Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Jake Berry and Andy Burnham

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point I was coming on to make. Whatever Ministers claim, 36 of the 43 police forces face cash cuts in the coming year, while all of them face real-terms cuts. As he has said, West Midlands police will lose £10 million in real terms—the precept does not cover that—and my own Greater Manchester police will lose £8 million. At the same time, he needs to consider the cuts to fire services, because West Midlands fire service will have a cut of 45% in its budget over the decade. In effect, the budget will halve, and the same is also true for Greater Manchester. [Interruption.] It is true. Ministers seem not to know that fire services are being cut in half. I put it to the Home Secretary and her police and fire services Minister that that prompts this question: can they be sure that their cuts to police and fire services are not exposing our big cities to unacceptable levels of risk? What assessment have they made of their capability to deal with a major incident or a Paris-style attack? Experts in the fire and rescue service would argue that their cuts have already gone too far.

[Jake Berry]

Surely the question that really prompts is: why does crime continue to come down? Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe it is coming down?

[Andy Burnham]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been paying attention. We have just had an exchange in which the Home Secretary acknowledged that online crime is about to be added to the crime figures. As he may know from his constituency postbag, crime has changed in recent years. We have seen reductions in traditional volume crime—burglary, car crime—and crime has moved online. When Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and complacently say that crime has fallen, I am afraid that they are not representing the real picture. The real picture will look very different when the figures are published in a couple of months’ time.

Health and Social Care

Debate between Jake Berry and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I hope she does a lot more for the NHS than her predecessor did. He caused a huge amount of damage. She is right to say that the NHS is looking for the consensus she describes. NHS staff would hugely value more consensus on the five-year forward view.

The problem, as I have said to the Secretary of State before, lies in the privatisation. The Health and Social Care Act 2012, which the hon. Lady’s predecessor took through Parliament, is forcing NHS services out on to the market. As I have said, 40% of those services are now going to private sector organisations, with 40% going to the NHS. The Secretary of State claims that privatisation is not happening, but I am afraid that that is just not correct in any way. If there is to be consensus, the Government should repeal that Act. They never had a democratic mandate from the people of this country. They never gave their permission for the NHS to be put up for sale in this way. If the hon. Lady’s party were to repeal section 75 of the Act, she could help to create the basis for consensus on the NHS.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The day after the general election, I was approached by someone outside my constituency office. He congratulated me on winning, but said that he was terrified. He had been told by the local Labour party that if the Conservatives won the election, he would personally have to find £80,000 to pay for his son’s operation because the NHS would be privatised. Will it ever be possible to build consensus when one political party in this House is seeking to weaponise the NHS?

[Andy Burnham]

I do not know which election the hon. Gentleman was fighting, but I went round the country and heard stories from patients who were having their treatment rationed. Older people were not being given cataract operations, for example, and were having to consider going private. Varicose vein operations were being rationed. If he never heard those stories, he could not have been listening to his constituents on the doorstep.

The NHS is in the grip of private staffing agencies because of the cuts to front-line posts and to nurse training, and because of low morale. This is the Secretary of State who denied NHS staff a 1% pay increase after years of pay freezes. What a kick in the teeth for staff who are working flat out to try to keep the NHS going! Good will in the NHS is at an all-time low, and it is no wonder that so many disillusioned staff are going to work for agencies to supplement their income. The Secretary of State has woken up to the problem today, and he has promised to take tough action on the agency bill, but will not put a cap on the agency spend in financially troubled trusts that results in those trusts being understaffed, because he will not permit them to recruit the staff they need? He needs to clarify that point. Will he also consider the rates paid on internal banks, and correct the ridiculous situation in which staff have a greater incentive to work for external agencies than for their own employer?

Why has there been no mention of staff training? Surely increasing the number of nurses coming through training is the only proper long-term answer to cutting agency spend. If the Secretary of State wants a fresh start, why does he not make an immediate pledge to increase nurse training commissions this year, as I would have done if Labour had won the election? Will he do that? If not, why not? Until he corrects this situation, the NHS will continue to be saddled with long-term agency costs. The truth is that the chickens are coming home to roost. The Secretary of State has left the NHS in the grip of private staffing agencies, and the measures he has announced today will not help.

The Secretary of State has also tried to paper over the cracks with a headline promise of £8 billion. There are three problems with that. As I said to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), it represents an IOU for five years’ time, but it will not deliver real money now, which is what the NHS needs. Secondly, the £8 billion makes sense only if the NHS manages to make £22 billion of efficiency savings by 2020. That is the five-year plan, as I am sure Members agree. To date, the Secretary of State has not provided any real details of where that £22 billion of savings is going to come from. Many of the people I speak to in the service say that the NHS has already had five years of hard efficiency savings, and that savings on that scale cannot be achieved without causing real harm to services. Does the £22 billion involve cuts to staff? Does it involve service closures? Does it involve more rationing of drugs and treatments? Will he now set out a plan for those £22 billion-worth of efficiencies? People have a right to know how he plans to achieve them.

Thirdly, can the Secretary of State tell us where this £8 billion is coming from? During the election, Ministers repeatedly failed to answer this question. The Chancellor was asked about it 18 times on “The Andrew Marr Show”, and his evasion was excruciating. So can the Secretary of State now give us an answer? If he cannot, people will conclude that the Conservatives either knew they were going to break this promise or did not want people to know where the money was going to come from. But people need to know, because the Government could be about to repeat the big spending mistake that they made in the last Parliament.

Five years ago, I warned the Government that it would be irresponsible to pay for the NHS by raiding social care, but that is exactly what they did. Around a third of a million vulnerable older people lost social care support at home and, unsurprisingly, many of them ended up in hospital. Those cuts to social care had terrible human costs, but they also created huge operational and efficiency problems for the NHS, with record numbers of frail people occupying hospital beds. I say this again to the Secretary of State: if you let social care collapse, it will drag the rest of the NHS down with it. It is a false economy on a grand scale to cut social care to pay for the NHS. Will he be clear today: will he confirm that, if the Government have no plans for new taxes, the money for the NHS will come from cuts to other unprotected Departments? If that is the case, are we not looking at even deeper cuts to local government and social care in this Parliament than we saw in the last?

The Secretary of State cannot keep dodging those questions. The Gracious Speech promised plans to integrate the NHS and social care, but there will be nothing left for the NHS to integrate with if he carries on in this way. The care cuts in the previous Parliament were the root cause of the A&E crisis. Hospital accident and emergency departments have now missed the Government’s lower target for 97 weeks in a row. If they cut social care again, we will have to deal with a full-blown NHS crisis.

Attendances at A&E departments increased 10 times faster in the four years after 2010 than in the four years before 2010. That was caused not just by the ageing society, as the Secretary of State likes to claim, but by his failure to look after that ageing society.

Where was the action in the Queen’s Speech on the scandal of 15-minute care visits? The truth is that there is no solution for the NHS without a solution for social care, but the only plan on offer from this Government is more cuts, and those cuts will pile pressure on an already overstretched NHS. This is where the NHS finds itself at the start of this Parliament.

The Secretary of State has promised us a seven-day NHS, which we all support. He has promised us 8 am to 8 pm GP opening. How on earth will he deliver those promises when he cannot say where the money is coming from, and when the NHS is facing a huge financial deficit? He will make a grave mistake if he tries to introduce seven-day working in the NHS on the backs of NHS staff. Staff who work the most unsocial shift patterns often face the greatest cost. For instance, they have no choice but to use their car if public transport is not running. It would be utterly wrong to pay in part for seven-day working by removing the unsocial hours payment, and we will oppose any attempt by him to do that. Good will is evaporating in the NHS and we cannot afford to lose any more.

In conclusion, to listen to the Secretary of State today, we might be forgiven for thinking that everything is fine in the NHS, but it is not. People are waiting longer and longer for cancer treatment to start, and the cancer standard has been missed for the past five consecutive quarters. NHS waiting lists are at a seven-year high. People cannot get GP appointments when they need them; they are left ringing the surgery for hour after hour in the morning to be told that nothing is available for days. Ambulances are taking longer to arrive, as we heard at Health questions earlier, A&E remains in permanent crisis mode, mental health services are in crisis, social care is being cut, NHS services are being privatised, and the bill for agency staff has left the NHS in the grip of private agencies.

The uncomfortable truth for the Secretary of State is that he is running out of people to blame. This is the NHS that he inherits from himself, and it is heading downhill fast. The onus is now on him to produce a plan to turn round NHS finances, turn round A&E and deliver on the promises he has put before the country. The NHS enters this Parliament facing one of the most dangerous moments in its history. We will not let him shift the blame on to NHS staff. The party that created the NHS will hold him to account for the damage that he is doing to it right now.