National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

Debate between John Healey and Sheila Gilmore

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

It comes as no surprise, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining that point. I was not planning to make that point, but I am glad that it has been made so clearly.

My argument is with the Prime Minister. So much for what he said, and so much for his word when he said back in 2011 that

“we will not be selling off the NHS”.

Perhaps the most serious consequence of this fragmentation, this privatisation and this contractualisation is the fact that the most important and fundamental value at the heart of the NHS—an imperative at its heart—is the ability properly to plan, co-ordinate and deliver services. That is being made much harder, as the Health Select Committee has said, and sometimes impossible by the operation of the Health and Social Care Act and competition law. If anybody doubts it, they should look at the case of the two NHS trusts—the Royal Bournemouth and the Poole NHS Trusts—whose merger made great sense to patients, but was prevented by this Government’s legislation.

Let me say a few words about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I have chaired the all-party group that has followed these negotiations for the last 18 months in order to try to encourage a better and more balanced public and parliamentary understanding and debate, as well as to put the Government on the spot and hold them to account for what they are doing. We are trying to ensure that if we get a deal, it will bring real benefits not just to British business, but to British workers and British consumers.

Two things have become clear. First, the NHS can be fully protected in TTIP. I am convinced of this, not just because other EU trade agreements have protected public services, but because if the Government want them, there are specific member state reservations to cover public services and because we have heard the confirmation, directly from the chief negotiator whom I have met twice about this, that even with ISDS—investor-state dispute settlement—provisions, which I do not support, nothing could prevent a future Labour Government from bringing parts of the NHS now in private hands back into public hands.

The second thing that has become clear is that these commitments have been secured despite, not because of, Government Ministers. It is clear that Ministers have done next to nothing to try to influence the negotiations and secure the full exclusion and protection we require for our NHS and wider public services. Indeed, rather as the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) observed, the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Livingston, who is responsible in government for leading the British position, has said that he would welcome the inclusion of health services in any deal. When the Minister gets up to speak, perhaps he will—formally, in this House—make the Government’s position clear. What is clear is that if we are properly to protect our NHS in any future TTIP, we must have a strong British voice in Brussels, which we do not have at the moment.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I gave the Prime Minister an opportunity on Monday to say that he would take specific action to ensure that the NHS would be protected if TTIP were successfully negotiated. He did not do so, but does my right hon. Friend feel that this debate provides an opportunity for that to be done in his name?

[John Healey]

I would expect these trade negotiations to stretch into at least the end of next year, so I hope and expect that the responsibility for making sure that this deal is good for Britain will become that of a Labour, not a Tory, Government and of Labour Ministers, not Tory Ministers.

Infrastructure

Debate between John Healey and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is very important to realise that investment in infrastructure works in boosting the economy. I want to give an example from Scotland that is about investment in housing, and I will start, but not necessarily finish, by praising something that the current Scottish Government did. At the beginning of the UK Government’s term of office, they took a decision to bring forward capital spending in order to boost the economy. They put some of that spending into housing, particularly affordable housing. As a result, for a brief period, they were able to increase the proportion of spending on affordable housing.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

In the spirit of generosity to other parties, will my hon. Friend also commend the coalition Government for introducing the borrowing guarantees and earmarking £10 billion for housing, classifying it categorically as infrastructure for the first time? To make her point, I should say that every £1 million of public money that goes into house building generates 11 jobs.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The spending in Scotland enabled the Scottish Government to announce that unemployment was not rising as fast as in the rest of the UK, and they took great pleasure in that. Sadly, the situation has not been maintained, and we are hearing less of how wonderful the Scottish Government are at dealing with unemployment; at present, the opposite is happening. I would argue that one of the reasons is that the investment in infrastructure, particularly in housing, has not been sustained. The figures are stark. In Scotland, there were 7,915 new affordable housing starts in 2009-10; in 2010-11, the figure fell slightly to 6,460; and in 2011-12, it fell to 3,405—a halving in less than two years.

There is a consequence for the construction industry, its employees and unemployment in Scotland. The Scottish Government showed that such investment worked, but they have not been able to sustain it. They would probably argue that that is solely because of what has been happening at the UK level—investment in housing and in capital has been falling. They would be right to some extent, although I would add that they are not particularly interested in showing that the situation can be overcome. I suggest two ways in which they could overcome it.

First, the Scottish Government could use the tax-raising powers given in 1999 as part of devolution. They have not chosen to use those, although I think people in Scotland would be prepared for them to be used if they thought that the money could be invested as it was previously. They have also put a stranglehold on local government by having a five-year council tax freeze, which has meant that local government cannot make the choice to say to its local population, “We desperately need more housing. We will put up council tax so that we can borrow”—that is perfectly possible—“and build that much-needed housing.”

So there are ways in which the Scottish Government could continue with policies that for a brief period showed that investment in infrastructure boosts the economy and employment. I urge them to go back to doing that, rather than allowing things to deteriorate so that they can always blame London; that, I am afraid, is what they tend to do.

Some of the discussion is fascinating. If someone had fallen asleep in 1997 and woken up watching this debate, they would have wondered which party was talking. Government Members want to argue, “The last Government didn’t do anything on infrastructure and when they did, it was all this horrible PFI.” I seem to recall that PFI was not a Labour Government invention, but was enthusiastically put forward by the preceding Conservative Government. I am interested to know when that conversion happened. We can get that sort of investment better, but my city is a lot better for some of the public-private partnerships that we put in place—the schools that were built and the investment that was taking place.

A lot of things seem to happen in Scotland first these days, which are then followed, not always for the better, here. In 2007 a Scottish Government of a nationalist persuasion took over, and in my city a Lib Dem-Scottish National party council took over. They both decided that they did not like public-private partnerships and so would instead come up with some magic way of creating these investments. As a result, not one new school was started in the five years of that Lib Dem-SNP administration—not one. Several were finished, and councillors were very pleased to go and open them and have their name put on the opening plaque, but those schools had been planned and funded through PPPs. We seem to have undergone a miraculous conversion at some point—I am not quite sure when—but we have not come up with anything that really works in its place.

I call in support of this argument none other than the Mayor of London, who is quoted in tonight’s edition of The Evening Standard as calling for a £1.3 billion investment in housing in London. Perhaps the Government would like to listen to a mayor of their own political persuasion.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John Healey and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

At least with regard to new clause 2 and the need for good communication and good information, it appears that there is a fair degree of cross-House agreement. Members may have different motives for wanting such information to be given, and may hold different views about what behavioural change that might drive. Some Members might also hint that they want this information to be given so that public sector workers are properly and humbly grateful for retaining better pensions than the absolutely dreadful pensions of many in the private sector. I hope the Economic Secretary will respond positively, however, and agree that this is an important step. It will be deeply ironic if better and more thorough information is given to people with private sector pensions than to those with public sector pensions.

We all want to avoid too much information being given, of course, with people receiving many pages of information, much of it hard to understand. We do not want to over-egg that pudding. There is a parallel debate happening in the world of private sector pensions on giving good, accurate but still efficient information, so that people can look at a single page of information—that is preferable—and understand what their likely pensions are going to be. On that matter I hope that the Minister, having heard the debate in Committee and again today, will be happy to make some changes to the provisions. I cannot see why new clause 2 should not be in the Bill, as it deals with such a major issue.

I wish briefly to discuss new clause 3, which deals with the issue of a fair deal. Again, there would appear to be a substantial degree of agreement across the House on the substance of the issue. Nobody is saying, “We don’t think these should be the provisions.” The question that has been raised is whether they should be in the Bill. Some Government Members have suggested that accepting what the clearly stated view of Ministers has been at various points should be good enough, because it is on the record and we should be confident that that is sufficient. However, as far as I am aware, it is not possible to litigate on the basis of what people simply said, rather than what is in legislation. People have attempted to say in the past, “But that was the intention”, even doing so in respect of debates in this House. However, legal disputes about rights or obligations turn on the much narrower construction of what is written in the Bill.

I am not suggesting, in any way, that those who have spoken during our consideration of the Bill do not intend what they have said, but many public sector workers are genuinely concerned. As I said in my earlier intervention, the matter becomes a great deal more important if the Government continue, as they presumably will, over the next two years to do what they say they want to do: outsource more of what we would regard, or have traditionally regarded, as public sector activities. That has already happened to some extent. Some people have explained how this could be very positive, with employee mutuals and all kinds of social enterprises springing up to provide public services. If the Government are genuinely serious about wanting current public sector employees not just to have to do this, but to be enthusiastic about doing it, these safeguards have to be in place. If this is the road that is to be pursued, it is even more important to have these provisions than it may have been in the past. Saying, “You didn’t do it before so we don’t need to do it now” is not a particularly good argument; some of us might disagree about what had been done previously. Even if we do not, the argument is still not particularly good, as we have also to learn from experience. I hope that the Government will seriously consider legislation on this matter, because if they genuinely have no intention of departing from the promised arrangement I cannot see what the problem is. When people begin to say there is a problem, that is when those paying into these schemes—the employees likely to be affected—begin to smell a rat. There may be no rat there, but why not make things absolutely clear?

That is also true of what we are trying to achieve in amendment 12, which deals with an apparent possibility arising from clause 7. Again we were given assurances in Committee that we should not be reading into this something that the Government do not intend. Clause 7 says:

“Scheme regulations may establish a scheme…as

(a) a defined benefits scheme”.

It then goes on to talk about

“a scheme of any other description”.

It is not at all clear what is actually meant. We were told that one or two specialist defined contribution schemes are in existence, but people are clear that the promise that was made as part of this negotiation is that the defined benefits schemes would remain in place. They will, however, be changed, and during the negotiation employees in various parts of the public sector accepted substantial changes in the kind of pension because they accepted the imperatives. In moving from final salary pension schemes to career average schemes, changes are being made in accrual rates. All sorts of changes have been made—for example, the forthcoming changes to pension age—but they were made on the basis that the scheme will remain as a defined benefit scheme.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and sounding a clear warning. She mentions that clause 7(1) refers to

“a defined contributions scheme, or

( c) a scheme of any other description.”

Would she like to point out to the House that this potential change in clause 7 could in theory, under subsection (5), be brought in by way of a negative resolution—by a statutory instrument that would not allow a debate in this Chamber or even a 90-minute debate in a Committee upstairs?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is an important point. If the rest of the clause did not give rise to the possibility of substantial changes, that provision might be acceptable. However, where we are talking about much greater changes, it is particularly important that the full debate takes place.

Again, there appears to be a difference between giving an assurance and a reluctance to see that assurance embedded in the Bill. Various people have mentioned that the whole debate we have had, particularly since 2010, has eroded some of the public sector workers’ trust. I do not generally seek to be overly alarmist in these matters, but even in Committee—I am pleased to say that this has not happened today—there were points when we could see exactly why many public sector workers are apprehensive, There were those, admittedly not at ministerial level but on the Government Back Benches, who clearly still feel that public sector pensions are too generous. The underlying thinking is that at some point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, further attempts will be made in that regard.

I fully accept that even with the changes that come through this Bill and through other negotiations that have taken place, public sector pensions remain far better than private sector pensions. However, we always have to remember that the comparator we now have is absolutely dreadful private sector pensions, regardless of where we place the blame and how that has happened. One thing that politicians should be doing in the next few months and years is trying to improve private sector pensions.

Finally, I wish to discuss amendment 11, which relates to the local government scheme in Scotland. Generally, the arrangements for many public sector schemes in Scotland have been that Scottish Ministers could make regulations, but that they were subject to Treasury approval. For the most part, whether because of that need for Treasury approval or because until relatively recently there has been no reason to depart from the UK-wide arrangements as doing so might create various anomalies that would not always be helpful, the regulations for schemes—all those that are not funded, at least—have lain with Scottish Ministers but have been made in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making another powerful point about amendment 11. She is right that the Scottish Government are not normally backward in coming forward to demand new powers and for decisions to be taken in Scotland for Scotland. Would she care to speculate about why they have not chosen to apply for a legislative consent motion that would allow them to make these decisions in Scotland? Could it be that they are looking to allow the broad shoulders of the Economic Secretary to take the blame and responsibility for the changes to the local government pension scheme in Scotland?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was going to come to that point, because I am surprised that that opportunity has not been taken, given the context. As my right hon. Friend will know, this is a difficult and sensitive subject, but—this point might well be speculative and I am sure that people will wish to deny that it is the case—it is no secret that we are in a particular stage of politics in Scotland, and it would—