSA before I sit down, which my hon. Friend will be glad to hear will not be long now.

Professional bodies and trade unions are working hard with the NMC to ensure that the development and introduction of the new process is as successful as possible and that lessons are learnt from the pilot sites. That process will be extensive and require significant efforts from registrants, but it surely cannot lead to further unjustifiable fee increases for hard-working midwives and nurses.

The NMC could take measures to prevent future fee rises for registrants, but it is not the only one that should beheld responsible. The Government could have taken measures to reduce further fee increases, but they chose not to.

First, the NMC has the most unwieldy legislation of all regulators despite being the largest. By contrast, the General Medical Council and the Health and Care Professions Council have more flexible legislation, which allows them to be more efficient and cost-effective. That prompts the question: why should midwives and nurses be treated differently from doctors and occupational therapists?

In April 2014, the Law Commission published a draft regulation of health and social care professionals Bill, which included reforms that would have helped the NMC keep costs down. If implemented, the draft Bill would offer the NMC the opportunity to speed its processes up and give it flexibility to amend rules without having to seek Parliament’s permission.

The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry called for regulators to focus on promoting safe, compassionate care, rather than intervening only after patients have suffered harm. The draft Bill would have allowed the NMC to focus more resources on education, effective registration and promoting professional standards, which would have done exactly what the inquiry called for. Currently, it is impossible for the nine health regulators to work together: there are nine different pieces of legislation, nine different codes of conduct and nine different fitness-to-practise procedures. It is not clear to me why we are treating health workers differently when the main objective of all health regulators is surely the same—public protection.

The draft Bill would enable and require regulators to co-operate more closely with each other, which would ensure consistency. It would help the NMC and all the regulators to keep their costs down collectively. However, this Government failed to include it in the Queen’s Speech, which meant it could not be debated or passed into law. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what he thinks of that decision.

Registrants should not be punished for the Government’s failure in that respect. Likewise, the NMC should not use it to justify or push through any future fee increases. The NMC has joined representatives of patients’ groups, nursing and midwifery professional bodies, and trade unions to call on politicians, such as us here today, to commit to introducing the draft Bill to reform health care and its professional regulation.

In addition, following a review in 2010, the Government decided that the Professional Standards Authority, the body responsible for the oversight of the health professions’ regulators, would no longer continue to be funded by the Government and the devolved Administrations. Instead, the review recommended that the PSA should be funded through a compulsory levy or fee on the regulatory bodies that it oversees. So, rather than consult on whether there should be a levy or on who should pay it, the Government decided to consult on how the PSA levy on the regulatory bodies should be calculated. Rather than saying, “Should we do it?” they said, “How will we pay for it?”

Professional bodies and trade unions quite rightly argued against this levy; it is another hammer blow for the people working in the service. However, their concerns were ignored by the Government who, in their response to the consultation, decided to determine the fee based on the number of registrants that a regulator has. Again, this unduly disadvantages the NMC, which will bear a disproportionate amount of the cost because, as I said earlier, it is the largest regulator in the world. Based on the current size of the NMC’s register, the first £1.7 million levy to the PSA equates to £2.50 per registrant. The upcoming fee rise has already resulted in 12.5% of this additional sum effectively going straight to fund an external organisation, which is doing nothing to protect the public or to help to educate or protect the staff working in the service.

Because the NMC has no other source of income, these costs will almost inevitably be passed on to registrants, who include some of the lowest-paid professionals regulated by the health regulators. As I said before, approximately 90% of the NMC’s registrants are women, so the PSA levy will have an adverse impact on equality, as the hon. Member for South Down said. Also, many NMC registrants work in part-time roles, and so frequently they are not high-income earners. If the NMC is forced to increase the annual registration fee in order to pay the PSA, which in some respects it already has, that will have an impact on equality, as those in this group will be financially worse off. The poorest will pay the most, which is not unusual under this Government.

Over the years, all the NMC’s efforts have been directed at dealing with fitness-to-practise cases. This has had a detrimental impact on the level of service provided by the NMC to its registrants. For example, the NMC has failed to provide effective and up-to-date guidance on key issues, and there has been a lack of professional advice to registrants who have queries or concerns about how to interpret the requirements of or guidance on the code of conduct. Given the overwhelming, and appropriate, focus of professional regulation on public protection, and the diminution in professional advice, it could be argued that it is unfair to expect registrants to continue to bear the sole financial burden of the NMC’s professional regulation activities.

Furthermore, if the body overseeing the regulators is funded by the regulators, the public will lack confidence. Consequently, the funding arrangement for the PSA, which is based entirely on registrant funding, is flawed. At a time of ongoing financial austerity, the additional bureaucracy is undesirable, particularly when there are already existing mechanisms to scrutinise and hold regulators to account, for example, the annual accountability hearing by the Health Committee, which enables the people in this building to scrutinise what the regulators are getting up to.

For these reasons, I urge the Government not to implement the levy on the nine health regulators, and for the Government and the devolved Administrations to continue to fund the PSA until it is included in the draft Law Commission Bill.

It is appalling that the NMC decided to increase its fees despite the heavy opposition from hard-working nurses and midwives. It is tough enough to be a nurse or midwife without having to be penalised for coming to work. They are working in an increasingly difficult environment, which has been made worse by public sector cuts, chronic understaffing and continued pay restraint that means their pay is lagging well behind cost of living increases. If the NMC’s fees continue to increase, it will result in nurses leaving the profession, exacerbating existing problems in the health system, which is already struggling to cope.

To ensure that future fee increases are not made, it is essential that the following steps are taken. First, the NMC should undertake a full review of all fitness-to-practise referrals that do not proceed to a full hearing, and use that information to sit down with the employers and trade unions to ensure that all referrals to the NMC are in the interest of patient safety and public protection, and not just an excuse for employers to carry out internal disciplinary procedures. That would have a positive impact by reducing the number of referrals and the overall cost thereof.

Secondly, the NMC should shift resources into promoting awareness and the development of guidance that would help registrants to understand better how to act within the NMC’s code of conduct in their practice. That would help to reduce the number of fitness-to-practise referrals, which would be a win-win for everybody concerned.

Thirdly, the NMC should consider a reduced fee for new registrants, part-time workers and those nearing retirement age, to reflect better registrants’ income throughout their careers. There should be a phased fee for all concerned.

Fourthly, the Government should not implement the PSA levy on regulators and should continue to fund it centrally, at least until it is included in the draft Law Commission Bill.

Finally, the draft Law Commission Bill must be given adequate parliamentary time by the next Government to be debated and passed, to enable the NMC and other health regulators to reduce costs, in the interests of all concerned.

We count on nurses and midwives every day.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I wonder if we can get clarification on that last point; perhaps the Minister can provide it. Given the dearth of legislation, especially in the last Session, why was not parliamentary time found for something on which there could have been cross-party consensus, such as a draft Bill based on the Law Commission’s report?

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am very interested to hear whether the Minister will respond to it when he sums up and say exactly why we have not been discussing this issue during the past two or three years, when we have been going home at ludicrous times, such as 5.20 pm on a Monday, week after week during the past few months.

We count on nurses and midwives every day. Our families count on them; the people of this country count on them. I have heard loud and clear from my constituents that the fee increases are unaffordable and my fear is that people will start to vote with their feet.

The NMC is subject to parliamentary scrutiny by ourselves and the Health Committee, but we have little opportunity to comment on fee rises such as this one. We need to get the NMC to work together with the employers, the trade unions and the representative bodies, to review what it is doing and to provide a better service for all concerned.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Debate between David Anderson and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he talks about the contributions paid by trade union members through a democratic process, that is done under rules and legislation that were drawn up mainly by the Conservatives, so the rules are their rules, which trade union members abide by to pay money to the party that they choose to support?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every attempt is being made to try to cut the link between organised labour and the Labour party, and that is shameful. I find the attacks that are made on trade unions under the guise of whatever flag is waved on the Government Benches appalling and disgraceful.

I do speak to some Government Members privately, and I think there is a lot of concern about MPs with second jobs. May I appeal to their self-interest? I think I am reasonably hard-working, although people might doubt the quality and content of what I am saying on occasion. Does it not strike Members as odd or problematic when their colleagues are away being barristers or consultants? I have looked at the register, and some of them are getting £1,000 an hour. That means that a greater work load falls on the Back-Bench Members who are staying behind here, covering for absent colleagues who are also getting £67,000 a year for being MPs. I think that is a disgrace, personally, and it should be stopped.

There is an opportunity for Members to support this motion and make a statement. The Leader of the House said that there are faults with the motion, but there is a difference between a general rule and a general principle. We can support the general principle here today, and I urge all Members to do so.

Blacklisting

Debate between David Anderson and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Let me first put on record for the benefit of the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is no longer in the Chamber, that all the legislation that controls donations to trade unions was passed by his party when it was in government. Let me also put it on record that none of the people who donate money to the Labour party are languishing in jail, unlike people who have funded the two coalition parties, namely Michael Brown and Asil Nadir.

The motion ought not to divide the House, but I want to hear from the Minister whether she agrees with the last three lines of it, because that is the “doing” part. Will she commit herself to

“begin an investigation into the extent to which blacklisting took place and may be taking place”?

If, like the Secretary of State, she is going to try to dance on the head of a pin and, basically, say “It is everyone’s responsibility except mine”, she may as well divide the House. If she does not intend to do anything serious about this, we may as well forget about it.

This debate is about fairness, it is about justice, and it is about what most of us mean by being British. What do we mean by that? We mean that we, as a people, have an innate sense of fair play: we believe that everyone is innocent until proved guilty, and we accept that anyone who is accused of wrongdoing should at least have the right to clear their name. Blacklisting denies people those basic tenets in which we all believe as a nation and which are among the things that bind us together, and it has got to stop.

Let me tell the House about my history in relation to blacklisting. The most important person I know of who was blacklisted was someone whom I never met: my own grandfather. My grandfather was a local official in the Durham Miners Association during the 1926 strike. At the end of the strike, after he had been out of work for six months, he was told—like my good friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton)—“You are not coming back to work.” He was told by the manager, when he went to his house, “Gus, I want you back at work, but if I took you back, the owners would send me down the road.” The owners just happened to be the Bowes Lyon family, who, as we knew, ran this country and ruled this country for many years. That was the attitude that they took nearly a century ago.

Eight years of poverty followed. My grandfather died in abject poverty, which meant that my 14-year-old father became the family breadwinner. He was sent down the mines—against his wishes and the wishes of his mother, but there was no alternative.

In recent history, there were disputes in the mines in the 1970s and 1980s. There was clearly state intervention in all three of those disputes, but that was particularly the case in 1984-85. Nobody seriously doubts that within that dispute there was infiltration of the National Union of Mineworkers at the highest level; there was infiltration by MI5 in the general secretary’s office, and there were agent provocateurs on the ground. State employees were directing people in the back to work movement, and we saw the use of the military on the picket line and the very clear politicisation of the police. It is good news that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating the possibility that evidence was tampered with at Orgreave—we may at last get the truth from that.

Despite that history—despite the fact that 11,000 people were arrested during the miners’ strike, hundreds were jailed and more than 1,000 people were sacked—there is a qualitative difference between that dispute and what we are dealing with today. At least in that dispute most people had an inkling of what they were being accused of. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian might not have liked the fact that he was accused of doing certain things, but at least he knew that that was happening to him. He lost his job because of what was said about him, but people do not have a clue that this blacklisting is happening to them—that is the really invidious thing. It is simply unfair for people to be facing that. The people facing the blacklisting are on that list without knowing it, without the chance to make their case and without there being any trace of natural justice.

These people may have been placed on that list with the collusion of the police and the Security Service—those are not my words, but the words of the investigation manager of the ICO. If the Secretary of State does nothing else as a result of this debate, he should surely invite that gentleman to come in and have a word with him. I know that it is an independent organisation, but it acts on behalf of this House and of the people we represent. If the people we pay to uphold the law of the land are perverting the course of justice in what they do by undermining people who are trying to carry out their legal duty to ensure that their health and safety and that of their colleagues is paramount, there is something seriously wrong. The fact that this might have happened before 2009, with the collusion of elements of the state, should in no way let them off the hook.

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

My hon. Friend refers to things that happened during the miners’ strike, when there were indeed great injustices, but this blacklisting was happening only last year, during the construction for the Olympics, so it is very recent. It is current, and it is a disgrace that people who are legitimately raising concerns about health and safety are finding themselves placed on blacklists and denied employment.

[Mr Anderson]

It is an absolute disgrace, and I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As I say, the people being blacklisted are doing something that they are compelled to do by laws that we in his House passed 40 years ago. They are doing the right thing, but by doing so they are losing their employment at present and their potential for future employment.

This morning, we heard the Shrewsbury pickets give a moving description of what happened to them. The really desperate thing behind what happened to them is the fact that the state was involved. Even today, 40 years later, the state is refusing to put documentation into the public domain for reasons of “national security”. I do not accept that. I think that what is being done in the name of “national security” is clear: people are hiding behind “national security” to protect the guilty, to protect the men and women in the shadows—the Security Service, the police and, going back to 1972, the politicians. They were clearly directing what was going on, in order to undermine the people involved and make sure that they faced a charge of conspiracy, which could have led to them doing life imprisonment. That is not something that is going to happen to the building organisations, who were using force against these people; there is no criminal sanction for them. We have the chance to do something seriously good here today, and I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that she is actually going to do something about this.

Incapacity Benefit (North-East)

Debate between David Anderson and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will come to that. My fundamental point in response to the hon. Gentleman is that the big issue for us is not just worklessness; it is joblessness. We want the Government to invest in creating jobs in the private sector and generally to get the local economy moving. There seems to be little point in inflicting penury and misery on large sections of already impoverished communities when there are no jobs for them to go into. The two should go hand in glove, and I have some suggestions for achieving that.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I agree with my colleague. The figure of 32,000 that the report spoke about was released about a month ago. That figure has not been challenged by the Government. We have 32,000 job losses across the public sector in the north-east. If my hon. Friend is correct, another 35,000 will be taken off incapacity benefit, which will put up the unemployment figures. There will be a 70,000 increase in those two groups alone. There is also the failure of the private sector to move into the void. Does that not make the jobs situation even more serious than it already is?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, which reinforces the point that I was trying to make. It is absolutely essential that we tackle joblessness; the Government have a responsibility to do that. I am concerned about the complete failure of regional policy; I am not convinced that we have an effective regional policy. We lost our regional development agency, One North East, and our regional Minister. It cost nothing to have an advocate at the top table of government, arguing the case for business, as well as for the regeneration of the whole region. It seems perverse that the coalition should abandon that, particularly when the region is doing so badly.