Homeless Families: Relocation outside London

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a very important issue that reflects not just a housing crisis, but a crisis of fairness, compassion and accountability, involving the relocation of homeless families outside London.

At first glance, it may seem unusual for someone like me—a Member of Parliament for County Durham, some 250 miles away from London—to seek this debate, but the unlawful actions of some London borough councils have transformed homelessness in London into a national crisis that has reached directly into my constituency. In recent months, I have been made aware of multiple cases of vulnerable families being pressured into relocating to my constituency by London borough councils such as those in Redbridge, Hillingdon and Enfield. The families are being forced to choose between homelessness in London and moving hundreds of miles away, isolated from their communities and support networks.

A recent case involved a young mother being threatened and coerced by Hillingdon Borough Council to move to County Durham. In an email to her housing officer, she wrote:

“Now I am scared. I feel anxious and completely pushed into a corner…that if I don’t take this accommodation, I will be discharged from your books and made homeless. I don’t understand why you are doing this to me and my son. All I wanted was your help in finding a place, as you have put me in temporary accommodation in Slough and then you rang me today offering me a place in County Durham miles away from anyone and everything I know. You said I have to give you decision tomorrow or I must get out of the place I am in, be discharged from the Council’s books, sleep on a friend’s sofa and look after myself, how is this fair, like I said I am scared.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. This is happening not only in London boroughs, but in my constituency. The current system means uprooting children from their schools and placing them in temporary homes that are too far away to make it work. In my constituency, a child being schooled in the Ards peninsula was moved to Enniskillen, nearly three hours away—away from family, friends and schools. It really does not stack up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the educational needs of children must be taken into account? Indeed, they must be paramount.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The whole purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the fact that the actions of some—not all—local authorities are illegal and should be subject to some sanction. I hope we will hear a bit more about that from the Minister.

Is it right that a young mother and her child can be threatened with homelessness if she refuses to uproot her life and leave the community where she was born and raised, where she grew up and where she has lived all her life? There was no consideration of her needs, the welfare of her child, their health or their need to maintain family and support networks.

Water Pollution: East Durham

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is quite interesting that the subject of my Adjournment debate is dirty water; it might be appropriate. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to have this debate.

I want to start by correcting the parliamentary record. In a previous Opposition day debate on water quality, on Tuesday 5 December, I said:

“athletes fell ill from swimming in waters contaminated with E. coli”

and

“we know the source of the problem.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 288.]

Subsequently, in a letter dated 11 January 2024, Heidi Mottram CBE, the chief executive of Northumbrian Water, said my statement was factually incorrect. I am advised by Heidi Mottram CBE:

“The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) investigated the causes of illness in participants of the World Triathlon Championships Series in Sunderland, reporting in August 2023 with their preliminary findings. They found that 19 of the 31 of those affected had evidence of Norovirus infection, while the remaining samples either tested negative or were found to be positive for other infections, including sapovirus, astrovirus, and rotavirus. No evidence of E. coli O157/STEC was found, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Four samples of other E. coli were found, but it was not possible to link its presence with participation in the triathlon, and these strains can be carried naturally in the gut. The UKHSA report, concludes that ‘the predominance of Norovirus makes it the most likely explanation of illness in participants.’”

I am happy to share those comments from the Northumbrian Water chief executive in the interests of fairness.

However, the Environment Agency’s sampling at Roker beach on Wednesday 26 July—three days prior to the event—showed 3,900 E. coli colonies per 100 ml, which is almost 40 times higher than a typical reading.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is right about the water pollution in east Durham; he is also right to underline the medical circumstances. I, too, represent a constituency with an enormous coastline that is highly reliant on the fishing and tourism sectors. Water pollution is a vital issue because it has an impact on our environment, as well as a direct impact on livelihoods. Does he agree that it is imperative to have Government support to deal with small pockets of pollution before they turn into large-scale environmental crises and medical problems, like those he referred to? To make that happen, it takes funding and a Government initiative.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My personal belief is that the privatised water companies have more than sufficient resources to address the issues if they prioritise infrastructure repair work and do the job that we, as customers, pay them to do.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be more than familiar with this, but in previous debates we heard about correlation and causation: one is a kind of coincidence, and the other is a direct link between one event and another. The samples I referred to, which were 39 times above the average level, were not in the body of the water that was used for the swim. That is absolutely correct. I am therefore sure that it is only a coincidence that high levels of E. coli were detected in a body of water near the swim event. There are no such things as tidal movements, are there? I do not know if they have them in Northern Ireland. There are no such things as prevailing winds, which would move a large body of E. coli into the swim area. I refer to the comments of the Australian triathlete Jake Birtwhistle. They are slightly unparliamentary, but he said:

“Have been feeling pretty rubbish since the race, but I guess that’s what you get when you swim in” —

S-H-1-T—

“the swim should have been cancelled.”

I hope Mr Birtwhistle is reassured by the comments of Northumbrian Water that the high levels of E. coli detected in the waters near to where the swim event took place had nothing to do with the sickness he experienced on the day of the racing.

I am disappointed that, in her letter to me, Heidi Mottram CBE failed to address any of the other issues that were raised in the debate on Tuesday 5 December. They included the issues of debt and dividends, investment, and how to regulate water companies to implement some level of corporate responsibility. The Guardian, which studied financial documents of all the privatised water companies from 1990 to 2023, said that Northumbrian Water is far from the worst-performing water company, which I think makes the following statistics really rather worrying. The Guardian found that 19% of Northumbrian Water’s consumer bill is spent servicing debt. The debt owed by Northumbrian Water is £3.5 billion. Over the same period, it paid £3.7 billion in shareholder dividends. Does the Minister think it is acceptable to use debt to pay shareholder dividends? As a consumer I am outraged, as I am sure are a large number of my constituents.

If this were any other product or service, I could choose to change suppliers. Even in the rail industry—heaven knows, I have been a critic of poor service—I at least have the opportunity to highlight to Ministers failing train operating companies and to advocate that they should be stripped of their contracts for failing to deliver for the travelling public. But water is unique. I can think of no other essential public service that has been privatised where there is no consumer choice or accountability. Water is a private monopoly and a natural monopoly that is essential for life. It is vital national infrastructure. The Government are entitled to impose a strict level of oversight and scrutiny.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister, I am sure, that I personally believe that water should be publicly owned, run in the national interest and deliver public policy goals. However, I accept that neither the Conservatives nor my own Labour Front Benchers have an appetite for a publicly owned water industry, so I want to propose an alternative. First, end the use of debt to pay for dividends. Secondly, prohibit the payment of dividends until debt goals are met. Any profit in the system must go towards water sewerage infrastructure and lowering debt.

Water companies are major polluters. Although Northumbrian Water is adamant about the Sunderland triathlon, there is no doubt that it is routinely polluting rivers and seas. In my constituency, the Safer Seas and Rivers Service app shows that there are three sewage overflows in my constituency, from which there were 184 sewage discharge alerts in 2023—almost one every third day. Northumbrian Water is not limiting these sewage overflows to rare and extreme weather conditions; it a matter of routine disposal of waste. My third proposal is that there should be no dividend payments until clean water targets are met. We need all available resources going towards improvement, upgrades and new infrastructure.

The promise of privatisation is always about improved standards, lower bills and more consumer choice, but experience suggests that the reverse happens: we get lower standards, higher bills and no choice. Therefore, the Government should put an expectation, or indeed a requirement, on private monopolies to deliver for the taxpayer. I am not telling the Government to block profits and shareholder dividends forever—quite the reverse. Private water companies that deliver public policy goals and lower consumer bills, and that make real profits rather than artificial profits funded through debt, could reasonably argue that they deserve to be rewarded, but I have no trust or confidence in the private sector to deliver essential public services in the public interest.

The list of disasters is there for all to see, and it is far longer than just water. It includes probation, prisons, NHS dentistry, bus services, rail, social care, Royal Mail, the Post Office Horizon scandal and energy. Everything seems to be broken, and there are no-risk rewards for the private sector. Failure does not affect companies, with services and contracts handed back, even when they fail to deliver, having already extracted their profit. The Government take a hard line against the poorest in society, with stringent rules, benefit sanction regimes and limits on social security. However, when it comes to billions of pounds of public contracts, they allow the taxpayer to be exploited and systematically milked. Frankly, it is not acceptable.

If the law does not allow the Government to hold failing companies accountable, we must legislate and change the law. I believe that we need a corporate responsibility Bill—a Bill with teeth—to ensure that the Treasury is the guardian of public money, not a cash point for corporate greed and irresponsibility. Our water companies are the epitome of corporate greed and irresponsibility. As an industry, they have extracted immense profits while ramping up debt and failing to invest in order to end the dumping of raw sewage into our rivers and seas. Where is the risk? It lies not with these irresponsible companies, but with the taxpayer. When a company collapses under the weight of its debt after decades of underinvestment, who has to step in? The taxpayer, who is forced to clean up the mess of corporate irresponsibility and get these services up and running to an acceptable standard, only for a Conservative Government to sell them off again.

I am deeply sceptical. Water is privatised, with companies collecting their rewards and paying out dividends. However, there is no free market; there is a private monopoly. As a consumer, I am appalled that, at the first sight of rain, our local network hits peak capacity and sewage is dumped into our rivers and seas. I want to penalise water companies that fail to protect our environment. If their business is clean water, the product of our privatised water companies is defective.

The Government can continue to back corporate greed over public interest and maintain an indefensible system of privatisation that denies the public consumer choice, which is the ultimate tool of accountability. But I hope the Minister will explain to my constituents how he will deliver a zero-waste, zero-pollution policy and end the routine dumping of raw sewage on the east Durham heritage coastline.

Football and Dementia

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The wage structure in Northern Ireland is nowhere near that level. There is some expectation of teams in the Irish league. There have been many buy-outs and clubs with lots of money-making financial investments, but let us be honest: in the years past many people probably played because they loved the sport. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Will the Minister undertake discussions with our American counterparts and share information so as to ensure that we have the most accurate information available on which to base our response to tackling this issue?

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes some great points about international comparators and co-operation. Earlier he raised the issue of the old fashioned footballs—we used to call them caseys—that would be soaked with water. They were like heading a cannonball. It has been suggested to me in mitigation that in the modern game the footballs are much lighter, but that is not actually true. They may be of a different construction, but they are the same weight and they travel much faster—40, 50 or 60 mph. If I am not mistaken, Peter Lorimer, the Scottish footballer who played for Leeds—or perhaps it was a Manchester City player—had the record for the hardest shot, of more than 70 miles an hour. Imagine being hit on the head regularly—that must cause some damage. I do not think the new construction of the balls is any mitigation.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and I are of a certain vintage, and therefore probably remember those footballs better than most. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is absolutely right. It is about the force and the distance of the ball, how hard it is hit and the person on the receiving end.

There is no reason that the correlation and the evidential base that everyone has presented should not be considered for industrial payments for our retired footballers. There is much cross-party support, mostly from the Opposition Benches, though that does not take away from the Government side—those who have spoken are of the same mind. There is support from lobby groups and football clubs that have contacted us. The information that we have received over the years from interactions with retired footballers and ex-managers cannot be ignored. We must do our best to support them. This debate is so important to all constituents and footballers.

We have a love of football. We cherish the game of football on a Saturday afternoon. In my house, my wife supports Leeds, my second son Ian supports Chelsea, my third son supports Arsenal, my eldest son supports Ipswich, and I support Leicester. At 10 minutes to 5 on a Saturday it is interesting when the scorecard comes in.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on a powerful and excellent speech. As a representative of a coalfield area myself, in County Durham, I express my solidarity with colleagues from Wales who have raised the issue of unsafe coal tips and the need for funding. It is poignant that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned the terrible disaster at Aberfan. I know that it touched many hearts throughout the nation, including that of our sovereign. It was the most appalling tragedy. We must never, ever forget the debt of honour that the nation owes the coalminers and their families and communities. Although it is not the focus of my speech, I am also disappointed by the failure of the Chancellor to address the historic injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. It is not a case of demanding more public money, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is no longer in his place, claimed. This is the miners’ own money. That this historical injustice has not been addressed cuts to the quick those of us with mining connections.

The broad theme of this debate is people in businesses. I will confine my remarks essentially to cancer, which is the most dreadful business. I know that the Treasury Bench is populated by Ministers with a background in science, innovation and workforce skills, and I hope they will relay my comments to their colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer and on radiotherapy. Access to cancer services is an issue that has touched me personally and about which I care passionately. About 50% of us will suffer and battle against cancer at some point in our lives.

A week ago, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and, from the other place, Baron Fox of Leominster, and representatives from national cancer charities, cancer survivors and the cancer workforce, to deliver a petition and a letter to No. 10 Downing Street. The petition was signed by over 53,000 people. The letter, sent on behalf of a coalition of national cancer charities, patient advocacy groups, 64 MPs of all parties, peers and APPG chairs, called on the Government to invest urgently in our vital cancer workforce ahead of the Budget. A few months earlier, just before the recess, I presented to Downing Street a petition set up by Catchup With Cancer which was signed by over 370,000 people. That campaign was launched in conjunction with Craig and Mandy Russell, to whom I pay tribute. Tragically, they lost their daughter to bowel cancer at the age of just 31. Her life expectancy was drastically cut short after her cancer treatment was stopped as a direct result of the covid-19 response.

Even before the pandemic, at 62 days, we had the worst cancer waiting times on record and worrying variations in cancer services across the United Kingdom. The pandemic has not just laid bare the terrible strain on the cancer workforce, which has been happening for a number of years, but has driven cancer services to crisis point. It is reported that significant numbers of nurses are leaving or planning to leave our NHS following the pandemic. One in four NHS staff in England say they are now more likely to leave their job than was the case one year ago. In addition, long-standing unfilled vacancies and high staff absence and sickness levels continue to constrain cancer services. I am a great admirer of Professor Patricia Price, who appeared before the Health Committee earlier this week and spoke of

“the biggest cancer crisis in living memory”.

To give credit where it is due, the emphasis on cancer diagnostic services in the Budget is welcome. It matches the ambitions set out in the NHS long-term plan of diagnosing 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. The projections are that 55,000 people each year will survive for five years or more following their earlier cancer diagnosis. However—I must regretfully, with due respect, take issue again with points raised by Conservative Members—we need greater clarity on exactly how the money is to be spent. Unless the boost in cancer diagnosis is matched by an equal boost in treatment services and investment in the workforce to deliver those services, they will continue to fall far short of the Government’s stated ambition. The future of the workforce is now the most significant threat facing the NHS today. We need investment in equipment needed for treatments such as advanced precision radiotherapy, which I have benefited from and which plays a vital role in cancer care and has continued to be the stand-out cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Make no mistake, the cancer backlog is a huge issue. Without a fully funded plan to increase the number of skilled staff and train the future cancer workforce, more patients will see their treatments unnecessarily delayed. Investment in cancer treatment services and the cancer workforce needs to be expanded to match investment in cancer diagnosis. The two are hand in —two wings of the same bird.

[Jim Shannon]

You need both wings to fly.

[Grahame Morris]

Precisely. We must ensure that people living with cancer get the support they need and deserve now and in the future.

The specifics are that according to the cancer charity Macmillan, we are 2,500 specialist cancer nurses short in England. Macmillan is urging the Government to take action and create a nurse cancer training fund, which could be set up with a modest investment of £124 million. That would train 3,300 specialist cancer nurses. When we think about the many billions spent on the test, track and trace system, the investment of a fraction of that sum in cancer treatment—modest as far as the budgets are concerned— would command majority support, not just on the Opposition Benches, but in the whole House and the country.

Bereavement

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I would like to point out that a number of hon. and right hon. Members wished to speak or intervene in this debate, but due to the constraints of virtual participation that has not been possible. However, I did say I would mention my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who sadly lost his grown-up daughter last year when she passed away. I offer my condolences and respects to him, and indeed to everyone who is suffering such grievous loss and seeking to cope with it.

I thank the charities Settld, Cruse Bereavement Care and Sue Ryder, which helped me to prepare for this debate. They are leaders in their field, supporting people to cope with bereavement and the loss of a family member or friend. As you reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, at 6 o’clock the whole nation mourned the passing of Captain Sir Tom Moore, but more than 100,000 deaths have occurred because of the pandemic, leaving thousands to cope with the challenges of bereavement. These issues have never been more pressing.

I want the Minister to respond to three specific points. The first relates to the bereavement standard, the second to digital death certificates, and the third to statutory bereavement leave. These are the three issues that the charities supporting grieving families have identified as the most important, but currently we lack cross-governmental co-ordination and focus on them. Issues to do with bereavement run across several Government Departments, including the Departments of Health and Social Care, for Work and Pensions and for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way; I spoke to him beforehand about making an intervention. This is an issue that grieves us greatly. Does he not agree that in these dreadful days, when people cannot attend wakes or go through the normal stages of grief, there is more need than ever for support and care for those who grieve in these awful dark days, for those who are losing their loved ones from covid, from cancer and through accidents, and for those who cannot bear it any more? There really is a need to do better.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. There are some specific things that we in this House can do and that the Government can do in relation to the bereavement standard.

Future of the Coach Industry

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the coach industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee and my good and honourable Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for allocating time for this important debate. I thank my own trade union, Unite the union, for providing background information and briefing.

I particularly thank my constituents, Jillian Nicholson and Michael Pearson of TM Coach Travel and Northeast Coachways. The coach industry could not have two better advocates. For nine months they have asked for nothing more than fairness and justice, and a chance to survive covid, so that theirs and other small and medium-sized coach companies, often decades-old family businesses, can return to work post-covid.

The industry has a simple message to Government, and it has been delivered thousands of times in postcards from the edge. It reads, “Wish you could hear.” The Government are running out of time to listen and act. Coach operators are already going bust; employees, drivers and mechanics are being made redundant; and, the sector is losing capacity. That capacity will be vital to the recovery of the coach industry and to the whole economy, and to thousands, potentially millions, of jobs, supported by UK leisure and tourism.

Coach companies are the backbone and the supply chain for UK leisure and tourism. According to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, more than 23 million visits were made by coach in 2019, contributing £14 million to the UK tourism economy. The sector has more than 2,500 coach operators, directly employing some 42,000 people. Of course, there is then the ripple effect. Vehicle maintenance and upkeep supports an army of mechanics and garages involved in servicing and repairing vehicles.

The argument today is simple: the Government should stand by British businesses—companies that support our economy and do the right thing. The most responsible coach companies have invested in the newest clean fleets in our economy and are implementing the Government’s zero carbon climate change policy. However, ironically, they are facing the greatest loss, having to manage higher debt levels at a time when they have no income and the industry is shut down.

It is not a crisis of their own making. The number of Members of Parliament here who are concerned about this issue is worthy of note. Several who were hoping to speak have had to leave, unfortunately, because of delays to the votes and speaking in the main Chamber. This is an important issue that affects every constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I put my name down for the debate, but unfortunately I was not called. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a bespoke package of grants of £8,000 paid for the first bus and £4,450 for the second, up to a total of £100,000? That underlines the importance that the Northern Ireland Assembly has put on the bus sector, including Giles Tours and Billy Brown’s and others in my constituency. Does he feel that the Northern Ireland example might be one for the Minister to replicate here?

[Grahame Morris]

I believe there is specific support in Scotland and Wales as well. We are calling for the Minister to act and provide some sector-specific support to the coach industry in England. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for parity and an equal chance for the sector to survive, with support that recognises the specific impact that covid has had on the sector.

The coach sector was the first hit, the hardest-hit, and will be the last to recover. The fall in demand and income has been absolutely catastrophic—in excess of 90%. Unlike some other industries that have had the opportunity to diversify or even continue operating during covid, the coach industry has experienced a near total shutdown. Even if venues were open, such as concert venues, shows and sporting events, or holidays were still taking place, the social distancing requirements would make such coach trips unviable.

The industry needs support and the Government excluded coach companies from the rates relief support by failing to recognise them as part of tourism, leisure and hospitality or essential travel. I expect many in the industry would agree with Jade Cooper-Greaves of Henry Cooper Coaches in Annitsford. When she was interviewed by the BBC, she said:

“I have never written a job down in my diary that wouldn’t be classed as tourism, leisure, hospitality or essential travel.”

The lack of sector-specific support is crippling and the Government are failing to recognise the scale of the crisis.

In a letter on 23 November, the Minister responsible, who sits in the other place, said:

“We continue to work closely with representatives from the coach sector, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and with other Government Departments to understand the ongoing, specific and unique risks and issues the sector faces and how those could be addressed.”

There are many and obvious risks and challenges facing the sector.

It is not true that the sector has had support. Certainly, there has been the furlough scheme, which assisted with the employees—the drivers and so on. That was welcome, but it did not help operators with ongoing business costs, loan payments or vehicle leasing fees. And the coronavirus business loan interruption scheme has failed the industry, with the majority of the businesses in it—80%—unable to access that support.

Let us look at some other sectors. Arts, culture and heritage received £1.57 billion. I am not against that; I am simply pointing out the inconsistency. There has been a bail-out for buses and trams—£700 million. Rail—£4.5 billion, and actually it is even more than that when we take into account the emergency measures. For the voluntary and charitable sector—£750 million. Eat out to help out is estimated at £500 million. For the sports bail-out for rugby union, horse racing, women’s football and the lower tiers of National League football—£300 million.

The Chancellor said that he did not want to pick winners and losers, but that is precisely what the Government are doing by offering sector-specific support to some sectors and not to others. Let me be clear—I do not begrudge any of the sectors that I have mentioned the support that the Government have given them. But there is no transparency as to why some sectors are favoured and others ignored.

Sports are struggling without crowds, but it is the coach sector that transports those crowds. Arts, heritage and culture, hard-pressed though they are, have had some retail opportunities during covid, and in some cases are able to open now, with restrictions, in certain areas. Eat out to help out was an untargeted scheme that benefited large chains with large floor space that could accommodate more customers. Again, that support targeted businesses that were able to continue trading through covid, perhaps via takeaways or with limited capacity.

We must question the value of these bail-outs, particularly those to the bus operators, which have received £700 million. As public subsidised companies, it would be reasonable to expect them to understand the plight of the coach sector. Instead, many of these bus companies are taking the last remaining contracts, which are often travel-to-school contracts, from the coach companies. I am aware that subsidised bus operators in my own region are undercutting coach companies on already undervalued home-to-school transport contracts.

I have coach operators who rent vehicles from Arriva Bus and Coach Ltd. When they asked for a rent holiday, they were refused, even though they had no business. They were forced to return the coaches because they were unable to maintain payments of up to £20,000 a month, having no work and now also being hit with early termination fees of £80,000. I must ask the Minister—is that fair?

With all due respect, if the Minister cannot grasp the scale of the challenge after nine months, I must question their interest or competence in this matter. Indeed, I challenge the Minister. The industry is warning that, without urgent support, four in 10 companies could go bust, with a loss of 27,000 jobs, and that is not counting those jobs in the supply chain and the service sector that rely on the coach industry. We risk losing companies of good standing, and coach operators risk losing their homes due to the personal guarantees they gave on their vehicles. We cannot abandon good businesses that invest in our economy. The Government must explain why they are excluding coach companies from the sector-specific support that they have provided to other sectors.

Police, Fire and Rescue Services: Funding Reductions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend may have read my script and known that I was going to mention that. I have become very alarmed by attacks on the fire and rescue service, the PSNI and the ambulance service—and, indeed, on A&E staff, which he referred to—across Northern Ireland. There is something grossly morally wrong and evil about people feeling they can attack our rescue services when they are out doing their job of responding to a fire or to someone who is hurt. There is also the issue of the theft of property from ambulances and fire engines. Defibrillators, for instance, are stolen from the back of ambulances, as is other equipment. That all has to be paid for. Whenever people lay their lives on the line to save others, they should be shown an element of respect.

My hon. Friend referred to accident and emergency. Again, there is something grossly offensive about people feeling it is okay to go into A&E and verbally abuse nurses, doctors or other people who are there to help. There is something criminally wrong with those who would attack people in A&E. My hon. Friend underlines how we as a nation feel. It is time to respect our fire and rescue service; it is time to respect our police; it is time to respect our ambulance service; and it is time to respect the nurses and doctors in A&E. We must send that message from the Chamber today.

I agree with the chair of the Local Government Association fire services management committee, who said:

“Projected rises in both the elderly population, including those living alone, and the number of people living in privately rented homes will only increase the risk of more fires putting people’s lives in danger.”

We have a duty to focus on elderly people who need help, and I look to the Minister for a response to that. The FBU says the number of firefighters has fallen by 22% in the past 10 years. The fire service is not sufficiently funded, and that needs to be changed.

The hon. Member for Easington mentioned electrical wiring, which he, I and others in the Chamber have spoken about before. That is about not only upgrading and checking the wiring in houses, but identifying faulty electrical equipment. We have had many Westminster Hall debates about that issue, and he is absolutely right to underline it. I back up what he said, which was important.

[Grahame Morris]

I want to make a small point about that. It is a very relevant issue, and it reminds me of the public health argument. The hon. Gentleman mentioned firefighters being involved in identifying areas of high risk and installing or checking smoke detectors. There is a payback for that, but resources are so tight that the fire service and the police service are now just completely reactive. Good work was being done, and we perhaps were seeing the benefit of that in reduced incidents. Since we are no longer investing in education, installing smoke detectors and so on, we will see a higher incidence of crime and fires that could otherwise have been avoided.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is not sufficient to be reactive; we should proactively address these issues. That should be one of the key messages from the debate. Many Opposition colleagues have participated in Westminster Hall debates about electrical safety. It continues to be a massive issue, and we need to be proactive about it.

The same can be said for policing. We have some phenomenal officers, who work hand in hand with community workers to address problems on estates, yet the funding is not there to ensure that there are community workers on shifts at all times. I am a great believer in community policing—I always have been. I was probably reared in community policing, in my former life as a councillor. The relationship between the community officers, the estates and the people was phenomenal. Unfortunately, when those officers retired or moved on, that relationship fell by the way, which was a loss and a sadness.

The funding is not in place to ensure community workers are on shift at all times. Regular officers who are not up to speed with dynamics and who act as they are trained flare tensions, whereas a team who have built up a relationship would have been able to settle those tensions. How much of a talent it is to be able to solve, or salve, problems, rather than inadvertently inflaming emotions. That is down to a lack of funding. The losers are entire areas.

As I said, there are things that we cannot scrimp on, and the police and the fire services are one of them. I add my voice to those of Members who have called and will call for appropriate ring-fenced funding.

Tuberculosis

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin.

In the last three Westminster Hall debates that I have attended—on the privatisation of the east coast main line, the privatisation of blood products laboratories and free schools—I have found myself at loggerheads with Government Members. Unusually, however, today I find myself nodding in agreement with the excellent contribution of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for securing this timely, important and significant debate.

I echo the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs in paying tribute to the work of the all-party group on global tuberculosis and its members and officers, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has been an absolute stalwart of the group for a number of years.

I will concentrate on one aspect of this terrible condition that is close to my heart. As Members know, I have the pleasure of representing Easington in east Durham. Easington is a coal mining constituency with a long and distinguished history as one of the great heartlands of the north-east coalfields. I thought it would be poignant in this debate to reflect on why our pits were closed and why Britain now imports more than two thirds of the coal burned in our power stations, when once we imported none.

The UK coal industry was modern, efficient and very health conscious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) spoke about the incidence of TB among South African miners, which is relevant. I have just come from the annual general meeting of the all-party group on coalfield communities, where we talked about the problems that we face in coal mining communities, the physical legacy of pollution and the ill health associated with mining. That is another reason why this debate is close to my heart.

Although, by its very nature, mining will never be completely safe—it is an extractive process—our mines were about as safe as they could be, and the health, safety and well-being of miners was paramount. There are those who would argue that that drove up costs.

Today, much of the world’s coal production has been offshored and outsourced to countries where health and safety standards are minimal and labour is cheap. There is still blood on the coal, but nowadays it is more likely to be the blood of miners in Colombia, China or South Africa. The price of the irresponsible pursuit of profit and cheap labour is the health and safety of mineworkers worldwide.

Mining is one of the biggest employers of men in South Africa. Tens of thousands of those miners are migrant workers, from neighbouring countries such as Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland, who work and live in crowded townships in mining areas. As has been said, diseases such as malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS are rife. South Africa’s mining industry has been the subject of intense international and national media scrutiny due to the recent industrial unrest. Members will be aware of the appalling shooting of striking miners by armed police in scenes reminiscent of the worst days of apartheid. Mining is one of the driving forces of the South African economy; it contributes some 20% of the country’s gross domestic product and is a major employer.

What has not been subject to the same degree of media attention is the devastation caused to miners and their families by TB. The disease remains the leading cause of death in South Africa today. One third of all cases in sub-Saharan Africa have a link to the mines. TB is an airborne disease, spreading through the air when people who have it cough or sneeze, and it is often fatal if left untreated. Rates of TB among South African mineworkers are estimated to be as high as 7,000 per 100,000. That huge figure is 28 times the World Health Organisation’s definition of a health emergency and is the highest such figure in the world.

As we have heard, TB is closely linked to HIV, which is also a challenge in the mines. It is estimated that people with HIV are 21 to 34 times more likely to develop active TB. As we approach world AIDS day, it is important to reflect on that and on the interactions between the two. Such high HIV infection rates, coupled with cramped living conditions and exposure to silica dust, which damages miners’ lungs, creates a perfect breeding ground for the disease. The effects are devastating not only for the families of the many miners who die from TB, but also for communities, companies and Governments.

From a commercial point of view, the disease dents productivity—the issues I am raising are relevant to the British mining companies involved in South Africa—puts a drain on health budgets and spreads far into the rural areas that miners migrate from. Migration also means that the problem is not exclusive to South Africa, which is one reason why sub-Saharan Africa is not on track to meet the target of reducing deaths from TB by half by the expiration of the United Nations millennium development goals in 2015.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being here earlier; I had other business and could not get here any quicker.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned world figures for TB, but the exact number of TB sufferers is not known and many of them cannot be found. How does he think we can best address that problem?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that relevant point. An estimated 3 million people with TB in southern Africa have not been reached, but programmes, such as TB REACH and those supported by the Department for International Development, exist to identify those people and to secure treatment for them. My point is about the incidence of known TB among miners in South Africa.

TB is curable with drugs, and the costs are relatively modest. Spending £15 a person should be easily affordable. Global underinvestment and indifference mean that the disease killed an estimated 1.3 million people globally in 2012. The failure to deal decisively with TB has allowed drug-resistant strains of the airborne disease to develop, which are much more difficult and significantly more expensive to treat.

Earlier this year, members of the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis, including me, met the Secretary of State for International Development. I want to echo the words of Government Members and compliment the Minister and the Secretary of State for their commitment on this issue. We met them to put TB at the forefront of their dealings with major Anglo-American mining interests, particularly in the gold mining industry, which has a high incidence of TB as well as high rates of HIV. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath mentioned, an estimated 750,000 cases—I had to check that incredible figure, as I thought it was a printing error—of TB each year, 9% of the global total, come from South Africa’s gold mines.

Colleagues who represent former British mining communities, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), and I are determined to push the battle against TB up the political agenda here in the UK. Along with the South African mining unions, I want to see the British Government make the British mining companies involved in South Africa sign up to a new protocol launched by the South African Department of Health. That would help ensure that mining companies abide by a legal framework governing the treatment and compensation of occupational TB.

In the past, too many stricken miners simply returned to their towns and villages to die lingering and often painful deaths. In the 21st century, it simply cannot be acceptable that mining companies, or any other employers, should systematically endanger the health of their workers. Rates of TB in the mines have been estimated at 28 times the World Health Organisation’s definition of a health emergency. This is a global health emergency. We need Governments, employers and drug companies to act accordingly.

People do not have to live in a mining constituency to know that keeping the lights on should not come at the expense of the health and lives of South African miners and their families, or those in any other countries. That is simply wrong. Global mining operations headquartered in the UK must accept their social, moral and ethical obligations to address the issue as a matter of urgency.

Hepatitis C (Haemophiliacs)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing a debate on this important issue.

What are the thoughts of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the role of specialist hepatitis C nurses in providing support to sufferers who are haemophiliacs and more generally? The NICE guidelines suggest a minimum of one specialist hepatitis C nurse for every 40 patients in the community and one such nurse for every 20 patients in a hospital setting. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government’s plans to transfer resources through the clinical commissioning group allocations will help or hinder the improvement of support for hepatitis C sufferers?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for helpfully highlighting the role of specialist nurses. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication of the importance of the role of nurses and therefore the importance of retaining them and ensuring that the numbers are correct.

Just a few minutes spent reading the stories of victims and their families on the taintedblood.info website brings a lump to the throat. In this House, where we have the privilege to represent our constituents, we cannot continue to leave the families behind. I wholeheartedly support the removal of the two-tier system, which would entitle people to an annual sum to help them to cope with the side effects of this terrible disease and would take a little pressure off the families who are faced with watching their loved one fade away before their eyes. It is well past time that we do the right thing by those affected, and that will not be done by separating and segregating those infected by the same disease. I urge the Minister to take on board what is said today by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and others and to do the obvious and right thing by providing the apology and response that we need.

Several hon. Members rose—

Firearms Controls

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I have no experience. I have never held or shot a gun, but I have experience of a terrible tragedy in my constituency on new year’s day. I am attempting to share my experience with Members and to advocate having a review in the interests of public safety.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the balanced way he is approaching this subject. I am concerned that the focus seems to be on legitimate firearms holders, the majority of whom are law-abiding. Will he reassure sporting Members and others throughout our local communities who enjoy the sport that this debate is not going down the road to remove firearms from those who have a legitimate right to hold them?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I hope I have made that point. I am not proposing that people with a legitimate need to hold firearms, such as farmers and so on—there is a whole list of such people—not be allowed to hold them. That need should be declared as a reason for holding a certificate, and the police or the licensing authority would take it into account.

In a case in my constituency in 2008, Michael Atherton had his weapons revoked following threats to self-harm, and issues relating to mental health and gun ownership were also a factor in the case of Christopher Foster, who shot his wife, his daughter and himself after confessing suicidal thoughts to his GP.

I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Medical Association have an agreement whereby the police alert GPs to any new applications for and renewals of firearms licences. However, concerns remain where an applicant fails to disclose full and accurate medical information at the time of application or renewal. Applicants are required to provide a number of medical details, including whether they suffer from any

“medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug…conditions”.

They also have to declare whether they have ever suffered from epilepsy or been treated for

“depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder”.

However, that information is not routinely checked. Licensing officers approach medical professionals only when there are doubts about an applicant’s medical history, although Dr John Canning—again, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on behalf of the BMA—stated that GPs are “not very often” asked to provide medical evidence, although it happens “from time to time”.

Following the case of Christopher Foster, the Independent Police Complaints Commission proposed in 2008 that the licensing force should be required to approach the applicant’s doctor in each case, in order to obtain confirmation that the medical information provided in the application was correct. The omission of information from a firearms application was also an issue in the case of Mark Saunders in 2006, which ended in his being killed by the Metropolitan police. Mr Saunders failed to declare during the application process that he had been treated by a consultant for depression and for his tendency occasionally to drink more than was sensible—indeed, he had been referred by his GP. Unfortunately, on his application for a firearms licence he stated that he had no such health problems.

In my view, the solution is to ensure that each applicant knows that licensing officers will approach their GP as a matter of course to verify statements made on their application about their health, to ensure they are correct and accurate. My proposal would address failures by an applicant to disclose any medical problem that raises questions about their suitability to own and have free access to a firearm. Finally, I call for greater consultation between the licensing authority and those who are or have been a domestic partner of a potential applicant. A similar system is already in place in Canada, where all citizens applying for a firearms licence are required to have their present and past partners in the previous two years sign their application. Refusal to sign for any reason does not automatically mean that the police and licensing authorities will veto an application, but it will trigger further investigation by law enforcement officers. The Canadian requirements merit further exploration, and I would appreciate it if the Minister informed the House of any progress made on this matter.

There has been no knee-jerk reaction. These proposals are considered, practical measures that, if implemented, could allow the consistent application of firearms legislation, strengthen existing safeguards and ensure public safety while maintaining the rights of the shooting fraternity to have access to firearms where there is a good and legitimate purpose for their use.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I want to make a few points on Lords amendment 2, which deals with the Secretary of State’s duties. This has been the subject of one of the most fundamental debates during the course of the Bill. The Lords still have grave concerns about whether the Secretary of State does indeed have a duty to

“provide or secure the effective provision”

of health services in England. In addition, concern remains over exactly what the Secretary of State will remain accountable to the House for.

In Committee, the Lords agreed not to amend clause 1, or clause 4, in regard to the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and the Health Secretary's accountability to Parliament. Instead, they preferred to engage in negotiations with the Minister with a view to bringing back proposals before the Report stage. The Lords Constitution Committee also proposed amendments on ministerial accountability for the NHS. The Committee’s concern was that, even after the months of debate here and in the other place and the amendments that had already been tabled, the Bill still posed an undue risk to maintaining adequate ministerial and legal accountability for the NHS. Given the number of amendments that had been tabled, it was a remarkable achievement still to have such uncertainty.

The wording of amendments remained an issue, and on 2 February 2012, the Government tabled 137 amendments to the Bill covering a range of areas, including changes to clarify the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the health service. There were two key amendments: one sought to ensure that the Secretary of State

“retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England”.

The other sought to place the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and to exercise functions to secure the provision of services above that of promoting autonomy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member used the term “comprehensive health service”. Does he feel that the changes to the NHS will deliver a comprehensive health service, or does he feel that what we will see is some people being able to access services while others are not? Is that not the sort of health care service that he would be against and to which the people of this country would object?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that this amendment, which deals with the Secretary of State’s powers, and, indeed, the whole thrust of the Bill, are likely to lead to a fragmented service, when what we all want to see is co-operation and integration. I am concerned about the direction of travel in that respect.

The point about autonomy is relevant, because Lords amendment 2 reiterates that

“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of”

health services. Lords amendments 4 and 17 would further amend clauses 4 and 20 in order to downgrade the duty to promote autonomy even more, through the idea that the Secretary of State must only

“have regard to the desirability of securing”

autonomy instead. When it comes to ministerial accountability for the Secretary of State, we have a yearly mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, which will remove the Secretary of State—and therefore Parliament—from being involved in or interfering in the running of the NHS. In that case, I ask the Minister: what would be the point of Health questions? As private health care interests take over the provision of health services, they will not be subjected to freedom of information requests or other forms of accountability to which NHS providers are subjected.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working individuals who work in the national health service, and to Dr Éoin Clarke and Dr Clive Peedell, who have been supportive of the coalition, for highlighting the dangers of the Health and Social Care Bill. I suspect that this will be my final opportunity to speak up on the Bill. I understand that there are only about seven days before its Third Reading debate in the House of Lords. It terrifies me that the Bill, which I have studied intently during its 40 Committee sittings, is going to become law. The Secretary of State is introducing a new health system. It is a system that no one voted for, and it will be unrecognisable in comparison with the NHS that cared for an entire population from the cradle to the grave.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns of many Members on the Opposition Benches—and, I suspect, many people outside the House—that the Government will create a two-tier health system consisting of those who can afford to pay and those who cannot? Does not that fly in the face of what the NHS was originally set up to do?

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate. I want to put on the record the appreciation of myself and the whole House for the work that she has done in this important area.

Last August, the Department of Health released the first ever England-wide analysis of patient access to radiotherapy treatment. For those of us who represent constituencies outside London and the south-east, the results were shocking. The disparity in treatment levels for cancer patients living in and around London, compared with the rest of the country, is nothing short of disgraceful. Access to advanced radiotherapy should not be a postcode lottery. The data on each of England’s 28 cancer networks show that the further someone moves away from London, the smaller their chance is of receiving radiotherapy. North-west London tops the list, with radiotherapy provision at 94%, whereas the north-east—my region—came last, at 27%. In fact, the bottom five networks were all north of the River Trent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The benefits of SBRT are well proven in many cases and clear in numerous cases. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be available more extensively across the whole of the NHS, and that it is time for the Minister to work alongside the devolved Administrations to ensure that the treatment is available for patients in Northern Ireland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree completely. All 28 cancer networks should have equal access to this advanced radiotherapy.

In practical terms, cancer patients in the Minister’s London constituency are three times more likely to receive the radiotherapy treatment that they need than those residing in northern England and twice as likely as those living in the south-west of England. Believe it or not, however, when the general radiotherapy dataset is analysed further—by that I mean looking at radiotherapy centres offering conventional radiotherapy and those offering the more effective SBRT—the picture is far worse.

The conventional method of radiotherapy delivery is unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy tissue, so the treatment is delivered in short doses—often every day for four or five weeks—to avoid too much damage to the healthy tissue. As the hon. Member for Wells said, SBRT uses small, multiple and highly focused beams of energy to deliver radiation directly to the tumour, ensuring that a minimal dose is received by the surrounding healthy tissue. Consequently, there are little or no treatment-related side effects. SBRT allows the patient to be treated over five days, as opposed to five weeks, as with conventional radiotherapy. Because of its accuracy, SBRT can be used to treat tumours that might be surgically inaccessible or in close proximity to critical organs of the body, such as the heart.

When we look at the postcode lottery that the dataset report presents, we should also ask where SBRT is available and where it is not. The Minister must understand how important the comparison is. For cancer patients in my constituency, the difference between having access to SBRT and having access to conventional radiotherapy—for prostate cancer, for example—is a 50-mile car journey every day for five weeks and the treatment lasting just five days, with a rapid return to normal life. As well as the benefits to the individual, the cost savings to the NHS of using SBRT compared with conventional radiotherapy are obvious for all to see.

Like the hon. Lady, I, too, was approached, just before Christmas, by a constituent whose cancer needed SBRT. His tumour could be treated only using the accuracy of the robotic CyberKnife system, but there are only three CyberKnife systems in the NHS, and they are all in London. However, thanks to the incredible co-operation of my constituents’ clinicians and the clinicians from St Bartholomew’s hospital in London, as well as the understanding of County Durham PCT—the commissioners, who, in a timely fashion, agreed funding —he starts his treatment here in London in two weeks. My constituent is very happy that he is set to receive the treatment in an NHS hospital, but is it not a scandal that he has to travel more than 260 miles to do so? What is equally scandalous is that the reason why there are only three CyberKnife systems in NHS hospitals is that those hospitals needed to raise the money to purchase them from charitable donations. I have since learned that in Birmingham, as well as in Newcastle, in my region, the Bear appeal is seeking to raise the money for a CyberKnife system from charitable sources.

What an indictment of the NHS under this coalition government! The NHS should not have to go begging for charitable funds to buy the latest life-saving equipment, especially when we know that the Department of Health is currently holding back £300 million in capital allocations, in Whitehall coffers. This resource is for capital equipment, but is not given to the hospitals in regions like the north-east where it is most needed. If the Minister is serious about reducing health inequalities in the north-east, and, indeed, in the south-west, we should have this equipment and not be left to linger at the bottom of the radiotherapy dataset, which the Minister himself said is the benchmark for future provision. I ask the Minister to make a commitment to investing some of this £300 million in the capital equipment needed to reduce these disparities in the provision of radiotherapy in general and SBRT in particular.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution, as that is an excellent point. If hon. Members will bear with me, I shall discuss new clause 6 and what I believe the implications of the Government’s proposal would be for the Bill and for health inequalities. I was intrigued by the Secretary of State’s assurances in his opening statement about the responsibilities being conferred on him in the Bill that did not apply when Labour was in power. I believe he said that those powers were devolved to primary care trusts, but if PCTs are disappearing or clustering and strategic health authorities are disappearing over time or being clustered, surely it is right that the Secretary of State, as an accountable politician, should have these powers clearly defined in the Bill. I did not mean to digress, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those remarks related to clause 1 and I shall confine myself to the provisions before us.

As I have said, many concerns have been raised about the approach being taken to this cherished institution, not least those set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras about patient perception.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the survey carried out among the 50,000 members of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy? It indicated that 81% do not agree with the proposals for NHS reform—that touches on the issue that he just raised. It also indicated that 89%—almost nine out of 10 of those who work in the health service—believe that patient care will suffer and that 84% do not believe that the Government have considered these changes. Does he believe that the level of concern among those workers in the health service, and among the general public, means that whenever the vote takes place tonight hon. Members should be very careful and should oppose the Bill?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that information. I know that other hon. Members have spent a day with the health service and I am sure that Ministers take soundings, but I can honestly say that what the hon. Gentleman describes is the feedback I have received from talking to health professionals, patients and so on. I recognise that the Secretary of State has said on numerous occasions that a substantial body of GPs support this approach. When I tuned in to this morning’s “BBC Breakfast” I saw Professor Chris Ham of the King’s Fund being interviewed. He is an eminent and respected commentator on health service issues who has given evidence to the Public Bill Committee and the Health Committee. He gave his view that it was a small cohort of GPs who were signed up and committed to these reforms. I agree with his assessment.

These provisions deal with the role of Monitor, the relevant implications and changes to the failure regime. A “Panorama” documentary on the BBC featured Sir Gerry Robinson, who has some standing in the business community and for previous journalistic investigations into the NHS. The conclusion of his report was that he thought that these reforms could mean

“the end of the NHS.”

That is his conclusion. Even after meeting the Secretary of State he remained unconvinced of the value of the reforms.

The Secretary of State has failed to persuade the public and he has failed to persuade NHS staff of his approach. That has been illustrated by various surveys, through the British Medical Association, by personal contacts and in other ways. Even elements of the business community recognise the level of public opposition and concern. It seems that the principal backers are overseas US-style private health groups, whose interest is not philanthropic. They see the prospect of substantial profits and unprecedented access to billions of pounds soon to be available from NHS coffers. We hear Ministers and Government Members saying that the NHS was open to private sector providers under the previous Administration, and a very small figure—5% or so—was cited in the Public Bill Committee proceedings.

Public Health Observatories

Debate between Grahame Morris and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the very important subject of the future of our public health observatories, which are an integral part of the national health service. They are responsible for public health intelligence work—collecting the evidence base and directing how different agencies work to improve public health. It might be useful if I give a definition of public health. The best definition I have been able to find is one from the World Health Organisation’s expert committee on public health administration that was published as long ago as 1952. It defined public health as

“the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health and efficiency through organized community efforts for the sanitation of the environment, the control of communicable infections, the education of the individual in personal hygiene, the organization of medical and nursing services for early diagnosis and preventive treatment of disease, and the development of the social machinery to ensure for every individual a standard of living adequate for the maintenance of health, so organizing these benefits as to enable every citizen to realize his birthright of health and longevity.”

The Association of Public Health Observatories represents and co-ordinates a network of 12 public health observatories in Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That body brings together joint public health intelligence work from all its organisations across the United Kingdom and Ireland and also works in collaboration with its counterparts across Europe. Without that range of high-quality and trustworthy knowledge, expertise and support from public health observatories, much of the work carried out by practitioners and, indeed, local authorities, policy makers and the wider community, would be carried out in the dark. That would, without doubt, result in a less focused and less effective service delivery. All that makes public health observatories central to both local and central Government health policy and decision making.

Public health observatories were set up to monitor the state of the public’s health and the causes of poor health and health inequalities, with the information being used by a range of organisations involved in providing health care, including the NHS. The White Paper, “Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation”, which was published by the Department of Health in 1999, proposed the establishment of the public health observatories that were then set up in 2000 by the Labour Government. The Association of Public Health Observatories was also established in 2000. That umbrella group provides a link between regional public health observatories and national arrangements. It comprises representatives from all the regional public health observatories, the Department of Health and other partners, and one concern that I wish to raise is the fact that its funding has been removed this year.

I hope that the Minister will accept that improving the knowledge and evidence base behind health care was a key element of the previous Government’s policy and was instrumental in making progress in tackling health inequalities. The changes outlined by the Health Secretary in the Health and Social Care Bill move us away from a co-ordinated health service towards a competition-based health service. The public health White Paper, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”, published on 30 November 2010, set out a new structure for public health in England. Its aim was to shift the balance of responsibility away from central Government to local authorities. There has also been much greater emphasis on the need for people to be supported in taking more responsibility for their own health—the so-called nudge philosophy.

There are many public health issues that I would like to discuss but unfortunately do not have time to develop tonight because of the shortage of time. I want to press on and put some points to the Minister, particularly about public health observatories, and I hope she will have the opportunity to respond to them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Prevention is key to having a healthier nation and perhaps this issue should be reconsidered in the NHS review, as it might help to improve the nation’s health.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that and I agree. It is fundamental to have a solid evidence base on which to plan health interventions.

As I mentioned, the Government propose in the Health and Social Care Bill to transfer health improvement functions from PCTs to local authorities, and to create a new body, Public Health England, to be rooted in the Department of Health. Public Health England is expected to take on full responsibility for overseeing the local delivery of public health services, as well as dealing with national issues such as flu pandemics and other population-wide health threats from next year. The majority of public health services will be commissioned by local authorities. However, the revolution under way in the NHS is just as important to the future of public health in England.

The Bill, which proposes the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, raises more questions than it answers. The responsibilities currently held by PCTs could be moved to local authorities, to the Department of Health, to commissioning consortia or to the NHS commissioning board. How the important work of public health observatories will be safeguarded for the future is still unknown. The decision to divide public health responsibilities between the Department of Health and local authorities will fragment any cohesive approach to tackling health inequalities. Whether new commissioning consortia will carry out some functions is at this stage unknown.

There are further concerns about whether Public Health England should be outside the Department of Health to protect its independence. If it was placed within the NHS, perhaps as a special health authority, surely that would better meet the Government’s own aim, often stated, of liberating the NHS from political control.

The Minister will be aware of the response to the White Paper by the public health observatories in March 2011. That response calls for a sub-national level of organisation of Public Health England to be created, with sufficient critical mass to ensure that the outputs of Public Health England continue to be valuable locally as well as nationally. There are many examples where that is the case, not least in my own region, the north-east, where the public health observatory has done excellent work on addressing inequalities that affect people with mental health issues and inhibit their ability to access services. The lessons of that can be rolled out across the country.

The important work of the observatories over the past decade has been self-evident. On 24 June 2008 the health profiles for every local authority and region across England were published jointly by the Department of Health and the Association of Public Health Observatories, an organisation which, as I mentioned earlier, has lost all its funding. Using key health indicators, public health observatories were able to pinpoint national health statistics at a local level, providing valuable information to address health inequalities and improve health outcomes.

As the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), now the Deputy Speaker, noted, the importance of those statistics was

“to target local health hotspots with effective measures to make a real difference.”

In my constituency, Healthworks, an excellent clinic established in Paradise lane in Easington and opened by Sir Derek Wanless, is a prime example of how that information collected by the observatories was used to great effect to target the areas in greatest need.

The Association of Public Health Observatories, with the Department of Health, also published a health inequalities intervention toolkit to enable every English local authority to model the effect of high-impact interventions on the life expectancy gap. As far back as 1977, the Department of Health’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Douglas Black, was asked to produce a report on the extent of health inequalities in the UK and how best to address them. The report proved conclusively that death rates for many diseases were higher among those in the lower social classes. It acknowledged that the NHS could do much more to address the situation. It called for increases in child benefit, improvements in maternity allowances, more pre-school education, an expansion of child care and better housing. A further report was subsequently produced by Professor Peter Townsend. Indeed, only last week I attended a seminar, in which the principal speaker was Sir Michael Marmot, on the impact of cold homes on health outcomes. The report indicated that the cost to the NHS of illness resulting from poorly insulated houses and cold homes is £2 million a year.