Bus Passes: 1950s-born Women

Debate between Mike Hill and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cunningham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I understand it, a number of WASPI women or women born in the early 1950s have submitted complaints and given evidence to the parliamentary ombudsman, but we do not know the outcome of that yet; we will have to wait and see.

The state pension is not a benefit, or a lottery win that people get once they retire. The state pension is the return of money that people—in this case, women—have paid into the system throughout their working life. The worst-affected women have lost out on tens of thousands of pounds and will retire six years later than they expected.

Last month, the High Court was sympathetic to the 1950s women, but ultimately ruled that they had not been discriminated against. However, the pace at which the changes have taken place certainly puts them at a particular disadvantage compared with men. These women have already suffered considerable inequalities and, in some cases, sexism in the workplace. They would have entered the workplace in the 1960s and ’70s. At that time, women were openly discriminated against. They were refused promotions and refused adequate pay for skilled work. In some cases they were refused maternity rights, and in other cases those rights were non-existent. Those factors mean that many of these women are already at a financial disadvantage.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a true champion of this cause. Does he agree that it is a great irony that many of the women who are suffering hardship as a consequence of the pension inequality will themselves be working in organisations such as bus companies, when they should be benefiting from a free bus pass from them?

[Mr Cunningham]

I fully agree. The factors that I have set out mean that many of these women are already at a financial disadvantage. The Conservatives’ changes to the state pension age only add to that.

The WASPI women have put up an excellent fight against the injustices, but the Government have refused to admit their mistakes or address the problem. The May Administration and now the Johnson Administration have refused to compensate these women for the money that they have lost out on. I note that the Prime Minister, when he was campaigning to be Prime Minister, acknowledged that there was an injustice there, and that it should be put right, but so far we have seen no action. Instead, we have a general election. It will be interesting to see what he does afterwards.

NHS and Future Trade Deals

Debate between Mike Hill and Jim Cunningham

Monday 22nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I completely agree that the Government need to pay urgent to attention to that.

The Government’s response continued:

“the Government will continue to ensure that decisions on how to run public services are made by UK Governments, including the Devolved Administrations, and not our trade partners.”

It also said:

“Trade agreements do not prevent governments from regulating as they see fit, and they also do not require governments to privatise any services… The Government will ensure that nothing in our future trade agreements dilutes the powers of UK regulators to maintain the NHS’s position as the best health service in the world.”

However, as the petitioner says, words are not enough. By tomorrow, we will have a new Prime Minister; by the end of the week, we will probably have a new Cabinet, a new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and possibly a new Government position on these matters. Although we hear time and again, from across the Benches, support for the great institution that is the national health service and for its abiding principle of being free at the point of need, those are only words without deeds.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on opening this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that the Government should repeal section 75 as a matter of urgency, because it if they do not, they will throw the national health service to the dogs. Nobody wants that to happen, particularly with predators such as Donald Trump’s Administration. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mike Hill]

I agree that it is truly a case of words, not deeds.

Although people may find it reassuring to hear the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care say that the NHS is not for sale and will not be on the table in any future trade talks, we cannot take his word for granted. Equally, we cannot ignore the remarks to which he was responding. They were made by the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, in an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr. In that interview, he confirmed that in a trade deal with the United States, the whole economy—including the NHS—would be on the table. The shadow Health Secretary described those comments as “terrifying.” He went on to say:

“The ambassador’s comments…show that a real consequence of a no-deal Brexit, followed by a trade deal with Trump, will be our NHS up for sale.”

Others such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit party, have advocated a move away from state-funded healthcare to a more Americanised model. In 2014, he told UK Independence party supporters:

“I think we are going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently. I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare.”

Whatever opinions, promises or pledges are out there, it is clear that if the NHS is not for sale, it must be protected and future-proofed against the outcomes of any trade agreements with the USA and any other nation state. That, simply, is what the petition asks for.

Health and Care Professions Council: Registration Fees

Debate between Mike Hill and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 14th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered registration fees at the Health and Care Professions Council.

You and I have known each other a long time, Mr McCabe, but I think that this is the first time I have led a debate under your chairmanship. I hope you will show a bit of leniency, particularly to some of my hon. Friends. I thank Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means for making provision for the debate. In actual fact, we were granted the debate at short notice; I think somebody else pulled out. Hon. Members will have to excuse me—I have a heavy cold, to say the least. I hope they can all hear me.

The debate follows on from early-day motion 2069, which I tabled last month and which condemned the Health and Care Professions Council’s unfair rise in registration fees. To date, that early-day motion has been signed by a truly cross-party group of 118 MPs, which shows the real concern across the House; it is very hard to get such a number. I hope that the debate leads to a rethink from the HCPC and the Government.

The HCPC exists to regulate health and care professionals. It sets standards, investigates complaints and keeps a register of workers in 16 different professions. Members might be interested to know what those professions are: arts therapist; biomedical scientist; chiropodist and podiatrist; clinical scientist; dietician; hearing aid dispenser; occupational therapist; operating department practitioner; orthoptist; paramedic; physiotherapist; practitioner psychologist; prosthetist and orthotist—I do not know what those are-radiographer; social worker, in England; and speech and language therapist. That covers quite a wide range, to say the least. Notably, social workers in England are still covered, despite plans to change that from 2019. Altogether, the HCPC regulates more than 360,000 professionals, 90,000 of whom are social workers.

To register, professionals have to pay an annual registration fee, which is currently £90. In autumn last year, the HCPC announced plans to raise its registration fees from £90 to £106 per year—an 18% rise. That follows a 5% rise in 2014 and a further 12.5% rise in 2015, so with the new rise fees will have risen by 40% since 2014. The HCPC argues that the rise is necessary in order to secure its financial health, giving five main reasons for the fee increase.

First, it plans to increase efforts to prevent problems before they occur. Secondly, it wants to use innovation and technology to modernise and improve services. Thirdly, it needs to address a caseload that is growing in number and complexity. Fourthly, it needs to address the impact of inflation since its last fee increase. Finally, it needs to pre-empt the transfer of social workers to a new regulatory body. While the HCPC has faced higher expenditure since 2015, these reasons cannot possibly support an 18% rise. Expenditure increased by £2.8 million in 2017-18, but £400,000 went on redundancy packages for management staff and £1.2 million went on refurbishing the HCPC head office.

The HCPC put its plans for a fee increase to its members over the winter. Responses to the consultation were damning, with 90% of respondents opposing the increase. Despite the findings of the consultation, the HCPC decided last month to impose the 18% increase. It has defended the rise by saying that its fees are lower than those of any other health and care regulator. However, other regulators are not comparable. Some cover very few members, reducing their economies of scale.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Of course, this issue affects not only the HCPC’s but other registrants, such as nurses, who have to register with the National Midwifery Council. Does he agree that, along with other things, such as car parking charges, low pay and no automatic incremental progression in a lot of health-related occupations—particularly for nurses—these kind of registration fee increases are just another tax on healthcare workers’ wages?

[Mr Cunningham]

In considering that, we have to remember that a lot of those workers’ salaries—for want of a better term—have in some instances been frozen since 2010, while in some instances they may have increased by 1% or 2%. With inflation at about 2% over that period, that is roughly an 18% cut in wages. Add the increased fee, and those workers are carrying a heavy burden that they should not have to carry. Adequate funding should be provided, rather than finding it by using hidden taxation methods. We all know that nurses and so forth in some of our hospitals have to pay car park charges. Given all those hidden costs, these workers are quite frankly bearing the brunt of the recession.

Pet Theft

Debate between Mike Hill and Jim Cunningham

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am proud to be leading this e-petition debate, but yes, the issue does have cross-party support.

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

This is a timely debate and a big issue among the public. Following on from what has been said, if someone loses their dog or it is stolen, then regardless of the value, it is like a death in the family. I have had animals over the years, and when something happens to them, when they die or anything like that, it is as if there has been a death in the house; there is a sadness about the house. More importantly, it particularly affects children, who are very attached to their animals. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the case?

[Mike Hill]

I entirely agree. Pets are indeed part of the family; they are not commodities, as I will go on to say. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the death of a pet is traumatic for every family member.

Latest statistics from the Pet Food Manufacturers Association show that almost half of British households contain at least one pet and more than a quarter have one or more dogs. Pet Gazette recently said that 89% of pet owners consider their pet to be part of the family. New research by the insurance company Direct Line shows that the number of dogs stolen across Britain has risen by 6.8% in just 12 months, with an average of five dogs stolen every single day in 2017. Last year, 1,909 dogs were reported stolen to police forces; that compares with the 1,788 stolen in 2016.

Public Sector Pay

Debate between Mike Hill and Jim Cunningham

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I wish to declare an interest; I used to be employed by Unison, which brought forward the petition and also donated to my general election campaign, together with Unite and GMB.

The Government’s austerity agenda has not only done great damage to our public sector services but brought our NHS to the brink of collapse. Indeed, in Hartlepool, our local hospital is at risk of haemorrhaging services, which is unacceptable to the people. I know from experience that relentless cuts and redundancies have led to remaining staff being over-stretched and under extreme pressure. For more years than I care to remember, those same workers have suffered pay restraints and pay caps. In the light of inflation, that has meant, in effect, that they have suffered a real-terms pay cut. It is a sad indictment of the situation created by this Government that health workers and other public sector workers in my constituency are resorting to food banks.

Things have got so bad that Unison gives out school uniform grants and other welfare provisions for those trapped in in-work poverty, and local branches increasingly issue food bank vouchers to their members who are in need. It is unacceptable that this situation has arisen and that NHS and other public sector workers are struggling to get by on low pay. The pay cap has been cited as one of the reasons why nurses have been leaving the profession in droves, yet its main purpose—addressing Government debt—has failed. Since the cap was introduced, Government debt has grown by around 50%, to reach £1.7 trillion in May this year. Our hard-working NHS staff should not suffer the burden of propping up—

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has probably heard Ministers say how wonderful our public services are and that what staff and our emergency services do is wonderful. But does he agree that the best thing that the Government could do is to improve on the recommendations of the wages board for a big increase—not the one that the Government might be proposing? More importantly, does he agree that that the Government should put their money where their mouth is, and give those staff a decent increase?

[Mike Hill]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s words are hollow when they say that they will look at the pay review bodies but they have not committed to the recommendations of those pay bodies.

Our hard-working NHS staff should not suffer the burden of propping up the Government’s failed and farcical fiscal policy. They deserve a pay rise and they deserve it now.