Health and Social Care
Debate between John Leech and Alison Seabeck(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), who care passionately about health care in its widest and broadest sense.
This Gracious Speech is unprecedented. I cannot recall in all my years of working in this place, dating back to 1977, another instance of a Prime Minister saying it is okay for their party to vote against the Government’s programme. I cannot see the late Baroness Thatcher condoning such a move. This coalition Government are in meltdown, and the public must be wondering whether any of the proposals in the Queen’s Speech have the wholehearted support of their Members.
That said, there are measures in the health Bill that could and should be shaped and improved on a cross-party basis. It is therefore important that adequate time be allotted for the various debates and the Committee stage. The proposed programme is hardly onerous, so the guillotining of Bills should not be required—unless the Government decide that they dare not encourage full debate, and chicken out. We shall see.
Before moving on to the health-related elements of the Gracious Speech, I would like to mention the draft consumer rights Bill because it revisits the private Member’s Bill introduced by my father—Michael Ward, who was a Member of Parliament—which became the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. He was supported by the late David Tench in enacting what was groundbreaking consumer legislation. Lord Denning, the then Master of the Rolls, described it as
“the most important change in civil law”.
My father would, if he were alive, be very keen to ensure that the streamlining and simplification process in bringing together so much consumer legislation does not water down consumer rights.
There are a number of health-related proposals in the Queen’s Speech. In Plymouth—a mesothelioma hot spot because of the nature of its industrial base—people will welcome the further progress that has been made on speeding up the process through which insurance companies accept liability and pay compensation. However, for too many of my constituents progress has been tragically slow: they have not survived this awful disease long enough to benefit from the legislation. We have a moral duty to do everything we can to support the victims, and we need to ensure that the Bill, which has had a very slow gestation—it was discussed under the last Labour Government—does what it says on the tin and guarantees faster pay-outs. The failure to address other asbestos-related diseases is also giving rise to concern.
Those who are more fortunate are now, with support, living into grand old age, and we have to resolve the issue, which has dogged successive Governments, of providing care for our older citizens, as well as younger people with illness or disability. The care and support Bill should be welcomed as a step in the right direction, but I fear it will not be enough and, rather than having a full-blown national care service, we will end up with a piecemeal one. The level of the cap has been set too high—higher than Andrew Dilnot recommended—and without investment in local services the Bill will have serious consequences, as clearly set out in the opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).
To deliver much of what will need to be delivered, local authorities will therefore be required to step up to the plate—the joined-up care that the Secretary of State talked about. Yet we know that many are having to dismantle the architecture upon which good care and support is offered—as we are seeing in Torbay, an exemplar—because of the deep cuts being made to their budgets. Can the Government please be clear about who will be running these care and support networks? If it is the private sector, how will they ensure that there is not a postcode lottery?
Oddly, earlier the Secretary of State was behaving like one of those nodding dogs we see in the backs of cars when it was pointed out that hospitals are under pressure and staffing levels are not all they should be. However, he has provided no real answers in this Queen’s Speech.
At long last, after almost four years, we have a Bill paving the way for a potentially dramatic change to the way defence procurement is carried out. There is consensus across the political divide that successive Administrations did not sufficiently reform defence procurement. Equipment programmes were overheated in respect of funding, and the Ministry of Defence was underpowered in the skills required to deliver increasingly complex programmes. There are too many questions that need to be asked for the time available, and today is not about defence, but we will need to come back to those questions. The themes, however, are the accountability of the proposed GoCo —Government-owned, contractor-operated organisation —and where the risk lies. For example, does it lie with the taxpayer or with the private company? Warning bells are already ringing around Westminster about the management of risk. We know from successive Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office reports that the MOD struggles when it comes to assessing risk. We need to know whether the Ministry of Defence, like the Department of Health, is producing legislation that removes the Secretary of State’s power to intervene and take responsibility.
Finally, I come to the Bills that were not mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition emphasised the missing legislation in his response to the Loyal Address. The cold hand of the Prime Minister’s henchman, whose links to the tobacco industry as a lobbyist are well documented and who has accepted major donations to his campaign in Australia from British American Tobacco, is writ large on this Gracious Speech.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I agree that not having legislation to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products is the wrong decision, but does the hon. Lady agree that it is appalling how the unions, too, have tried to stop this legislation?
Alison Seabeck
People work in those industries, and, understandably, the unions representing them have to consider the membership’s point of view. Among the unions as a whole, there is a broad range of views, very much reflecting those in this place today.
Returning to my point, perhaps that is why No. 10 has U-turned, from a position where it was wrong for children to be attracted to smoking by glitzy designs on packets and there were statements that children should be protected from the start, to the obverse position, where we are not being allowed to have legislation that would have a beneficial impact on the future health of our population and on the NHS budget. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) said, we need to know who is pulling the strings in setting Government policy. The Government have bottled it; they are in thrall to their right wing. Young people in Plymouth, particular our Youth Parliament members and those in our youth cabinet, who wanted very much to see this change brought forward, will feel that they have been sold down the river. Many young people are asking what is in the Queen’s Speech for them; there is nothing to protect their future health and nothing to help them into work.
If the Government were serious about improving the health of the nation, we would have given these measures a fair wind. They would have had broad support from the Opposition, as would investment in other areas, such as housing that is affordable to rent, because good housing equates to good physical and mental health. Nothing has been said on those issues. The Queen’s Speech is a huge missed opportunity, and it is simply not good enough.
Social Housing (England)
Debate between John Leech and Alison SeabeckWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I start by making a declaration of an indirect interest in another Member’s entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate. He gave a thoughtful and compassionate speech, and I support his remarks about the need for good-quality, caring case workers. Mine do a brilliant job too, and I am sure that the Minister will say exactly the same about his own.
I have to admit that when I saw the original title of the debate—the future of social housing in England—my immediate thought was simply to say, “What future?” I will therefore be listening very carefully to the Minister, not least because one of the first headlines I saw relating to his policies after he took on his shadow ministerial responsibility was, “The death of social housing”.
We have had a well-informed and passionate debate, with good contributions from hon. Members. There are a number of points that I would like to draw out of the debate in my summing up; first and foremost is the simple truth that the Government have decided not to support the building of any new homes for social rent during the course of this Parliament—I specify social rent. Of course, homes will be built. Some 67,000 homes, largely for social rent, will be delivered in the first two years of this Government. Let us not forget, however, that those homes are the tail end of Labour’s national affordable housing programme. The funding and contracts were arranged by the previous Labour Government, and the homes will be completed under this Government. It is worth remembering that in the previous Parliament under the Labour Government, 142,000 additional homes for social rent were delivered between 2005 and 2010, out of a total 256,000 additional affordable homes. That is 100,000 more than the 150,000 target put forward by the current Government, which is apparently so ambitious.
The hon. Member for Stafford understands the needs for social homes. In his submission to his local development framework consultation, he said that it was important to build sufficient homes of the right type. He went on to mention that social and affordable housing was in short supply. His submission is very interesting, and the Minister might want to have a look at it. It is extremely well thought through.
Will the Government deliver? I doubt it. We now have a framework for the delivery of homes with Government grants that clearly states that the building of new social homes will be supported in exceptional circumstances only. Some 142,000 social homes were delivered in the previous Parliament, in addition to the 67,000 from Labour’s programme that will be completed under this Government—more than 200,000 homes for social rent. That number will fall under a Government who are sending a clear message that they want to see the end of social rent: the Localism Bill encourages councils to place people directly into the private rented sector; rents are being put up towards 80% of market rent; flexible tenure is being introduced, which will destabilise communities; and they have no history of support for the sector. Is the private sector becoming the new council housing under this Government? Has the Minister thought through what that will do to confidence among those seeking to invest in the sector? By the way, I welcome the Minister’s U-turn and announcement that he has accepted Labour’s argument, made in the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, on the need for standards to be fixed in the private rented sector.
The Government have chosen to introduce homes at 80% of market rent level, which they have had the temerity to call affordable rent. To whom is that affordable? It is not affordable to tenants, many of whom will be shifted on to housing benefit as a consequence, or, if they are not eligible for housing benefit, will simply leave the area if they cannot afford the rent, and it is not affordable to Government. The Department for Work and Pensions has been busy claiming that it will bring down the housing benefit bill, and yet the Department for Communities and Local Government impact assessment of the introduction of the 80% of market rent policy is that the cost of housing benefit will rise by £1.2 billion. The Minister will probably say that it is “up to” 80%, but the evidence coming out of the Homes and Communities Agency bidding process is for councils being told that it is 80% or virtually nothing. We have that from the local authority in Cambridge, which has been told that it must develop at 80% and not at 60%. If the Minister disagrees, can he give us his estimate of the proportion for social rent? If he says some will favour social rent, will that affect the number of homes built—the number he keeps quoting?
For all the Minister’s protests about his understanding of the policy, the reality on the ground bears little resemblance to his assurances. What can he tell us about where the funding will come from to support the building of new homes after the current comprehensive spending review period? That is a crucial issue for all those involved, from house builders to lenders and especially for those in need. If the answer is simply a further shuffling of the tenants, some tenants and landlords will be pretty desperate by 2014. Can the Minister share his thinking on what happens next?
I raise two other issues: the completion of the decent homes programme; and, perhaps most importantly, the Government’s decision to legislate away a tenant’s right of security of tenure. On decent homes, Labour’s commitment to tackle the £19 billion backlog of repairs and maintenance in the social sector was important and right. The allegation that the previous Labour Government did not care about social housing—made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech)—is wrong, although his concern about better use of public land is justified and needs further development.
Alison Seabeck
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I beg to disagree.
The decent homes programme not only provided dignity and warmth in the home for families, it saved thousands of social homes from being condemned and demolished—homes that were run-down and unfit to live in because the previous Tory Government had looked the other way. If people want to know why Labour did not invest in expanding house building early on, it is because we were spending the money on clearing up the mess in the social housing sector left behind by the previous Tory Government, who sold homes without making use of the capital receipts. Now, for local authorities with homes below the decent homes standard, the Government have cut again—far too deeply. Will the Minister leave the same legacy as that of the Thatcher and Major Governments?
On security of tenure, without any manifesto commitment from either coalition party, the Government have decided in the Localism Bill to introduce a new form of tenure: flexible tenancies, which can last for as little as two years. After as little as 18 months under the new tenancy, the eligibility of tenants will be reassessed. If they have worked hard and done well for themselves, or if they have met someone whom they have decided to settle down with and, consequently, their income has increased too much, potentially they will have earned themselves an eviction notice.
Interestingly, Centrepoint has taken the views of young people it works with, expressing support for a tenure with security. I quote a young person called Kiran:
“Having a mixture of people on estates is really important. It’s important that people living on low wages can get social housing as it can be really difficult for them to afford private sector rents, and some young people need the security of council housing to help them get a good start in life. It’s also really important for unemployed people to see other people working so they don’t give up and they keep working towards getting a job themselves.”
That says it all.
I and, clearly, other hon. Members who have contributed today think it is wrong that hard work and responsibility should not be rewarded in the offer of council housing. Hard work and responsibility should certainly not be greeted with an eviction notice. The policy tramples on aspiration and is a block on tackling worklessness. The Minister tweeted recently—he tweets a lot—on the subject of Labour policy in this area. He suggested that, if Labour wanted to encourage working, we should support the 80% rent. The Minister simply does not get it. Where is the incentive for people to earn and get on if they have to leave their home after two years because their income has gone up, or earning has become marginal? They risk falling back into the benefit trap.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is certainly exercising Labour Members.
I asked my constituents at the King’s Tamerton community centre, Dawn and her friends, what made their area work; they all felt that it was the stability they had. Many had lived in their homes for decades, looking after them and supporting their neighbours. They reinforced the comments made in debate today: the big society is more likely to work where people stay put. In my view, they are already the good society, making their community work.
Tenants already in social housing might find that they are overcrowded or want to downsize—they might want or choose to move. The only home that they would be offered, however, might well be a flexible tenancy, with no security of tenure. I am, therefore, sorry to have to disabuse the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) of his views, but the Government’s claim not to be changing the rights of existing tenants is simply not correct. It is fundamentally wrong, and that has been acknowledged by some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers who bravely and wisely supported our amendment on the issue in the Localism Bill.
Before I finish, I touch on a point made by the hon. Member for Stafford when discussing issues related to the ombudsman and dispute resolution. We need further detail, and I hope that the Minister will come back to us on the issue.
Much more can be said on housing, which I am always grateful to have an opportunity to debate in this place—too often, the subject is overlooked. The policies of the Government are deeply damaging. They deserve far more frequent airing and, in the coming months and years, I suspect that is exactly what they will get.