Budget Resolutions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jackie Doyle-Price

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Jackie Doyle-Price]

I agree, and we should embrace this outbreak of consensus. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, because we cannot tackle this in a silo. Ultimately, it is for the local authority to ensure that a statement of special educational needs is given, but equally, local authority budgets are under pressure. I went to my local education authority a few years ago to talk about the need to progress a free school application for special provision, and I received a clear message: “We don’t want to encourage that, because people will move here, and we would have to look after them until they are 25.” We need to look at this at a high level to make sure that we deliver the provision that is needed across the board.

Turning to the substance of the Budget, I welcome the decision on national insurance, which is clearly no longer the contributory levy that it once was. The idea was that people bought credits towards their pension and out-of-work benefit entitlements, which have become much more universal, so national insurance makes no sense as a separate tax. That raises a philosophical debate about whether there ought to be a contributory principle for some services. In particular, we still await a long-term solution to funding social care.

Although I welcome the aspiration to remove national insurance, we still need to sort out social care funding. There is still uncertainty about how we fund social care, and local authorities are again left to pick up the pressure. It has been very convenient to give local authorities that responsibility, but we need to do our bit. Ultimately, everything has to be paid for. If we are to have mature and sensible long-term decisions at central Government level, we need to give local authorities the same space. While there is still uncertainty about how the cost of social care will be met, local authorities cannot make sensible decisions, and the disasters that the hon. Member for Halifax described will only become more common.

We need to look again at how to ensure that local authorities make mature and sensible decisions about their budgeting. The Audit Commission has been replaced by audit firms, and the frank advice that ought to be given has simply not been given. We used to have the surcharge, which was a very blunt instrument, to ensure that councillors made mature and sensible financial decisions, but now councillors have no stake.

We often say in this place that we have great champions for local communities, but we have to show leadership and maturity in making sensible decisions. When it comes to local councils, we have the same situation on speed. They have great local ward champions who view themselves as street-by-street spokespeople for every problem, but they perhaps do not properly recognise their corporate responsibility for making sensible judgments. Councils are multimillion-pound businesses that are there to deliver outcomes for the whole local authority area, not just individual wards.

As well as looking holistically, we need to make sure that, where local authorities get things wrong, there is an element of accountability outside the ballot box, especially because local election turnouts are so poor. That is all our fault. We are all politicians, and it is our job to motivate people to vote for us. I am often frustrated by the knockabout of political debate, which is a big turn off—it is sometimes a big turn off to sit here on a Wednesday lunch time. For people who are not engaged with politics, it is an even bigger turn off. The result is that, particularly in local politics, people zone out and switch off.

Even after the biggest failure in local government finance, the turnout in my local election in Thurrock was less than 20% in some wards. Is that not shocking? It tells us that the public are thinking, “Well, it doesn’t make any difference. It doesn’t matter who I vote for. Nothing will change.” We should all think about that as the general election approaches, because I detect the same mood out there.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is never a turn off for me. She is making some excellent points, not least in respect of SEND children and kinship carers. The needs of those individuals and groups should be addressed.

On local government finance, my local authority is a coalition of Conservatives, independents and Lib Dems. Heaven knows I have criticised it an awful lot, quite justifiably, but we should recognise that all local authorities, including mine and Thurrock, have had to deal with huge cuts over the past 10 or 14 years. My local authority has had to cut £260 million from its revenue spend. I was looking at some figures, and would it not be more sensible to change council tax—

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jackie Doyle-Price

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to new clause 2 and amendment 34. I thank all Members who have co-sponsored or signed the new clause. It indicates extensive support not just from Labour Members, but from Members from across the House and a variety of parties. I must declare my interest as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

New clause 2 is very important to UK-based employment in the maritime sector. The issue has been raised with the current shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is sympathetic to the arguments we are making, and previously with his predecessors, most notably the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who was enthusiastic about what we propose.

Clause 25 of the Bill makes tonnage tax more flexible for ship owners but no corresponding adjustments for seafarer jobs and skills based in the UK, as eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). The tonnage tax’s original purpose—it was introduced by a Labour Government, by Gordon Brown—was to arrest the decline in training and employment opportunities for British seafarers in an increasingly deregulated labour market. We have seen the increasing dominance of flags of convenience.

I remind those on the Treasury Bench that at the time of the Falklands war—unbelievably, 40 years ago—there were 45,000 British-based ratings and officers in the UK. Today, that number is below 23,000. About a quarter of all seafarer jobs in the UK industry are UK-based. The Bill does not seek to improve the mandatory link to train officer cadets or to create a separate mandatory link for the training of ratings.

The comprehensive spending review Red Book commits the Government to

“explore how best to make use of existing powers regarding the training commitment”.

However, I understand from discussions with the maritime unions that the process, which I inform the Treasury Bench is being taken forward by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, is not considering any specific measures to train British ratings or to employ British seafarers, including those who were trained on the tonnage tax vessels. This is a real wasted opportunity. If there is to be a Brexit dividend, we really must address that.

Perhaps it is a case of the Government, without taking action, inadvertently damaging the UK maritime sector, but there is an opportunity to put it right. New clause 2 would require the Government to review the impact of clause 25—tonnage tax—on employment and training for British officers and ratings, including the effect of changes to flagging arrangements on qualifying ships.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Member is making the case persuasively. Does he agree that one of the difficulties is that Government policy is siloed in this area? Perhaps that is why the Government are missing the opportunity. He is right that the maritime Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts)—gets it completely and is sympathetic, but the decision-making capability rests with the Treasury. Does he think that we need to get the Government together to see the right outcome for everyone involved in the shipping industry?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and of course the hon. Member is right. The new clause’s proposal is not revolutionary; it is common sense. It is joined-up Government and application of the principle of trying to ensure benefits for British-based seafarers from the growth predicted for the maritime sector, particularly in relation to zero-carbon and offshore. That is particularly important, given that the Government could seek to use clause 25 to attract more flags of convenience into the tonnage tax scheme. Tonnage tax is a tax break that has already provided £2.165 billion in relief from corporation tax for UK and international ship owners.

In truth, the new clause would be a modest change. The real measure required to boost seafarer jobs and training, including in some of our most deprived coastal communities—including mine—would be a new mandatory link to ratings training, as well as officer cadet training, as advocated by the ratings’ union, the RMT. I do not propose that, however, because that is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 34, which is linked to new clause 2, seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to consult maritime trade unions over compliance with environmental safety and working conditions on non-UK flagships in the tonnage tax scheme. That would be consistent with the minimum standards on seafarer safety that everyone in the House would seek to support and which are part of the maritime labour convention to which the UK Government are a signatory along with all other maritime nations. I could say a little more but time is short, so, in the interests of progress, I shall leave it at that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jackie Doyle-Price

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—health tourism is a major cost to the taxpayer, so it is important that we establish that people are entitled to care. However, it is important to ensure that people without proof of ID and of residence are still entitled to healthcare. Where someone is not entitled to it, we will, of course, pursue them for payment.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

2. What funding his Department plans to allocate to radiotherapy services in the next five years.

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jackie Doyle-Price

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree that there are various interpretations of what constitutes public sector reform, and I will speak about academies in a few moments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.

On all three points illustrated in that detailed survey, the Government are out of step with the public on public service reform. Ordinary people want public services in public hands for the public good, but the Government seem to want public services outsourced to business for the good of private profit. Ordinary people want universalism, but the Government want to decentralise, to remove targets and to create local variations and postcode lotteries, so going against standardised and universal access. Ordinary people oppose rapid upheaval and fundamental reform to public services, and a case in point is the opposition to the NHS reforms.

The Government have run amok with the reorganisation of the health service and forged ahead with public service reform and outsourcing at breakneck speed. It is no surprise that when Ministers make speeches on public service reform, they do so to business leaders, never to public sector workers, service users or trade union groups who work in the public sector. I want to place on the record my support, sympathy and admiration for the front-line workers who are so often treated like pawns in a game of chess, facing constant change, reorganisation and regrading, often at the whim of political elites.

Workers across the public sector know that the latest policy move to the mass outsourcing of services and a free-for-all for business will be a last hurrah, because many of the changes will be irreversible. For people who work in the public service, it means an end to job security and to nationally determined pay, conditions and terms of service. Instead, national public services will become ever more fragmented, unstable and variable, offering short-term and risky employment not by the state, but by any fly-by-night private sector operator.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate case, but it is framed as public versus private. The reality is that we are looking at any number of models to deliver our public services. We have social enterprises and co-operatives. Surely, we should look at the outcome and not the structure of delivery.

[Grahame M. Morris]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

There are many examples where the proposals for privatisation, outsourcing or whatever models are being piloted have not produced positive results. I do not have the opportunity to list them all owing to a shortage of time, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.

The Welfare Bill passed through Parliament in March and lays the foundations for billion-pound contracts of five years or more for private companies to run welfare-to-work programmes and the administration of the new benefits system. I believe that the rush to outsource the biggest spending Department—the Department for Work and Pensions—rather than develop a coherent strategy to create jobs and growth in the economy, is a dereliction of duty by the Government.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a good example of a contract that is working. In that contract, the burden of risk is pushed on to the private provider. If it does not deliver jobs, it does not get money. Surely, that is a good thing.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The issue was raised during questions to the DWP on Monday—by myself, I think—and the papers this weekend illustrated a number of examples of service failure. Service users feel huge dissatisfaction with Atos and A4e, and there has been a huge uproar about the quality of service provision in training or retraining ex-offenders.

The evidence base is littered with failures from the private sector, so it is difficult to hold up an example. If there is a good example, I suspect that it might be the exception rather than the rule. Most often, there is a negative impact for employees, with the prevalence of short-term contracts and the use of part-time and temporary staff who are often recruited through employment agencies. Indeed, Unison commissioned a report on the rise of the multi-billion-pound private public services industry and raised significant concerns about the increased dependency on private firms.

The privatisation of public services has already become a huge industry, through which the private sector receives more than £80 billion of taxpayers’ money every year, yet it has become characterised by increased cost, deteriorating quality, the loss of accountability and the greater risk of service failure. The reason why we had the birth of municipal provision in the great northern cities—Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Wigan—was that the city fathers saw that public provision was more efficient and accountable than the existing private sector provision that was available at the time. Those arguments are not new in that respect.

I want to give another couple of examples. I mentioned A4e, and it would be remiss not to mention the Southern Cross care homes debacle. Other scandals in relation to welfare have also raised such issues and brought this agenda to the fore. That will happen more often as more services are passed over to the private sector. There is also a risk that we will lose control over our public services altogether. Indeed, in 2007, the Local Government Association warned that the amount of local authority spending on external private sector contracts and the ability of local government to make efficiency savings when it has already signed contracts without further damaging services was not realistic.

The Government’s central argument in favour of the increased commercialisation and privatisation of public services rests on the importance of consumer choice as a driver for increased efficiency, accountability and value for money. However, again, that is not supported by the evidence contained in the public surveys that have been carried out. One area that features genuine consumer choice is the provision of utilities. In most parts of the United Kingdom, people can choose a provider of gas or electricity from a handful of companies. However, is that a good example? There is massive public concern that prices have increased way above inflation and that the profits of the energy companies have soared. So the panacea of private-led competition is not everything that the coalition would have us believe it is.