Covid Security at UK Borders
John McDonnell Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
From the outbreak of the pandemic, I have taken an extreme precautionary approach, encouraging early, longer and more severe lockdowns. That is why I support the motion before the House today. With 100,000 dead we need decisive action. But yes, we also need the aviation strategy that the Chancellor promised us over nine months ago and that we have yet to see.
To ensure that any system of border control operates effectively at our airports, we need a sufficient number of well-trained professional staff at the immigration passport control points. The team at border control at Heathrow is known for its professionalism and commitment to high standards of service delivery. Many of them are my constituents; in fact, many of them are my neighbours. They have worked throughout the pandemic with some risk. Members may recall that some months ago, tragically, a father and daughter working in this role lost their lives.
Just at a time when we need these staff most and should respect the role they are playing, the management within the Home Office is provoking a strike. The Home Office management has decided, extraordinarily, that this is the time to rush through an imposition of new working rosters that are making it impossible for many staff to work effectively, especially those with disabilities and caring responsibilities. Staff who have been working on the new roster are all reporting that it has been chaos. It has put the operation at risk and made social distancing difficult. There are multiple examples of covid-secure bubbles being breached by managers because of a lack of staffing and the poor organisation of the new fixed rosters.
The Public and Commercial Services union, which represents the staff, has balloted its members. On a 68% turnout, 96.4% voted for strike action. That is how angry they are. The union will now seek a return to the negotiating table to try to resolve the staff issues. No Government should be sanctioning actions by its departmental managers that force their staff to resort to industrial action in this way, especially not in the crisis we now face. I urge the Minister to look into this matter again and intervene to resolve the dispute, so that these dedicated staff can continue to provide the vital service we need to protect our community, especially as the Government, and the Opposition proposals that we are debating, require staff to work effectively and supportively, and to be respected.
Budget Resolutions
John McDonnell Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Four weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised to end austerity. She raised people’s hopes—the hopes of teachers that they would no longer have to rely on begging letters to parents to fund the running of their schools; the hopes of police officers that the safer neighbourhood teams would return to tackle the rise in violent crime; and the hopes of local councillors of all political parties that they would have the resources to support local families in need at a time when a record number of children are being taken into care.
Those hopes were dashed yesterday. At best, those people got what the Chancellor described as “little extras”. No wonder so many teachers, police officers, local councillors and others feel bitterly disappointed at the Prime Minister’s broken promise, because yesterday’s Budget was not the end of austerity. Even with yesterday’s Budget, two thirds of the welfare benefit cuts planned by the Government will still roll out. Outside the NHS, departmental budgets are flat, and the Resolution Foundation this morning revealed that some Departments faced a further 3% cut in their budgets by 2023. Austerity is not ending.
For most people, ending austerity is about not just halting some of the cuts planned by the Government, but lifting the burden that austerity has imposed upon them and their communities over the last hard eight years.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way so early in his speech. May I refer him to page 39 of the Red Book, which shows clearly that, by fiscal year 2023-24, there will be a £30 billion fiscal loosening? He referred to the Resolution Foundation, but it says that under universal credit, more money will be paid out to recipients than under the current system.
John McDonnell
To be absolutely clear, the Chancellor gave the impression yesterday that there would be no departmental cuts, but the Resolution Foundation has said that, although some Departments will be protected, others will have a 3% cut as a result. I call that continuing austerity.
Ending austerity is about more than that; it is about ending and repairing some of the damage that has been inflicted on our society and, yes, has undermined some of the social fabric we rely upon. Yesterday, the Chancellor claimed that this was a “turning point”. It is, but not in the way he suggested. This is not the end of austerity, but it is the beginning of the end of the dominance of an economic theory and practice that has wreaked havoc on our communities. People no longer believe the myth that austerity was necessary. They are seeing this Government hand out £110 billion in tax cuts to the rich and corporations while their services are being cut and their children are forced into poverty.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Liverpool’s local authority will have had 64% of its budget cut by 2020. Would not a reversal in austerity mean its budget being reinstated?
John McDonnell
We are currently seeing local councils—the first wave has been Conservative—virtually going into administration. That must say something about the impact of a 50% cut in local government funding over the last eight years.
People no longer accept the trickle-down economics that has gripped the Tory party for four decades.
John McDonnell
I will in due course. The Parliamentary Private Secretary has done his job and handed out the briefings and questions to everyone. I respect the hon. Gentleman for his diligence and I will allow some interventions but, to be frank, people out there are fed up with parliamentary banter and want a debate that reflects the real world.
People no longer accept the trickle-down economics that has gripped the Tory party for four decades—the idea that somehow if we cut taxes for the rich and the corporations, this wealth will trickle down to everybody. They no longer accept “public sector bad, private sector good”. They no longer accept privatisation and deregulation; in fact, those are anathema to most people now. What was surprising yesterday was how lacking in self-awareness the Chancellor and his colleagues were and how out of touch they were with the reality of our people’s day-to-day lives. His speech reflected how ideologically crushed the Tories are. They are so bereft of ideas that the Chancellor yesterday, in a major parliamentary speech, was reduced to toilet gags. They are so bereft of ideas that they made a pathetic attempt to imitate Labour policies.
Mr Marcus Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity. Is the new economic model that Labour is proposing the same one that left 500,000 more people unemployed in 1979 and 450,000 more people unemployed in 2010 than when it came to office?
John McDonnell
A former Local Government Minister gets to his feet in this House and does not express a word of apology for what the Government have done to local government.
For some time, I have had concerns about the nature of the whole debate on austerity. First, many—I accept not all—in the Conservative party seem to have no appreciation of what austerity has meant and continues to mean for our society. I thought at one point that that was because many Labour MPs such as me represented constituencies with a different demographic to many Conservative constituencies. I represent a working class, multicultural London constituency. Yes, it is faced with different challenges from those of leafy Surrey, for example, but most of all our constituents, wherever they are, rely on the NHS, local schools, the police and local council services, so all of us should have some idea of what the public services that support our constituents have been going through.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
John McDonnell
Not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
What shocked me yesterday was that the Chancellor delivered a Budget that so clearly failed to address the desperate needs of our society after eight years of austerity. Let us look at just some elements of the human cost of austerity and what the Chancellor brought forward in the Budget.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
As part of the number crunching that the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly been doing, has he worked out how much more would have been available for the police, prisons, schools and local government if the UK had not voted to leave the European Union two and a half years ago? Does he not believe that that reinforces the case for a people’s vote now to restore the level of growth that we saw two and a half years ago?
John McDonnell
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views on Brexit because I campaigned for remain as well, but it behoves any Liberal Democrat to come to this House with a bit of humility after serving with a Tory Administration that savaged our public services.
Let me look at some of the elements of human suffering. Health workers are having to cope with the biggest financial squeeze in the NHS’s history.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must reinstate nursing bursaries if we are to see the number of nurses we need in our NHS?
John McDonnell
That is an essential element of the reconstruction that Labour will have to do when we come to power.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that a rise in health spending of 3.3% was needed just to maintain the current stretched service, and that at least 4% was needed to improve it. Instead, according to the Nuffield Trust, what we got amounts to just a 2.7% increase in overall health spending in real terms next year.
Police officers have seen 21,000 of their colleagues’ jobs cut since 2010. As a result, violent crime is on the rise. The independent police watchdog is warning that
“the lives of vulnerable people could be at risk.”
What did the police get yesterday? Some £160 million for counter-terrorism—far less than is needed—and not a penny more for neighbourhood policing. And that despite the head of counter-terrorism warning that counter-terrorism work relies on regular policing being properly funded.
Teachers’ pay has fallen by 4% since 2011 and the schools budget has been cut by £3 billion in real terms. Some 36,000 teachers have left the profession in a year —the highest since records began.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cuts to education that have left 22 out of 26 Wallasey schools facing cuts and that have seen £3 million cut from their budgets, while teachers are earning £4,000 a year less and having to do more, are an absolute disgrace, and that that demonstrates that this Government give no priority whatsoever to the future of our children?
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend has got it exactly.
It takes something, does it not, to have headteachers marching on Downing Street? That has never been seen before. Just what did yesterday’s Budget do to tempt teachers back? What the Chancellor offered was “little extras”. It was an insult, especially when 60% of teachers are not getting a pay rise this year.
There are now 4 million children living in poverty, 500 children’s centres have closed, 500 children’s playgrounds have closed and 128,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. When children’s social care faces a funding gap of £3 billion by 2025, what did the Chancellor offer? Just £84 million for just 20 councils. That will not even scratch the surface of the problem.
John McDonnell
No.
We have a record number of children coming into care. I know what coming into care means for a child: they are scarred for life. Why are they coming into care? Because there has been a 40% cut in funding to councils for early intervention to support families. Let the Government justify that.
On young people, the YMCA reports that spending on youth services has fallen by 62% since 2010. The average graduate comes out of university with a £50,000 debt. The IFS describes home ownership among young people as having collapsed completely. Tragically, with the mounting pressure, a decades-long decline in suicide among men has been reversed since 2010.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning suicide. I wonder whether there is anything in this Budget that he can welcome, even though I appreciate that we may differ. Does he not welcome the announcement on mental health or the announcement of a £21 million centre of excellence for public sector leaders?
John McDonnell
Of course we welcome more money for mental health, but what was required was £4 billion, not £2 billion; and that £2 billion was contained within the £20 billion that had already been announced, so it is not additional money. There are some things that we can work on on a cross-party basis in this House, but we have to be honest about the needs and the requirements, and we have to be straightforward in saying how they can be funded.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair; some people have done very well from austerity. A thousand of the richest people in the United Kingdom have seen their personal wealth increase by £274 billion over the past five years.
John McDonnell
The facts speak for themselves.
To make a real difference to the lives of young people, the Chancellor needed to address the housing crisis, deal with the toppling mountain of student loans, and restore work allowances for single people and couples without children. Instead we got piecemeal, unambitious housing announcements and re-announcements, nothing on student finances, and nothing on universal credit recipients who are single and without children.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s meagre contributions to universal credit will do nothing to reverse the social security cuts for disabled people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that for the millions of disabled people, austerity is far from over?
John McDonnell
I will come on to the plight of disabled people, who seem to have been a particular target for this Government, given how they have withdrawn funding and services.
On older people, there were more than 31,000 excess winter deaths among the over-65s in 2017, and well over 150,000 elderly people are in arrears in their social care payments. The Local Government Association, which works on a cross-party basis, said that £1.5 billion was needed by 2020 just to fill the funding gap in adult social care. The £650 million that was announced yesterday is less than half of that.
What comes out of the analysis is this. The burden of austerity has fallen disproportionately on who? On the shoulders of women. Yesterday, that did not just continue; it got worse. The share of the Government’s tax and benefit changes impacting on women increased from 86% to 87%—another year with an increase. The 1950s women, who have been treated so unjustly, have been overlooked once again.
The victims of possibly the harshest cruelty inflicted by this Government are disabled people. A UN inquiry into the rights of persons with disabilities found this Government guilty of “grave and systematic violations” of their human rights. When have any UK Government been charged with that by a UN body? Never. To be frank, we know—
John McDonnell
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
Many have taken their own lives as a result of the welfare reforms imposed upon them since 2010, and the Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has made his point with force and alacrity, but he should not witter from a sedentary position, engaged in an animated conversation with a Member on the opposite Benches. The same goes for Members on both sides of the House. The shadow Chancellor has addressed the House, as in my experience he invariably does, with considerable courtesy. Whatever people think of what is being said, they should extend courtesy to the Front-Bench speakers, as they should to Back-Bench speakers.
John McDonnell
I understand the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp); he gets excited at times, but as someone who has been excited myself at times, I completely understand.
The Government have been repeatedly forced by the courts to change how they are treating disabled people. They do not seem to have learned their lesson yet, so yesterday we saw no restoration of disability premiums, no end to the cruel social security freeze, and no end to dehumanising and unreliable work capability assessments.
The Government are also putting the livelihoods of future generations at risk. A few weeks ago the world’s leading authority on climate change said that avoiding dangerous climate change would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented” action. What did we get yesterday? We got no mention of climate change, no reversal of cuts to renewable energy, and no significant environmental policy.
Neil O'Brien
I am curious: the other day the Government voted through a £650 million scheme to improve energy efficiency and home insulation; why did the Labour party vote against it?
John McDonnell
Because it was not on a scale that would have had sufficient impact. I welcome interventions, but I think we should have a rule that when Members intervene they should describe their background, in this case as advisor to George Osborne, who cut back on the solar energy industry, who undermined wind power in this country, and who set us back so that we will never meet our climate change targets.
The impact—[Interruption.] Calm down, calm down—George Osborne used to say that to me, and I said “I’ll calm down when you resign,” and he did. The impact on the self-employed and small businesses has been equally stark. Some 51,000 high street stores closed last year. Wages for the self-employed have collapsed to around the same level as 20 years ago.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a disgrace that yesterday we heard that the Government are going to save the high street by turning our shops into residential properties and risking the very fundamentals of how the high street operates?
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday we needed serious action to address the bias against high streets, which has led to so many empty shops. Instead we got legislation that will help turn shops into flats.
We then had a huge media presentation about an online tax being introduced: it was said that £400 million will be found from this online tax in a few years’ time. At the weekend the Tax Justice Network said the top five tech companies have avoided £5 billion-worth of tax.
My second concern about the austerity debate is that if we understand and appreciate what people have been forced to go through with austerity, only callous complacency could drive us to inflict those policies on people. Yesterday the Chancellor’s speech, with references to “Labour’s recession,” demonstrated that he is trapped in a time warp of a political propaganda exercise by the Tories of a decade ago. [Interruption.] I thought they would like that one. Let us be clear: the financial crash was the result of greed and speculation, and a lack of regulation that goes right back to the 1980s. Austerity was always a bad idea.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend, I heard the Chancellor try to blame the last Labour Government for the recession, but in actual fact the previous Chancellor said a couple of months ago that it was not the Labour Government’s fault; it was the whole system’s fault, starting with Lehman Brothers in America. We should get the facts right.
John McDonnell
I always said George Osborne would get it right one day.
The consensus among economists, and the evidence of recent history, is absolutely clear. The worst possible response to a recession is for a Government to cut their own spending. In a recession, the Government should be there to support businesses and households. Instead, at the moment when Government support was most needed to help people back on their feet, Conservative Chancellors chose to impose the most severe spending cuts in generations. They did not have to, and they should not have done.
The Tories were warned that austerity would lead to slower growth and lower wages, and it has. The economic experts the Tories chose to ignore were proved right. Growth since the financial crisis, under Conservative Chancellors, has been the slowest after any recession in modern times. Real weekly average earnings are still lower today than they were in 2010. The Resolution Foundation reports this morning that real wages will not have fully recovered until 2024.
Ten years after the crash, we should be clear about the causes of the financial crisis. The Chancellor seemed confused on that point yesterday. It was not the deficit that caused the crisis; it was the crisis that caused the deficit. It was a crisis—[Interruption.] They don’t like to hear the truth. It was a crisis that resulted from the casino economy that the Tories helped construct right from the 1980s and supported every step of the way.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to give our personal history: I was a proud public sector employee for 17 years and I take issue with the way that Labour wrecked the economy and spent money we did not have. Would he like to tell us how he proposes to pay for his current funding system?
John McDonnell
Here is an answer: it is called a fair taxation system.
It was the ideology of neoliberalism that said markets were always right, that regulation was simply a barrier to growth, and that, ultimately, greed was good. The financial system this ideology helped design collapsed 10 years ago, and it was Conservative Chancellors who took the political decision to force working people, not the bankers, to pay the price for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
John McDonnell
Mr Speaker, you will admit that I have been generous in the number of times I have given way, and I suggest that, as you have a large number of Members wishing to speak, particularly on the Labour Benches, I should press on.
The result has been a period of stagnation unprecedented in modern British history: a period of falling wages, crumbling public services, and insecurity in an economy visibly failing across great swathes of the country. And because the cuts are still, even now, grinding on, the stagnation will continue, as the official forecasts say: investment forecasts have been revised downwards across the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast period, real wages will barely recover, and growth will remain far below its long-run trend.
The Chancellor cannot use Brexit as an excuse for those dismal figures. The OBR presented its forecasts on the basis of what it called a “relatively smooth exit” from the EU next year, but the Tories are bungling the Brexit negotiations—it is so bad that there is now an impact on the economy. Investment is being delayed and has even been cancelled. Britain already has the lowest rate of business investment in the G7, and even that has fallen this year. It is the uncertainty the Tories have introduced into the whole process that is so terrifying businesspeople. They just want to know where they stand, but the uncertainty was made even worse yesterday. The Chancellor has taken to threatening to revoke his own Budget in the event of a no-deal Brexit, yet on the very morning of the Budget, his Prime Minister was contradicting him. How can any company looking to invest in Britain not wonder where we are heading?
For well over two years, the Government have spent more time negotiating with themselves than with our European partners. With the date for leaving the EU just five months away, time is running out to present a deal that would respect the result of the referendum and win the support of the House. Instead, as the Tories continue to indulge in their squabbling, the economy and the whole country are being confronted with the grim prospect of a no-deal car crash. I have asked the Chancellor before to rule out a no-deal Brexit. A responsible Chancellor simply would not support such a thing, and would not, as he has done before, idly threaten to mutate this country into some form of tax haven off the coast of Europe. Let us put it on record that austerity is not ending. In the weeks and months ahead, people will recognise that the Prime Minister’s promise has been broken. There are rumours that this was possibly a pre-election Budget with pre-election tax giveaways. If the Conservatives are contemplating a general election, let me say on behalf of the Labour party: bring it on.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I have been in the House long enough to remember lots of Labour Budgets, and I remember the claim that boom and bust had been abolished—only to be followed by the biggest bust that we have had in our history. It must have been a big bust, because only that would have made the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats work together. We normally fight like ferrets in a sack, but in the context of 2010, a real crisis had to be dealt with.
If we look at what has occurred over the long term, we can see that we have made a great success of it. First, we have reduced the deficit from 10% to about 1%. That is a good thing, because if we borrow lots of money, we pay interest, which means that taxpayers’ money goes to pay bondholders and shareholders, not on the things that people want. I think that a compassionate Government is one who balance the books, because that means they can devote resources to the priorities that people have.
We have managed to do that without crashing the economy. Despite the calls that were often made about the economy going into recession, we have had eight years of a growing economy, which is actually pretty good. On top of that, we have created 3 million jobs. We all know that the best way to deal with poverty, to give people life chances and an opportunity to train, and the best thing for families is employment. If there is a challenge now it is to get wage levels and take-home pay up. When we compare our performance on employment with the EU and most of our neighbours, we can see that we have done a pretty good job. I am pleased there are signs that pay is picking up and that British workers will be paid more.
There is a lot of good to be said about the Budget yesterday. I do not think that Budgets in themselves make much of a difference. What makes a difference is long-term economic success and planning. If we look at Germany and other countries, we can see that they have pretty sane policies year after year—over seven, 10 or 15 years—which grow the economy gradually. Certainly since 2010, we have made pretty good progress, and there is more progress to be made as we exit from the European Union.
I welcome what the Chancellor has done on public spending. We all know that there are pressures with an ageing population and with mental health, and the Government have started to address some of those pressures. They have been able to do so because of careful management of the public finances. I also welcome the additional spending on defence. I am one of those who have always felt we have cut defence too much, perhaps because of the economic crisis. I think that Britain, as a world power and as a member of the United Nations Security Council, does need to spend sufficient resources on defence, so the £2 billion announced in the Budget is to be welcomed.
I think we have made good progress, and all that the Government need to do now is to keep that progress up year on year. We have a decent balance in this Budget because not only have we been able to spend more on public services—with the proviso that we need reform, and the proviso that we need productivity to rise because spending money will not necessarily in itself produce better outcomes—but we have managed to reduce taxation. Since 2010, we have doubled the allowance to £12,500 for those who pay tax, which is pretty good, and it massively increases the incentive for people to get into work. It is no accident that we have record employment, because we have made raising the tax allowances to help people get a job a very critical part of our employment strategy. It is also quite right for the upper rate of tax to go up as well, because that lifts all the tax bands for many middle earners. The fact of the matter is that, as a country, we tax people too much too early, and we need to increase incentives. There has to be a balance between incentives and extra spending, and on this occasion we have got that right.
We have a key task over the next few months in getting a good deal on Brexit. I note that the shadow Chancellor criticised the Government for contemplating leaving without a deal, yet as far as I know the Labour party are going to vote against the deal, so there seems to be a slight double standard.
Sir Robert Syms
Well, we shall see what comes back in the next few months.
The reality is that the Government have actually managed the economy well, and because of that, despite the level of uncertainty, we are still creating jobs and we are still growing. The interesting point is that, despite the soft patch earlier this year, the third quarter growth figures show that we are now growing more than the EU, so we are starting to pick up again.
I am confident that we have a good team at the Treasury and that they are listening to what colleagues are saying about their constituency concerns. I think we have had a really decent Budget, which has balanced sensible spending with reform and a sensible reduction of taxation. We are also maintaining a sensible management of the economy, certainly in the plans to have a 1% deficit, which is a massive reduction. I hope that we over-perform, and that if we do, we can reduce that further. The reality is that this Government have done well, and the country is doing well. We need not run down the country; the country’s best years are still ahead of us.
Oral Answers to Questions
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The regulatory procedures are not working. Ten years ago, our late colleague Frank Cook introduced a ten-minute rule Bill calling for regulatory reform, and I reintroduced that Bill three years ago. The Keogh report called for regulatory reform two and a half years ago, and nothing has happened. People are losing their eyesight as a result of some of the companies operating in this field. Will the Minister meet me and the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) to talk about progress in this field?
Ben Gummer
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not right. Progress has been made. Ten years ago, that might not have been the case, but the Care Quality Commission was strengthened under the previous Government and it is regulating refractive eye surgery. Moreover, the doctors who perform those operations are regulated by the General Medical Council, and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists is bringing forward a certification scheme because of the moves that were taken by the last Government.
A&E Services
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I make sure that every time I refer to what is happening in my local NHS now, I look into the voluminous papers on “Shaping a healthier future”, or what the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust actually says, so that I am clear that I am describing what is happening, not giving my opinion or saying something that has come from a party political standpoint. I simply wish that the Government would listen and respond in kind.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for coming late to my hon. Friend’s speech. The reason why is that outside Ealing hospital there are currently 200 people demonstrating because of the maternity unit’s closure, which will put undue stress on the local community. He has listened to many of the arguments regarding its closure, and none of them stacks up. Perhaps those 200 people will be listened to.
Andy Slaughter
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. No one does more than him, directly and positively, to draw attention to the crisis in the NHS in west London. His local hospital, Hillingdon, is not closing, but throughout the process over the past three years he has been absolutely steadfast in defending and supporting those of us whose local NHS is being downgraded, not just because he is a good comrade, but because he knows that the knock-on effect of hospital closures will make it impossible for any of the 2 million people throughout north-west and west London to receive a decent health service.
I shall say no more today, as other Members wish to speak. I again thank the Minister for the opportunity we will have to make our case. I hope the Government are listening on this matter, which is the most urgent matter that I have dealt with in my 30 years as a councillor and as an MP. It is about the preservation of the NHS for a substantial part of London’s population. These are genuine and legitimate concerns, and I hope the Government will listen to them.
Oral Hormone Pregnancy Tests
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
People often ask what an MP does. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) have demonstrated what a good MP does. They have taken an issue that has been brought to them by their constituents and pursued it until they achieve an end result. I hope that we will see such an end result today. I congratulate them on what they have done.
I was contacted by my constituent, Mr Kulvinder Sidhu, who asked me to attend and participate in today’s debate in order to secure the establishment of the panel and the full release of all the documentation. I do a radio show each week on Hayes FM, our local community radio, and I recently interviewed Mrs Valerie Williams, the former chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Testing. She succinctly explained the background to this scandal, and it was an extremely moving interview. She described some of the appalling human suffering that has taken place, and it was really shocking.
This seems to be a worrying hangover from the past. We thought, after the thalidomide inquiry, that we had put issues such as this behind us. We thought that in such issues, there would subsequently be full transparency, openness and decisive action by Governments. Today will test whether that is the case, and whether we will see decisive action. I do not think the general public would understand if there were a continued refusal to release all the papers, or if there were resistance to the establishment of an independent panel inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East has already said that we are mopping up the scandals of the past, including Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday. The hon. Member for Enfield North said that we are now living in a different era, with more openness and transparency. This debate will test whether that is really the case.
It is difficult to understand how we have arrived at this situation. We have to address the issue of the pharmaceutical industry’s relationship with the medical profession and with the Government. Big pharma, as it is now called, has insinuated itself into the decision-making and policy-making processes of successive Governments for the past few generations, and I believe that it has had an undue influence not only on Government decision making but on some of the professional institutions that regulate the medical sector. Big pharma is one of the most powerful lobbies in government of any industrial sector. This case is another example of where one company has used the clout of its financial resources, through the legal system, to silence critics and even those who have researched the information and tried to publicise it. That was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East in respect of the denial of not only access to information, but of someone even being able to publish or to produce a film that would have demonstrated to the wider general public exactly the scandal that is taking place. For too long, the pharmaceutical industry has dominated Government policy in a number of areas, including this one.
So I say to the Minister that this is a test case about who governs this country in the area of drugs safety and about the medical safety and security that we offer our constituents. I see no reason for the Government to deny the full publication of all the documentation and I also see no reason why we cannot have an independent panel inquiry. If such a panel is set up, I hope that not only will it be fully resourced, but those who will want to provide information to it will also be resourced, and that includes the campaigning organisation that has been fundamental to delivering today’s debate. Anything less than that will compound the scandal, because we now know much more than we did in the past about the cover-ups that have gone on, the sacrifices that have been made by individual families and the need for Government action today.
Ebola
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her support for the statement. I want to pay particular tribute to the chief medical officer and Dr Paul Cosford at Public Health England, who have done an enormous amount to make sure we develop the right policies, which are both proportionate and enable us to prepare for the future. The Government are hugely grateful for their contribution.
We are satisfied that the testing arrangements at the PHE facility at Porton Down are adequate to the level of risk, but one of the reasons why I wanted to announce to the House the current estimate of the number of Ebola cases we are dealing with in the UK was to make the point that we will continually keep those arrangements under review should the situation change. We need to recognise in a fast-moving situation such as this that it might well change, and I will keep the House updated, but in such situations the resilience of all those very important parts of the process will be checked.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In May the Government announced the closure of the health control unit at Heathrow airport in my constituency. It contained the staff who undertook the monitoring, screening and treatment of passengers who were sick. I believe many of those staff have now been made redundant, so can the Secretary of State tell me what the staffing arrangements will now be at Heathrow airport? Also, will a training programme be developed for airport staff themselves, including cabin crew and others?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In terms of the staffing arrangements, a total of about 200 people will be employed in the screening process, working at both Heathrow and Gatwick airports in the hours when they are open, and potentially at other airports if we expand the screening. It is a comprehensive facility.
The hon. Gentleman’s most important point is that we must make sure that those who might come into contact with people who might have Ebola—airport staff and people working on aeroplanes, and people working at receptions at GPs’ surgeries, at A and E departments and at hospitals—have basic information about how the virus spreads, so that we can avoid any situations of panic. The virus is transmitted through exchange of bodily fluids. It is not an airborne virus, so it is not transmitted as easily as something like swine flu. The advice is that those doing physical examinations of patients need to wear the protective equipment, but that that is not necessary when having a conversation with a patient, for example. That advice will always be kept under review, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need to make sure everyone knows that advice.
Care Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving so late, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been stuck in a meeting.
Let me begin by saying, without party rancour, that I shall vote against any measure that puts further power in the centralised hands of the Secretary of State. I apologise for going down memory lane as well, Mr Deputy Speaker, but 40 years ago, when I first represented my constituency as a local councillor, we had what I thought was a very effective health service consisting of local GPs’ surgeries, two cottage hospitals and a district hospital. In the 1980s the two cottage hospitals were closed, because a new Secretary of State—let us leave aside the party to which he belonged—decided that we did not need them, that all the services should be centralised in the district hospital, and that there should be some investment in the GPs’ surgeries. We occupied Hayes cottage hospital in an attempt to keep it open, but we lost the battle. However, it became a residential home in the end, so we had some success.
What happened next was that other Secretaries of State came along and moved some of the services from the district hospital to more centralised hospitals in central London. Then a new Government were elected and a new Secretary of State decided that we needed to devolve again, so we had Darzi polyclinics, which looked awfully like cottage hospitals to me. If you stand still for long enough, it all comes round again.
All that was basically a result of what we heard about from the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois): a lack of trust in local people. I believe that local people supported the original model of GPs’ surgeries, cottage hospitals and a well-resourced district hospital. If they had been listened to at the time, we would not have gone round in a huge contorted circle to get back to what was virtually square one. As I have said, I am very anxious about any measure that puts further power in the hands of the Secretary of State and overrides the wishes of local people.
Richard Drax
In my experience, cottage hospitals are the gold standard of the national health service, and should be preserved at all costs.
John McDonnell
I entirely agree. There are still members of the community who, like me, deeply regret the fact that we lost two cottage hospitals in my constituency and another in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). We lost a whole network of cottage hospitals. I do not remember who was Secretary of State in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government, but that Secretary of State was obsessed with closing them down, and they were closed down as a result of central diktat rather than listening to people.
As other Members have said, there were consultations, and, in every case, nearly 100% of local people wanted to keep the local cottage hospital. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said that we were running a socialist health service. Well, my socialism is grass-roots socialism—community socialism—which means listening to local people and respecting their wishes. Local people often know intuitively what is right, and that is why I am so anxious about any further powers being put in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Steve Baker
Not for the first time, I find myself gently agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has advanced a magnificently Conservative argument, and I look forward to his eventually matching the colour of his tie with the colour of his rosette.
John McDonnell
I will send the hon. Gentleman a few books about council socialism and the socialism of the grass roots.
Today’s debate is about trust, about listening to local people, and about not allowing any further powers to accrete in the Secretary of State’s hands and override local wishes. People do not trust central Government. That is not a party-political point; I think that people have been ill used over a long period by not being listened to at local level, which is why I urge Members to support the new clauses and the amendment.
Let us not denigrate organisations such as 38 Degrees which are merely expressing a view. Others may not agree with that view, but it has been expressed to me not just by 38 Degrees, but in e-mail after e-mail and letter after letter from people whose views I respect because they have gone through the same local experience as me. All that those people want is long-term stability and investment in a publicly funded and democratically accountable health service.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He said at the beginning of his remarks, and he kept to his pledge, that he was going to speak without party rancour. I, too, would like to do that because I think there is very little difference between my views on the health service and those of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). We may perhaps have a divergence of view on how to achieve what we both passionately believe in, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is the finest health service for the provision of care for all people in this country, but on the core principle of a national health service, free at the point of use for all those eligible to use it, there is not one iota of difference, despite the speech I heard from the endearing hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I almost felt I had woken up from a nightmare. Having listened to the same speech in 39 of the 40 sittings of the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, I regarded it as my good fortune that during the 40th sitting, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State was giving evidence to the Health Committee which prevented the hon. Gentleman being in our Committee.
The point I want to make is this: the national health service has from day one constantly evolved in the delivery of health care, partly because of changing medical science, partly because of changes in the diseases that people have suffered from owing to improved and enhanced preventive care, and partly because many conditions that in the past one would stay in hospital for no longer need to be treated in hospital but can be treated in a GP surgery or elsewhere. We all—politicians, medical practitioners and others—have to recognise that the NHS is constantly evolving and revolving, and we have to adjust to those changes and meet those challenges.
I passionately believe that decisions within the NHS should be taken locally. I supported the Health and Social Care Bill so strongly because it devolved powers and decision making to the people who I think are best qualified to take commissioning decisions on behalf of patients—local GPs. I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is no longer micro-managing the running of the NHS on a day-to-day basis. However much admiration I have for my right hon. Friend, or even for the shadow Secretary of State when he was in post, I do not think he is best qualified to be running the health service on a day-to-day basis.
If we are going to evolve and meet the challenges, difficult decisions will have to be taken, and politicians in particular—politicians of all political parties; this does not apply simply to Opposition Members of Parliament or to Conservative Members or to Liberal Democrats—have got to be braver. When there is any consideration of a reconfiguration to meet new challenges or address problems, the knee-jerk reaction is to take the populist, easy route, say no and oppose for opposition’s sake, rather than look at the reasons behind any reconfiguration.
Care Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and I welcome the mental health crisis care concordat, and what is being done to emphasise that prevention is by far the best way forward, but even with those prevention measures in place I think we would all accept there will still be circumstances where people will reach crisis, and unfortunately a police station is absolutely the last place anyone, let alone a child, would wish to be in crisis. In Devon and Cornwall alone, 27 children last year were taken to police cells for long periods of time. On three occasions those children were as young as 12 and 13. That is simply unacceptable. One of the reasons it is likely to continue is that there is no penalty currently for the NHS in continuing to use such facilities. It does not have to pick up any of the financial tab. That is putting enormous pressure on our police forces. They do not wish this to happen, of course. If we cannot at least have this sunset clause, which I think is eminently sensible, I hope the Minister will consider making sure that the NHS has to pay to use the police cells, and that there is a significant financial penalty, because that would be a driver. That would make it financially much more sensible for the NHS to put in place measures for these vulnerable people—who often have been found by the police at the point where they are about to take their own lives. It cannot be acceptable for this situation to continue.
Moreover, the variation in such use of police cells is extraordinary. There are some areas where that is not used at all and others where it is very heavily relied on. I hope the Minister will say in his response that he is prepared to consider a sunset clause, or at least a financial penalty, so we see drivers in place and we continue to move away from such a practice. However, I absolutely recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that prevention is far better, and I know all areas are working towards that and that the Minister fully supports it.
New clause 9 is an extraordinary measure that is widely welcomed because of the principles to which the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) referred about well-being and prevention. These are at the heart of the Bill and everybody welcomes them. However, I think the Minister recognises that there could be unintended consequences if we were to introduce many new statutory obligations without their being funded fully. As he will know, we have two tests—a needs test and a means test—for people to pass in accessing social care, and 88% of needs tests are now set at a substantial level, which has been quite a considerable change. There is also the means test, which stands at £23,250. On many occasions as a GP, I remember coming across the absolute shock encountered by people when they realised that they would get no help whatever.
The change under the Bill will be extraordinarily welcome, although we should be under no doubt about the burdens that it will place on local authorities, in particular in my area. Devon has the third oldest demographic in the country, but funding of local authorities for health care does not have sufficient emphasis on the age structure of the population. There will be great impact on Torbay and on other areas in Devon, such as my constituency.
New clause 9 is a sensible measure about how we plan for the future and make an appraisal of whether we are fulfilling the important provisions in the Bill, ensuring that we have sufficient resources directed towards prevention and well-being. I hope that the Minister will see the new clause as helpful and as one that will assist us in planning for the future.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will speak to the amendments in my name. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) that we should not have nodded the programme motion through blithely. Many of my constituents have contacted me about the Bill, because care in my area is on the edge of crisis, with the new threshold rolling it back for many people. That is why I support new clause 11; people need their human rights to be ensured in the Bill. New clause 2 is important, because we have a Children’s Commissioner and we need a commissioner for the elderly and other care services, so that there is someone to speak out for people. I support new clauses 7 and 9, because I agree that introducing legislation without funding is meaningless. We place local authorities in an impossible position, as they struggle to provide the services.
With regard to the work force, we need to ensure pay and adequate training, so that we fully professionalise the work force. In my area, we have a high turnover of care workers, which leads to distressing results. In one case, an elderly lady was burgled and on the next day a new carer came in, but she thought that she was being burgled all over again, because she did not recognise the person. That is the instability in the industry at the moment. That is why I support new clauses 17 and 18.
On the amendments in my name, new clause 31 is generated by one of my constituents called Jonathan Kay, who asked me to get the matter dealt with in the Bill. For many years, Jonathan has been funded by the local authority to employ a personal assistant to enable him to carry out his day-to-day tasks—he is a disabled person—but he has experienced serious problems with personal assistants in the past, even suffering abuse on more than one occasion. When employing personal assistants, Jonathan has found assessing the suitability of candidates extremely difficult, and he has not been able to obtain reliable recommendations from any public body, despite using public funds to employ them.
Part 3 of the Bill provides that the training and education —but no qualifications—of carers will be undertaken by Health Education England. The purpose of my new clause is for Health Education England to allow scope for the local education and training boards to do such work and to compile, publish and maintain a register of all persons who provide regulated social care for individuals under arrangements made by or paid for by a public authority. That would allow people such as Jonathan to access a list of trained professionals whom they can employ with confidence, we hope, in future.
With amendment 26, I am simply seeking to install into the Bill a provision on the right to live independently, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but dismissed by the Government. The Government might well have been concerned about the legal actions that were taking place with regard to the independent living fund, but the Committee’s report made its disappointment very clear that the Government had not taken the opportunity of the Bill to be explicit about their support for the convention on the rights of people with disabilities and article 19—“Living independently and being included in the community”—being a human right. It should therefore be included in the Bill. The Government have given assurances that the general direction of the Bill might achieve the same ends, but that is not good enough in that it does not enforce the rights in law.
My amendment 21 covers the same ground as new clause 15, so I will not dwell on it in any depth, but I will give an example. Whether with our parents or in our community, we all know about the uncertainty of charges for residential care. They cause real concern and anxiety among families. Yes, the ability of local authorities to negotiate rates influences the overall market, but that is why there is a need for some form of indicative price. A care funding calculator is used to set the care of people with learning difficulties, and that model has worked and saved public funds. We should at least be considering in the Bill that sort of process for care overall.
My proposals in amendment 20 would
“require the local authority, when carrying out the assessment, to capture an individual’s main and other disabling conditions”.
A whole group of organisations, including the Parkinson’s Disease Society, Sue Ryder, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Epilepsy Society, the Neurological Alliance and the Alzheimer’s Society, have all campaigned for this simple change in the assessment process, which merely requires local authorities to collect and record information about an individual’s main and other disabling conditions when they are conducting their social care assessments and arranging care packages. Why is that important? It is important for local authorities to be aware of the different conditions in their community, so that they can plan long-term services, but it is also important for us to be aware of the information nationally, so that care services and our investment can be planned in the long term. Taking that into account seems to be a minor amendment.
Amendment 22, which I also tabled, was proposed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and lobbied for by a number of my constituents. In clause 76, the duty is placed on the local authority to establish
“a register of sight-impaired and severely sight-impaired adults who are ordinarily resident in its area.”
The existing provision relates only to adults and does not include children. My amendment simply ensures that the local authority is required to collect information on both adults and children. The reason for this is that, under the Children Act 1989, there is a requirement on local authorities to collect information with regard to blind and partially sighted children, but 20% of local authorities admitted failing to meet that legal requirement. Furthermore, 20% of local authorities have no register; three councils include just 1% of disabled children known to the authority on the registers; one in four authorities have whole registers with fewer than 2% of disabled children known to the council; and almost six in 10 councils include 10% or fewer of the disabled children. The RNIB therefore emphasises that in clause 76 we should place on local authorities a duty, when collecting information, to include children ordinarily resident in their area. Again it is the same mechanism; it is about the planning of services to ensure that they are properly invested in over the long term.
Overall, I welcome the Bill, but I fear that it will disappoint many as a result of the failure to address some of the considerable issues with regard to funding, rewards to the work force and professional training, and the appropriateness of the cap on costs.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to new clause 5, which is in my name. I thank the many Members who have supported the clause.
I have been pursuing the issue since 2011, initially on behalf of a constituent, a Mr Kenny, who suffered an injury when he was serving in the Army and is paralysed from the waist down. He originally lived in the London area, but his family is from Edinburgh and he wanted to move back to his family. For four years, he got absolutely nowhere, because neither authority would take responsibility for him being able to move. They argued backwards and forwards. Eventually, his family helped him to move physically, but for a period none of his care costs was being met, until Edinburgh relented and began to meet those costs. By that time, he had incurred quite a lot of debt.
I first raised the issue in 2011. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who was then the Minister, said that it should be covered in the White Paper, but when that came out it only related to portability of care within England and not to the devolved authorities. I kept raising the matter and I was assured that something would be in the Bill, but when it was published the measures related to the portability of residential care packages but not home care packages.
Care Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
First, may I apologise to the House? I was here for the early stages of the debate and listened to the Front-Bench speakers and others, but then had to leave. Tomorrow’s announcement on aviation, and the fact that we seem to have yet another Government who want to build over a third of my constituency, means I have been at other meetings to deal with that.
I will not take up much time, but I just want to raise a couple of issues that have been raised with me by constituents, and in particular by Jonathan Kaye. I would welcome an intervention by the Minister if I have got this wrong, but Mr Kaye’s first concern is about the regulation of carers who are recruited as a result of direct payments. In my constituency, the borough has moved progressively towards direct payments, where the individual recruits carers on the open market. That is extremely difficult, but at least they have some choice. I want to be clear about whether these carers are included in the regulation system of the Care Quality Commission, as set out in the Bill. Who will inspect them, and how will their performance be monitored?
Norman Lamb
Personal assistants are not part of the CQC regulatory system. That has always been the case, including under the previous Government. We would certainly encourage personal assistants to seek to secure the new care certificate qualification, however, so as to demonstrate their care skills, but they are not part of the formal system.
John McDonnell
I think Mr Kaye would like me to press that at some stage during the Bill’s progress. His view is that they should be regulated in the same way as others, and that there should be appropriate inspections as well. I understand the difficulties, particularly in terms of family relationships with regard to carers. I understand the subtleties of that, but there does seem to be a gap in the Bill as it stands. I might want to look at that in Committee, and certainly on Report.
The second point is that I believe that in the other place Baroness Greengross or Lady Greengross—I am never sure of the titles of the bourgeoisie—moved an amendment to cover the whole range of abuse. That was partly a response to the lobbying for abuse by carers to be properly covered by this Bill. I hope the Government’s attitude is that the amendment will remain in the Bill. I am happy to give way again to the Minister if he wants to respond; perhaps he will do so later.
The third point Jonathan wanted me to raise was about assessment and reassessment. I do not know what other Members find in their constituencies, but I find that the process of assessment can be extremely difficult—first, getting an appropriate person who can do the assessment, then getting that appropriately skilled person to do the assessment, and then the bizarre continual reassessment after reassessment that amounts almost to harassment. Some people with severe disabilities —with permanent conditions who, to get a cure, would need a trip to Lourdes, to be frank—get reassessed time and again. That becomes worrying for them, and some individuals can lose some element of their benefit through this process.
Meg Munn
I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. In my experience there seems to be a tendency of wanting to assess people and then reassess them, rather than putting effort into providing services for them. If we quantified the time that goes into assessment as opposed to provision, I think we would see some way in which we could shift some of these very scarce resources into helping people properly.
John McDonnell
I was with a constituent last Friday and the issue under discussion was disabled facilities grant. Again, there seem to be more assessments and more spent on assessment than on getting the work done at times. There needs to be a clear understanding of the issue of permanent conditions and how we can make sure people do not have to go through the trauma of assessment
That brings me on to the issue that was raised by Age UK—I apologise if others have raised it before—which is about the individuals who will do the assessments and the level of their qualifications and of their specialisms. My whole community has been traumatised by what happened with the Atos assessments, and I would not want to see another process implemented in the same way under this Bill. Age UK wants us to ensure that appropriate assessments are carried out by appropriately skilled and qualified assessors.
That leads me to a further point, and I apologise if others have already raised it. Part of the issue for people who have to undertake the assessments is ensuring that they have the right advocacy support. In my area, we have DASH—the Disablement Association Hillingdon—which provides excellent support and advocacy, but it is struggling, as is every other voluntary organisation in the area, as a result of local government cuts and the demands and challenges that are placed on it. It is important that, as we introduce this legislation, we look at the role of advocacy and the importance of supporting it through appropriate funding from local government and elsewhere.
I want to talk briefly about the report from the personal social services research unit. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), whose superb speech set out, drawing on personal experience, exactly how many of us experience the services of carers. I am not sure whether other hon. Members have gone through this matter in depth in the debate today. If they have, please will they intervene to tell me, so that I do not need to go through it again?
The report has usefully confirmed all that we have experienced and understood anecdotally in our constituencies. Even I was shocked at some of the statistics that it contained. The report was produced by the personal social services research unit of the university of Kent and the London School of Economics, and it is an objective assessment of expenditure and of the numbers of people receiving services from local authorities between 2005-06 and 2012-13. Its findings confirm what most of us have experienced in our constituencies—namely, that there have been
“widespread reductions in the period 2005/06 to 2012/13 in both the observed and standardised estimates of number of adults receiving state-funded social care services”.
It also found:
“Across all user groups, approximately 320,000 fewer people received local authority brokered social care in 2012/13 than in 2005/06. This represents a 26% reduction in the number of recipients of care.”
If we look at the standardised assessment, we see a
“decrease of 453,000 (36%) individuals being served”.
That reflects what I am finding in my constituency. People who should be receiving a certain level of care and who would previously naturally have received it are no longer doing so. The report goes on to state:
“Reductions in the number of clients are particularly acute for older people; 260,000 or 31% fewer older people received services in 2012/13 than in 2005/06…The standardised estimate of reduction was greater: 333,000 or 39% fewer clients.”
That means nearly 40% fewer older people are receiving services now than five years ago. The report goes on:
“Approximately 37,000 or 24% fewer adults aged 18-64 with physical disabilities received social care support in 2012/13 than in 2005/06. The standard estimate showed a reduction of 50,000 or 33%. A reduction of 30,000 (21%) was observed in the number of service recipients aged 18-64 with mental health problems.”
I find that staggering but, at the same time, it reflects what is happening in our constituencies. Why is this happening? It is fairly straightforward, really. It is a result of the cuts that local government is experiencing.
Although the report covers the period between 2005-06 and 2012-13, it emphasises that the vast majority of the cuts have been made in the past two years. The coalition Government have brought forward this level of service withdrawal over a very limited period of time. According to the report,
“our analysis suggests a drop in need-standardised net social care expenditure between 2005/06 and 2012/13 of approximately £1.5 billion…Moreover, almost all reductions in expenditure are concentrated in 2010/11 and 2011/12.”
That is a cut of £1.5 billion overall. It goes on:
“The largest reduction in expenditure levels is concentrated on services for older people”.
That again reflects the anecdotal evidence that we can bring back from our constituencies. The report suggests that there has been a £1.6 billion cut in services to older people. This is not a party political point; this is independent, objective research, which we should all take on board in the debate as it goes forward.
The report continues:
“For adults 18-64 with learning disabilities”—
there has been—
“a significant increase in observed and standardised expenditure in 2012/13 relative to 2005/6 worth just above £1 billion”.
So there has been some increase in some areas but dramatic cuts in others. Worryingly, the cuts seem to be focused on older people and those with mental health problems. The interesting thing is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and others about how this is disproportionate; it is not being done right the way across the board, and the impact on areas is geographically uneven. It appears that the most deprived areas are being hit the hardest.
The report said:
“Approximately 95% of local authorities in England were observed to have reduced the number of older people receiving services in the period…Of these, the number of older people receiving services had fallen by 40% or more in approximately a third…of authorities.”
So this is focused on a limited number of local authorities, and again it appears that they are the most deprived. I find that extremely worrying.
Although we welcome the Bill as a first step, as others have said, Dilnot did make it clear to all of us that the social care crisis has to be addressed before we move on to other changes in legislation, or at least simultaneously. Introducing new legislation when the Government are introducing this scale of cuts will completely undermine the credibility of the new legislation. That is why I hope that as part of the debate as the Bill moves forward we can reach a consensus on not only the legislation—where I hope we can take on board some of the points made in the reasoned amendment—but on the level of investment required over the coming period if we are to support the most vulnerable in our society.
The study I mentioned is objective and it reflects what I am experiencing in my constituency surgery on a weekly basis—I believe it is the same for other Members of all political parties. The social care services in our areas are under intense stress and, as a result, people with even critical and substantial needs are not being addressed—those with moderate needs, which are still significant and should be within the system, are being ignored completely. We need to address this matter with some seriousness now and try to reach some all-party agreement on the way forward, not only on the Bill, but on the investment strategy for care needs.
Changes to Health Services in London
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I accept that there will be changes in transport arrangements. I am happy to work with her and to talk to TfL about how improvements can be made in respect of the changes I have announced today.
I hope that the hon. Lady talks to her constituents about the positive aspects of the proposals. Hers will be the first part of the country in which all GP surgeries are open seven days a week—at least, there will be seven-day access to GP surgeries throughout her constituency and north-west London. North-west London will be the first part of the country where we have full seven-day working and we eliminate the fact that mortality rates are 10% higher if people are admitted in an emergency at the weekend. The positive aspects of the proposals will mean that her constituents find that they get better, safer care and live for longer.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I represent wards with some of the highest morbidity and lowest life expectancy in north-west London. Clinical support for reform and restructuring was based on adequate funding during the period. Hillingdon clinical commissioning group has written to the Secretary of State to express its concern about the current funding formula, which could undermine service delivery unless there are additional resources. Will he meet representatives from the CCG and Hillingdon hospital, which he has denied additional winter money this year, to talk about the long-term future of our health economy?
Mr Hunt
Hillingdon CCG supports the changes because it recognises the profound impact they could have in addressing health inequalities. I know that that is precisely what concerns the hon. Gentleman. His constituents will be big beneficiaries of the changes we are announcing today. The funding formula is an extremely difficult issue. We have decided to depoliticise it by making it a matter for NHS England—it is decided at arm’s length from politicians because we believe it is very important that things are decided on the basis of an independent formula.