Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Debate between Grahame Morris and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Member is right to identify those challenges. In its analysis, published today, the National Audit Office said that the current system was not working and not serving the needs of children and their families in the way that it should. We are moving at pace to review the system in a wholesale way, and the changes that I have outlined will support that. In addition, we will legislate to ensure that local authorities can plan properly for places and admissions in their areas. We want every state school, regardless of how they were established, to co-operate in ensuring that places are there for the children who need them. I have outlined a whole range of changes that will seek to address the problem that he mentioned.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am in no doubt that the Labour Government have a terrible inheritance on SEND provision, but children in my constituency of Easington who rely on services provided by the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust face unreasonably long waiting times. Incredibly, they have to wait up to five years for assessments for autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other related conditions. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce those unacceptably long waiting lists, and support both children and their families during these lengthy waits for assessments?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I reiterate that the Government have inherited a terrible legacy, not only on special educational needs and disabilities, but on our public spending and the state of our public services overall. The example he raises is good, as it highlights the importance of working across Government to resolve issues and help the families who need support. Whether that is done through the education system, which my Department is responsible for, or through the health service, we need to work collaboratively across Government to address the huge backlogs that far too many people face in getting the support that they need. I can assure him that that is a priority for us.

State Pension Age for Women

Debate between Grahame Morris and Catherine McKinnell

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

Yes, I do. I understand that any pension changes will always be difficult and contentious, but in this case there has been a clear injustice.

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

My hon. Friend is right that there is an opportunity to put this injustice right. The Conservative manifesto said:

“We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality.”

The Government have an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is so far as the 1950s women are concerned.

[Grahame Morris]

That is absolutely true. It is widely accepted that many of those affected by the Pensions Act 1995 did not receive adequate notification. As such, they did not have enough time to plan for their retirement.

Finance Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will raise a much more relevant matter in his intervention.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s patience and tolerance in the face of such provocation. Does she agree that part of the problem that we are trying to address through new clause 13 is the culture of excessive bonuses? Opposition Members recognise that that is part of the problem and we are trying to address it with the bank bonus tax.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend. I have not made much progress yet, but the point that I was trying to make is that a whole series of actions by the banks have let ordinary people and businesses down. It is time that the banks played their part in putting some of that right.

Budget (North-East)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), on securing this debate, the importance of which is testified to by the number of Labour Members present.

The Budget will have few positive benefits for the economy of the north-east, and there is no discernible regional support within the measures set out in the Budget statement. There are cuts in corporation tax and cuts in tax for the wealthy, but there is no credible plan for what is really needed in the north-east: a stimulus for jobs and growth.

The often used line that we cannot spend our way out of a recession has been shown to be an ideological mantra that flies in the face of economic reality. What the Budget has given us is rocketing unemployment and plummeting growth in regions such as ours. The north-east has the highest rate of unemployment of any UK region, at 10.8% of the economically active population. That is mirrored in my constituency where, despite the good news we have had from Nissan, large numbers of private sector job losses are in the pipeline. We are haemorrhaging private sector jobs at an alarming rate.

Regional economies such as the north-east will not make any headway without investment in a comprehensive and lasting economic infrastructure. That can only be done by the courageous state and by Government intervention. The north-east continues to suffer from the unfinished business of transition from heavy industry. However, that transformation has stalled as a consequence of the coalition Government’s policies.

The evidence supports the fact that Labour and our regional development agency, One North East, were making progress in transforming the economic landscape. An analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that, for every £1 spent by our RDA, an average of at least £4.50 of economic output was achieved. That rose to an output of at least £6.40 when future benefits were assessed.

Ministers have sought to propagate the myth that money spent in the north-east under Labour was wasted, but that is not supported by the facts. Based on the gross value added per head indices, the rate of growth in the north-east went from being the lowest of any region during the 1990s to being the second highest during the past decade. The facts and figures were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, so I will not repeat them.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that another key role that One North East played in the region was to ensure that European regional development funding was drawn down and invested in the region? Some £329 million was made available, but £129 million remains un-invested directly because of the loss of One North East. No one is drawing down that funding and no regional funding can match that investment in the region.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. That was another vital element that the RDA contributed towards jobs and growth in the north-east, and it is sadly missed.

Although the Chancellor told us that the Budget is overall fiscally neutral, its impact by region, class or earnings is anything but. For example, VAT—a regressive form of taxation—remains at 20%, which hurts those who have no choice but to spend their wages on life’s basic essentials and depresses demand. The continuation of wage freezes throughout the public sector will make life even more difficult for ordinary people, as will the rise in fuel duty.

In his Budget, the Chancellor has failed the people whom I represent in Easington and in the north-east. There was the increase in VAT, the granny tax, the pasty tax, the philanthropy tax, increases in fuel duty and the loss of tax credits for modest earners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, was right to call it a Budget for millionaires when what we need is a Budget for jobs and growth in the north-east.

Convention on Domestic Workers

Debate between Grahame Morris and Catherine McKinnell

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government’s position seems to be at odds with their international development policies, which are stated to be working towards improving the support for and the working rights of marginalised workers? Britain is therefore put in a difficult position when trying to speak on the world stage on such issues.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a good point well. I completely agree with her.

The decision to abstain has two damaging effects. First, it will leave domestic workers in the UK, namely nannies, cooks, cleaners and the like, vulnerable to the risks prevalent for them. Secondly, it will undermine the UK’s standing and moral leadership on the international stage. For countries whose citizens, including domestic workers, have far fewer legal protections, Britain has abdicated its position as their champion. By neglecting their duty in this matter, the UK Government have tarnished their international reputation. People would be astonished to learn that workers who live with their employers in the UK and are treated as family are not covered by the working time or health and safety legislation, and are not entitled to the minimum wage. In fact, the ILO convention would have extended to those in domestic employment only very basic labour rights that are available to all workers—rights such as reasonable hours of work, weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive hours, a limit on in-kind payments, clear information on terms and conditions of employment, and some of the most basic rights of workers, including freedom of association, and the right to collective bargaining. Those are not extreme demands; they are moderate requirements.

ILO estimates of the number of domestic workers worldwide put the minimum at 53 million with the likelihood of the true figure exceeding 100 million. Domestic workers are often hidden behind closed doors, so they are all too often unregistered, and that higher estimate may be conservative. The ILO’s Director-General, Juan Somavia, said:

“Bringing the domestic workers into the fold of our values is a strong move, for them and for all workers who aspire to decent work”.

Unfortunately, that modest move was too strong for our Government.

The improvement on gender equality has also taken a hit from the British Government’s neglect because, as my hon. Friends have said, many of those workers are young women and girls. The ILO document “Questions and Answers on the Convention Concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers” states unequivocally:

“The impact is tremendous. The mere fact of stating unambiguously that domestic work is work is a very important step toward gender equality in the world of work, because domestic work mainly employs women.”

The Government’s position has been weak and disingenuous. They have claimed that domestic workers in this country are covered by protective laws anyway. The truth is that they are not treated like workers in any way at all. Many are poorly treated, as we have heard, and are paid nowhere near the minimum wage. Some are effectively prisoners in the homes where they work, and rely on their work for their home, shelter, food and livelihood.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Catherine McKinnell

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

One thing is clear: from whatever perspective we consider the reforms in the Bill—whether from that of Charnwood or Holborn and St Pancras—there is a serious and worrying lack of evidence base for the Government’s proposals. These are proposals identified by the King’s Fund as without doubt

“the biggest shake up of the NHS since it was established”.

While the Health Secretary was the Conservative party’s shadow health spokesman—from June 2004 until he took office in May last year—he was coy about his real intentions towards the NHS, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband). When the Government published the Bill, six major health unions and professional bodies wrote in a letter to The Times:

“There is clear evidence that price competition in healthcare is damaging. Furthermore the sheer scale of the ambitious and costly reform programme, and the pace of change, while at the same time being expected to make £20 billion of savings, is extremely risky and potentially disastrous.”

Labour Members welcome greater clinical involvement in commissioning, but GPs are not the sole font of knowledge in best practice and other areas.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that in any one year some GPs will deal only with one or two patients with, in particular, a neurological condition? GPs might not be in the best position, therefore, to be the providers and commissioners of such services.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend’s point. According to evidence given to the Select Committee on Health, specialists in secondary care and the nursing and other professions could add their expertise to the commissioning process.

The shake-up of the NHS goes far beyond simply involving clinicians in spending decisions. GP commissioning is a red herring. We were told by the Secretary of State that these reforms are needed because productivity has fallen since Labour’s increased investment. However, after 18 years of mismanagement and under-investment under the Conservative party, it was obvious that on a crude measurement of productivity—inputs versus outputs—there was going to be a decline in supposed productivity, because obviously money had to be directed towards clearing up the mess left by the previous Tory government, to building new hospitals, accident and emergency units and maternity units, and to reducing waiting lists, which in many areas of the country were 18 months and longer.

The Secretary of State raised the satisfaction survey. Indeed, in December 2010, the National Centre for Social Research released its most recent report on British social attitudes. It found that public satisfaction with the NHS was at an all-time high, whereas in 1997, when Labour came to power, only 34% of people surveyed were satisfied with the NHS—the lowest level since the survey began in 1983. By 2009, satisfaction had nearly doubled to two thirds—to 64%. Given that most health unions, professional bodies, think tanks and the public did not call for such reforms, where did the Secretary of State’s motivation come from? These are not patient-led reforms; they are private health care-led reforms.