Housing Bodies: Accountability

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cunningham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would add that we need the resources, too. We cannot have joined-up thinking without providing them. We have to provide the resources for resolution of the problems, even if we have joined-up thinking. I do not necessarily disagree with him, but it is a question of resources.

I recently had a piece of casework where a constituent had an issue with his housing association, Orbit Housing, in Coventry. Without going into too much detail, the constituent had a concern that Orbit Housing was not adequately dealing with. I wrote to Orbit Housing, and we had the usual initial exchange of correspondence before it investigated the matter further. However, the correspondence I was receiving soon stopped, and I had to chase it for what was an undetailed response. We have all had experiences of delayed and undetailed responses to casework correspondence—I would like to see an improvement in the speed and helpfulness of responses—but that is not the main issue arising from this case. When I eventually received a final letter from Orbit Housing, it was highly unsatisfactory after such a delay.

Orbit Housing said that it could not tell me what steps it was taking because of data regulations. I make it clear that I do not want to know what people have in their bank account or when they got married. We do not want that information; we want to know that the issues we are raising are being pursued, and we want to know the details of how they are being pursued.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making an important point about how public bodies are using the General Data Protection Regulation to obstruct Members of Parliament seeking to represent their constituents. On a housing-related issue involving someone with disabilities, I had to table some written parliamentary questions, and I asked the Ministry of Justice to establish an MP hotline for the tribunals service due to the difficulties I have been experiencing in getting satisfactory answers. I have had to get in the habit of copying tribunal inquiries directly to the Minister in order to obtain a response. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government should issue guidance to public bodies, explaining what implicit consent means and stopping them obstructing Members of Parliament in carrying out their duties on behalf of constituents?

[Mr Cunningham]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In fact, on occasions when we have been dealing with constituency correspondence with outside organisations, we have also asked the constituent to sign a form giving us permission. We should not have to go to those lengths. When we talk about trust in politicians, that is a good example of where we are not being trusted. Our constituents trust us because we are the last line of defence. Where do they go after us, whatever the problem might be?

I have had the problem of organisations refusing to give me information on a constituent’s case many times. It used to happen a lot after the passing of the Data Protection Act 1998, before being somewhat dealt with by the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. However, it seems that more and more organisations are using the new data regulations to avoid responding to casework. I am clear that I do not consider the case closed with Orbit Housing, and today is a good chance for us all to recognise that we need to be bloody difficult people on behalf of our constituents to get results.

As I have already said, the problem I had with Orbit Housing is not unique. I have asked other Members whether they have had similar problems in conducting their constituency casework. Members have made clear through their interventions today that they have, as have many Members who cannot be here today. The vast majority of Members who replied to me said that they had faced some form of obstruction. That ranged from delays to a complete refusal to share information with Members due to the data regulations—at least, that was the excuse. After receiving the response from Orbit Housing, I started looking at how data regulations apply to Members. I also wrote to the Information Commissioner and the Leader of the House to request clarification.

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 are our core data regulations. According to the legislation, we are data processers when we are handling a constituent’s casework. Data processors have to make sure they have a specific reason to process someone’s information. We are covered in our casework by two of the reasons outlined in the legislation: consent and public task. When a constituent writes asking for us to take action on an issue, it constitutes them giving us consent to discuss their personal data with a third party. Some organisations, however, do not always accept a letter from a constituent. That is the whole point.

However, consent is not necessarily always required, as we have a good second legitimate reason. Public task is when data processing is necessary to perform a task in the public interest or for official functions. The 2018 Act outlines that that covers elected representatives fulfilling their parliamentary functions. Conducting casework is one of our core functions and therefore falls under public task. We are therefore usually covered by two clear reasons when discussing a constituent’s information with a third party. That is the case regardless of whether we are discussing someone’s name or email, or a special category of protected data such as health or sexual orientation data.

Ultimately, the legislation is clear that we can discuss a constituent’s details with third parties. However, the issue I encountered comes from how the legislation applies to the third party in the casework. When we write to an organisation, we expect them to respond saying how they will fix the issue, but the data regulations add a layer of complication. As the organisation is itself a data controller, it needs to judge whether it can give a constituent’s information to us. Despite the fact that Members of Parliament are completely entitled to act on their constituent’s behalf, the organisation in question can still decide that it cannot give us the information we need. The constituent’s case is then forced shut, with no room to challenge the decision. That is exactly what happened to me with Orbit Housing, and it has happened to many other Members.

In this instance, data legislation is actually weakening our constituents’ rights and empowering the organisations that hold their data. Members cannot solve every issue, but we should be able to advance a case more than a constituent could alone. If third-party organisations can refuse to share information on a constituent’s case with us, our constituents suffer and we are left failing them due to legislation.

In summary, I would like to see several things from the Government as a result of this debate. First, they should assess the effectiveness of the current methods used to judge whether a building has been designed and built adequately. The Government started to look at that in the aftermath of the tragedy of Grenfell. I implore them to renew their efforts, considering their stated aim of radically increasing the number of homes being built each year. It is important that their rush to build does not lead to substandard homes being built, as Members have mentioned and as has happened too many times recently.

Secondly, the Government should conduct a review of the accountability of organisations, especially large house builders and housing associations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) mentioned. The Government’s stated aim to soon increase the number of homes being built will mean hugely increased business for the larger housing companies in the UK. It is right that they are held to account if they build inferior housing or ignore customers. Just last month, the chief executive of Persimmon Homes ignored questions about his record bonus of £75 million—quite a salary. It is wrong that in an industry where so much money is made by those at the top there is little accountability when customers or residents are let down.

Lastly, I ask that the Government consult Members to evaluate whether we are stifled by data regulations in our ability to conduct casework effectively. It is my opinion that the regulations give organisations a loophole to ignore accountability. Some organisations might do it innocently, but there are definitely organisations out there using that loophole inappropriately. That represents a serious threat to our ability to progress casework and to hold organisations to account. The law must be tightened up to empower us and, in turn, to empower our constituents.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Paisley. This is a DFID debate rather than a Foreign and Commonwealth Office debate, and I am glad that the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is present to bring his expertise to bear.

The situation for Gaza and its 1.7 million residents is appalling and inhumane, but before I turn to some of the specific concerns of the many in Gaza and the wider Palestinian community, I will briefly comment on the events of the past few months. Many hon. Members will be aware that there have been multiple protests along the border with Israel as part of the “Great March of Return”. The start marked the 70th anniversary of the exodus of as many as 750,000 Palestinians, many of whom were driven from their homes during the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. According to Medical Aid for Palestinians, approximately 14,600 people have been injured by Israeli forces, and 55% of those were hospitalised. Tragically, 118 Palestinians were killed, including 14 children. Elsewhere, including in the west bank, a further 17 Palestinians were killed during the same period, including five reportedly shot at the fence or after crossing into Israel.

In particular, I pay tribute to Razan al-Najjar, a 21-year-old volunteer for a medical team helping wounded protesters, who was shot dead near Khan Younis. Razan was fatally shot in the neck while clearly wearing a medical staff uniform. That is a war crime, as the Palestinian Health Minister, Dr Jawad Awwad, has said. Razan was brave and inspirational, and will be remembered as such, but it is our responsibility as politicians in the UK Parliament to try to ensure that those responsible are held to account for her death. Dr Andy Ferguson, who is MAP’s director of programmes and was present at Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa, on Monday 14 May, said the following about what he witnessed:

“Any hospital in the UK would be utterly overwhelmed by such a massive influx of injuries as we saw in Gaza. Amid dwindling supplies of medicines and equipment and Gaza’s chronic electricity shortages, hospitals in Gaza were in crisis even before the protests began. It is testimony to the motivation and skills of medical teams in Gaza that, despite this, hospitals were able to keep receiving, triaging, referring and treating patients—both the newly-wounded and the hospital’s standard patient workload.”

Although it is apparent that some protesters may have engaged in some form of violence, that does not justify the use of live ammunition. International law is clear: firearms can only be used to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have committed wilful killings, constituting war crimes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will recall that I asked the Minister a question —I think it was about a fortnight ago—about an inquiry into what had been happening there. That was to go to the United Nations, but when it got to the UN, the British Government sat on their hands. What does my hon. Friend think about that?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention and I am pleased that the Minister is here. He has some responsibilities and I hope we will have some answers. We need to have an inquiry and to hold those responsible to account, because Israeli forces were using not only live ammunition, but high-velocity weapons in particular, causing absolute maximum harm. Another issue of concern is that the UK Government have approved more than £490 million-worth of arms exports to Israel since 2014.

Refugee Children: Family Reunion in the UK

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful example—there are many others. The current situation, in which these families are denied access to justice, shames us. To deny children and families who have already faced immense risks and challenges the opportunity of family reunion and legal aid is an appalling indictment of the UK Government, and of us all as parliamentarians.

Legal aid, or its absence, has the power to change lives, for the better or for the worse. It has the potential to keep families together under the most trying circumstances. These restrictive rules do not just affect vulnerable people’s lives, but can make the huge difference between safety and security on one hand, and danger, war and risk to life and limb on the other. It is essential that the Minister looks at the matter.

The current situation forces many people trapped in war zones to take repeated risks to cross borders to reach British embassies. We have seen ample pictorial evidence of that. Surely it is in children’s best interests to be reunited with family members and to be given safe and legal routes to effect that family reunion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill suggested. The rules are most damaging to the most vulnerable people who are left behind in war zones, and to people who have been granted asylum but have to go through the heartbreak and trauma of not being reunited with family members.

I am proud that this country has a terrific record of helping refugees and people who come to our constituencies. Our record of welcoming refugee families and encouraging them to thrive goes back to before the second world war. Lord Dubs is a notable example.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

If we take that a step further, when children are allowed to stop here and become teenagers, there is a problem about them getting further education, as I have said many times. This is part of a bigger problem.

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point: delaying family reunion creates all sorts of other problems. People who arrive on our shores—who are often fleeing persecution—become valued members of our communities and often work in public service, like Lord Dubs. They set up small businesses and take on important roles in the community. They are a real asset in terms of adding value.

We must act to ensure that families can be reunited. Parliament and Government should not remain passive and allow refugee families to remain divided. I welcome my party’s recent announcement that puts the humanity of migrants and the importance of family life at the heart of our immigration policy, and our pledge to follow a humanistic approach to immigration policy. That is an expression of our very best values as a nation, and a fulfilment of our duties to the international community.

I pleased to say that I am a proud internationalist, but whether someone is an internationalist or not, they have an obligation to fight for a fairer system. I am proud that my party is championing refugees who are threatened by war, and that it is working to give vulnerable people a chance. I hope we can reform the rules, so that child refugees have a proper chance of being reunited with their families.

State Pension Age for Women

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. I am grateful for that intervention. If I may develop my argument, there clearly is an opportunity, particularly given the new parliamentary arithmetic, for the Government to do something and put right a wrong and a glaring injustice. Judging by the fact that early-day motion 63 has been signed by Members of every party, there is cross-party support for such a solution.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Most people would agree that it is about time the matter was resolved. In the previous Parliament, before the general election, we had a lot of debates about it. I asked the Minister then responsible to meet a delegation to discuss it, and they refused. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is a disgrace?

[Grahame Morris]

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

Supported Housing: Benefit

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Before I move the motion, I take the opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and members of his team to their posts.

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Government intends to cut housing benefit for vulnerable people in specialist housing, including elderly people and people who are homeless, disabled or fleeing domestic violence; believes that this will have harmful effects on current and future tenants of these specialist housing schemes; further notes that there is already a significant shortfall in this type of housing provision across the country; notes that charities, housing associations, councils and others have made Government Ministers aware of the damaging impact these cuts will have on tenants and the financial viability of these schemes and that the Government’s proposal to mitigate these cuts with discretionary housing payments will not compensate for these cuts; notes that the Government’s own evidence review into the impact of its decision, commissioned in December 2015, has yet to be published; notes that the Government has postponed the implementation of these cuts for new tenants to April 2017 but plans to fully roll out its planned cuts to housing benefit in April 2018; and therefore calls on the Government to exempt supported housing from its planned housing benefit cuts and to consult fully with supported housing providers to identify ways in which all vulnerable people who need supported housing can access it.

Six months ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) led an Opposition day debate on the Government’s decision to cap housing benefit support for vulnerable people in specialist housing. The decision will affect elderly citizens, our armed forces veterans, those with disabilities, people with learning difficulties and people with mental health problems. It will hit homeless people and it will jeopardise the safety of people fleeing domestic violence.

Following pressure from the Opposition Benches, and concerns raised by Members on the Government Benches, there was an interesting debate last week led by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). A campaign has been mounted across the country by community groups and housing providers. I was pleased that the Government agreed to delay the implementation of the cap, but I press Ministers now to go one step further. They must reverse their decision to slash housing benefit for a huge range of vulnerable people living in supported housing. What kind of country would we be if we abandoned the most vulnerable in our society? What kind of message will it send, not just to the country and to vulnerable people but to observers around the world, about the priorities of this Government?

What credibility will be left for the outgoing Prime Minister’s repeated assertion that the Government would not balance the books on the backs of the poorest? Unless Ministers reverse that destructive decision, that is precisely what they will be doing. I am willing to give way to the Secretary of State if he is prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, say that he will reverse the decision and make the announcement that we are all hoping for. To implement that decision would be a damning legacy for the former Prime Minister and a broken promise to those who can least afford it. The decision is not just detrimental to the most vulnerable members of society; in purely financial terms, it makes no sense.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is becoming more difficult for people to get housing benefit, and that in some instances, it might not be adequate?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Indeed, that is the case. The groups I originally listed are some of the most vulnerable in society—they are people who should be protected and who require supported housing. If the Government proceed on their intended course, some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people will be further disadvantaged, and the cost to the taxpayer and the Exchequer will be greater.

The Government’s proposal does not make financial sense, and it leaves the providers of supported housing in an invidious position. I know that housing providers—I have met many of them—breathed a collective sigh of relief when the decision to cap support was delayed pending a review, but they are still left in a very precarious position, with the sword of Damocles hanging over the services they provide.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne pointed out in a debate in the House on 27 January, unless the Government reverse this pernicious proposal, 156,000 units of supported and sheltered housing may have to close.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. All we are arguing for is fairness—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burton asks from a sedentary position why this has not been done before. We have an opportunity to do something now, and I cannot be answerable for things that happened before I was a Member of this House.

As a result of excessive behaviour by the pub companies, an estimated 57% of tied landlords earn less than £10,000 a year. That is a disgrace. Anybody who, like me, frequents pubs regularly will realise what an incredible effort goes into running a public house—the hours put in bottling up after customers have gone home, the huge commitment it takes, and the toll it takes on the owners’ personal life. For them not to have the opportunity to earn a decent living is a disgrace.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tied pub concept is old-fashioned and antiquated in the 21st century? We had the same issues with tied housing in the past. Surely big brewers inflicting on landlords a certain label of ale, for want of a better term, is one of the factors that led to the demise of the working men’s club. Those clubs ended up in a lot of debt.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The demise of the Club and Institute Union, and the working men’s clubs, is a huge issue, certainly for me. New clause 2 does not propose the end of the tie; rather, it seeks to make it work more effectively and fairly. If a pub landlord agrees to a tied arrangement in relation to the purchase of alcoholic drink from the pubco, they should get a lower rent, especially if they are paying as much as 70% over the top for those beverages. That is the way the tie should work. If the landlord does not want to be tied to a company in respect of beverages, they should pay the market rent, or have that option. I am not suggesting that the tied system should be done away with—just that it should work in a manner that is fair to both the pub company and the tenant. At the moment, it certainly does not.

Members have suggested that the impact is not huge, but there are lots of villages in my constituency of Easington, such as Hawthorn and High Heselden, where only a single pub is left. These communities are really feeling the effects. If landlords are compelled to pay as much as 70% more for their alcoholic beverages, despite what the hon. Member for Burton says, the tenant will be absorbing some of that cost, but when there is only a single pub in the village, it is basically passed on, and the customers pay a lot more than they need to.

It is no coincidence that thousands of pubs have closed in recent years. In some cases, profitable, popular pubs, beloved by local communities, have been sold off by big pubcos to developers and supermarkets. Pubcos have sought to cash in on the real estate or land value, with little or no thought for local people, or the effect of the loss of a community hub. As the hon. Member for Leeds North West pointed out, that is often because these pubcos have saddled themselves with huge debts. There is a suspicion that the rents they charge are deliberately high to get rid of landlords, so that it is easier for them to sell.

Those landlords who opt for the market only rent can purchase drink supplies from elsewhere, leading to better and fairer access to the pub market for smaller local brewers and cider producers. It would also increase the choice for all our constituents. I would like Members to support new clause 2 because it would help to deliver increased licensee profitability, increased investment in pubs, greater consumer choice and fewer pub closures. If avaricious pubcos are stopped from exploiting their tied landlords, hiking up rents and charging up to 70% more for a pint, the price of a pint can only fall. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members on both sides of the House and their constituents—I certainly speak for myself and my constituents in Easington—when I say that such a move would be warmly welcomed. For that reason, for fairness and for the benefit of the economy as a whole, I commend new clause 2 to the House.

Palestine and Israel

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As a friend of Palestine, I earnestly believe that recognition of the state of Palestine is the only way forward, and that it should be the choice of all true friends of Israel. All parties should come together on that basis. Given our commitment to a two-state solution and the fact that an overwhelming majority of 134 nations voted in favour of Palestinian statehood, I was hugely disappointed by our decision to abstain on the issue at the UN General Assembly. We should regret that decision.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

There were no boundaries when the state of Israel was created, so there should be no prerequisite for the recognition of a Palestinian state.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to make some progress, so that all Members who have expressed a wish to speak have the opportunity to make their own specific points.

The decision that was taken at the UN General Assembly placed Britain not only at odds with the international consensus, but on the wrong side of history. Although this is a cross-party debate—I want to pay tribute to all colleagues from all parts of the House who have supported the motion—I have to say that, as a Labour MP, I was proud when my party opposed the Government's decision and said that the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood. I am proud, too, that Labour is supporting today's call to recognise Palestine.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

There is a reason, which I will address in more detail. On the immediate question, there is ample evidence, particularly in the City of London, of a problem with unlicensed taxis and rogue minicab operators. If people drove around in private hire vehicles, it would be much easier for them to pick people up and engage in illegal activity. I have seen figures showing that in London last year there were 260 assaults and 54 rapes, so we should be cognisant of that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

If we look at the Bill in a broader sense, the Government are trying to deregulate health and safety, and the new clauses affect health and safety in a number of ways. Women are being attacked in unlicensed taxis, for example. Eighteen months ago, if I went outside not far from here, an unlicensed person would be touting to take my fare at an extortionate price. Finally, in answer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the taxi is primarily a working vehicle. That is a fundamental difference. To police that, a family vehicle and a working vehicle have to be distinguished.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The fundamental point that I was trying to make before that series of interventions is that the Public Bill Committee did not have the opportunity to consider properly representations from the trade in the time scale allowed. My understanding is that these new clauses had not been tabled when the evidence sessions were held. It is important that those representations are properly considered.

A number of important stakeholders—including the Local Government Association, which has contacted me—have said that the informal consultation on the measures has been completely inadequate. What is the point of the Law Commission going to the expense of compiling a detailed report if we are not going to wait for its outcome? Undoubtedly, a considerable amount of time, money and effort have been spent on it, and Members should have an answer.

Health and Care Services

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is an excellent point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned evidence presented to the Health Committee that showed that £2.7 billion of expenditure or allocations has been removed from local government budgets and social care. That has had a huge impact on the service and resulted in changes to eligibility and thresholds, and charges for transport and other things.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for arriving a minute after the start of his speech. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) raised an interesting point about social care, particularly in relation to local authorities. Given the one-third cut, plus the 10% cut, in those budgets, I see a major problem for local authorities in buying care for elderly people. Indeed, it has been a major problem over the past two or three years.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is an excellent point. I am sure that Members across the Chamber will have experience of that. On Friday gone, we had a crisis meeting of the county MPs and senior politicians in my local authority area of County Durham to determine how to cope with a further tranche of cuts. The situation is becoming serious. It is said that the allocations have been ring-fenced, but the local authorities’ discretionary spend is all being absorbed into social care and expenditure for children and the elderly, and there is very little room for manoeuvre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless something realistic is done about the health service, we could find ourselves back in a pre-1997 situation, with a shortage of beds and with people sleeping on trolleys?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is certainly a crisis in emergency care. The causes of that are multi-faceted, and I certainly do not agree with the Secretary of State’s analysis that it is simply the result of the change in the GP contract in 2006. Some of his comments to that effect have caused great offence to the medical profession. We are in crisis in many respects, including in the area of recruitment. It has been pointed out in recent evidence to the Select Committee that the NHS is not recruiting enough people into emergency care, or enough GPs. We are storing up bigger problems for the future if we do not have the necessary cohorts of trainees going through medical school.

A new approach is needed if we are to meet today’s challenge of the rising demand for health care in an ageing society. We will certainly need more co-operation, not more competition. We will need to see the integration of health and social care services, not more fragmentation, and we will need more whole-person care. In many respects, the Government’s reforms will make that harder, with markets fragmenting services and an open-tendering free-for-all meaning more providers dealing with smaller elements of a person’s care, without the necessary overall co-ordination.

We know about joint budgets. We have seen the Government transfer resources from the NHS to social care. However, what we need is a single budget. I should like to see a national health and care service, a co-ordinated service that focuses on an individual’s physical, mental and social care needs from home to hospital. We need a new focus on prevention: people who are at risk of being admitted to hospital should be identified and supported in their homes. The Select Committee has been looking into the policies and interventions that have enabled that to be done in other countries. We need to end costly migrations from home to hospital, and from there to expensive care homes where, in many cases, the individual must bear a huge financial burden. That is good for neither the taxpayer nor the individual. The integration of services will allow significant savings to be made. Investment in early intervention will limit more costly hospital admissions, as well as helping people to lead healthier lives.

There is a real choice. While the coalition Government are pushing for a free market in health care, Labour is calling for the full integration of health and care services. While the coalition talks of choice, it is delivering fragmentation. In contrast, Labour supports co-operation between doctors, nurses, social workers and therapists, all working together with a single point of contact.

There are huge risks, and the first news stories about them are beginning to surface. If we do not deal with the present situation, the need for fees may arise, and we may end up with a two-tier system. Top-up payments for treatment may be required, especially as more private companies enter the market. We may even see the re-emergence of an insurance-based free-market private health care system. I believe that we should remain true to the founding principle of the NHS: that it should be a health service funded from general taxation and provided free at the point of use. Ministers may shake their heads, but they should remember their last promise, that there would be no more top-down reorganisations.

The NHS, whose 65th birthday we celebrate this weekend, is Labour’s greatest achievement. We created it, we protected it, and we saved it after years of Tory neglect and under-investment. We must continue to protect and transform our most cherished public service, so that we can meet the challenges that we face in the future.

Beer Duty Escalator

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend makes a really good point, and I hope the Minister is taking note.

As we all know from our constituencies, pubs are a vital part of our social life and a social hub. No matter what sort of area we represent, be it Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or nationalist, be it in the north or the south, be it countryside or urban and be it wealthy or poor, public houses are the hubs of our communities. Just as important is the fact that pubs and brewing are vital to the UK economy. Other hon. Members have mentioned the figures, so I will not repeat them, but the sector makes a huge contribution—I believe it is in excess of £20 billion. I believe that the Minister acknowledges that the proposals in the beer duty escalator would be revenue-neutral—they would not generate any additional revenue for the Treasury—so what can be the justification for continuing with it? The only answer I can come up with is that this is part of another public policy agenda—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. Might it be an issue of public health? Perhaps the Government think it desirable to force up the price of alcohol to dissuade people from consumption. We have heard from various hon. Members that the consequence has actually been the reverse, so perhaps this is a perverse application of policy, resulting in the public buying beer, wine and spirits from the supermarkets in cut-price deals, and consuming them at home. There is a strong case for reviewing the escalator.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue affects not only pubs, but working men’s clubs up and down the country? We are in danger of destroying our cultural heritage, whereby the family could go out on a Sunday and have an entertaining afternoon in the pub as a family unit. That whole thing is being destroyed, as we have lost a large number of working men’s clubs in Coventry, as well as pubs.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and a similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. I am a strong supporter of working men’s clubs and the whole ethos of inclusivity, so I completely agree with that point.

In the limited time available to me, I want to mention something that has been alluded to by one of my colleagues: it is time for the Government to be much more proactive, not only to help the pubs struggling now, but to boost growth in the pub and brewing industry, as it could be a vital engine of economic growth. If that is the strategy, we have an opportunity to pick up the baton and run with it. The previous Government went so far as to appoint a Minister with special responsibility for pubs, as has been mentioned. That was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who came up with some excellent ideas in a 12-point plan, which was agreed with the trade and CAMRA. I hope that the current Minister is familiar with that; it would be beneficial if he could build on it. That would create vital jobs and build on a great UK manufacturing success story.

Our British beer is famous around the world and our pub culture is envied by many countries. There is also the multiplier effect: one job in brewing supports one in agriculture, one in retail, one in the beer supply chain and 18 in pubs and clubs. We are all concerned about the wider economic implications and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the motion.