Business of the House
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I will just add that I support the Leader of the House. Members should be treated with respect, and Ministers are here to answer to Members of Parliament who represent their constituents. I hope this message has gone back pretty clearly: get it sorted quickly. I am sure the Leader of the House will take this up and I will also take it up.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Tomorrow is St Patrick’s day [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Exactly. But it is also the first anniversary of P&O Ferries’ appalling assault on the legal and employment rights of almost 800 UK-based seafarers. RMT, Nautilus and the TUC reminded us all this week that, despite assurances from Ministers, neither P&O nor the parent company DP World has received any punishment or sanctions for their law-breaking and egregious treatment of their loyal workforce, so may we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s Maritime 2050 strategy and on why previous ministerial commitments to hold P&O Ferries to account have apparently sunk without trace?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, that brings us to the end of the time for questions, due to a connection failure. I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Points of Order
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very glad you are in the Chair for this, which relates to the remarks of the Leader of the House. In response to a question from my good and hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Leader of the House said that it is the duty of MPs to be here and hold the Executive to account. I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the 90-minute public health debate that took place yesterday, covering restrictions in the regions of the north-east, the north-west and the north of England. Back-Bench Members had 150 seconds to hold the Government to account. The Government have endless time at the Dispatch Box and in the media, but MPs had 150 seconds. Mr Speaker, may I refer to your statement of 30 September before Prime Minister’s questions? In your opinion, does the Government’s handling and the opportunities they are giving to Back-Bench Members square with your advice on 30 September?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to draw me into a political decision and discussion, but, first, I thank him for notice of the point of order. The 90-minute limit for debate to which he refers is governed by Standing Order No. 16. However, it would be within the Government’s gift to vary the time limit by a separate business of the House motion. That would be a matter for them, not for me, but I do have sympathy, given how many constituencies were affected. I recognise that if we did have more time, it would allow Members to give their views and opinions to help the Government to be more informed. I hope that that will have been taken on board.
Covid-19 Update and Hospitality Curfew
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
We all agree that suppressing the virus is essential in saving lives, and as a scientific socialist, I think we should apply basic public health principles. It seems absolutely clear to me that it is problematic that we have a 10 o’clock curfew, when large numbers of people are all coming out into the street at the same time. Night-time entertainment businesses such as comedy and live music venues, which are based in covid-secure premises such as pubs and clubs, are seriously impacted, and like—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate, and I am so pleased to be called. I have spoken in previous such debates. I wish to declare an interest: I am proud to support our firefighters, and I am a member and co-chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. I will also pay tribute to my good friend, Emma Dent Coad, former Member of Parliament for Kensington. Emma was a strong advocate and wonderful representative for her constituents and the Grenfell families, and I know that her passionate voice will be sadly missed in this place—I suspect on both sides of the Chamber.
I have some misgivings about the nature of the first phase of the inquiry, and whether it was right simply to focus on the night of the fire. It is really important that we look at the context of the fire, not just the actions on the night. It is my belief that before a single firefighter arrived at Grenfell, the building was already compromised in several ways. I want to list them. Some of them have been touched on.
The rainscreen ACM cladding covering outside the building was compromised. A number of Members talked about the safety testing regimes and the way in which the safety tests are conducted. My understanding is that the panels are not tested as they would appear on the side of a building, with sections cut for windows and balconies, so I believe there is an issue with the tests. The lining materials around the windows were compromised. There was also the fire resistance of the flat doors; the flat fire doors that did not self-close; and the lack of provision for people who needed assistance. One hon. Member mentioned the terrible fire in Bolton recently, where most of the occupants were fit and able students, but circumstances like those at Grenfell, with children, elderly and disabled people, need to be taken into account. There was a lower standard of stair doors, and heating systems and gas pipes were in the protected central stairwell. There was a single stairwell only just over a metre wide; firefighting lifts were not provided; there was a dry fire main instead of a wet riser for water supplies. For the uninitiated, a dry fire main is an empty pipe that can be connected to a water source from outside the building by firefighters, whereas in a wet riser system pipes are kept full of water for immediate automatic use or manual use by firefighters. There was also the failure of the lobby smoke control system.
Grenfell Tower was compromised through political decisions from the cosmetic so-called refurbishment that wrapped it in a flammable cladding, and because of deregulation of in respect of buildings and fire protection. From the cuts to the fire service to the failure to learn from previous tragedies, I think we have to look at the broader context, the political decisions and the individuals involved. As Mayor of London, our current Prime Minister, in my view, must accept his share of culpability and responsibility. He was at the forefront of driving cuts through when he was the Mayor of London; cuts to the London Fire Brigade of over £100 million, which—let us be honest about this—led to the loss of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire rescue units and three training appliances, the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction overall in crewing levels. Let us not pretend that that had no impact, because it did.
During this period of politically motivated austerity, recommendations arising from the Lakanal House and Shirley Tower fires landed on Ministers’ desks. Let us not pretend that that did not happen. The recommendations on the retrofitting of sprinklers in high rise buildings and the recommendations to overhaul building regulations were ignored. A 2013 promise to review existing building and safety fire regulations was not carried out until July 2017, following Grenfell. In relation to the “stay put” policy, the Government were warned by Frances Kirkham, the coroner for the Lakanal House tragedy, who said that the Government should
“publish consolidated national guidance in relation to the ‘stay put’ principle and its interaction with the ‘get out and stay out’ policy, including how such guidance is disseminated to residents”.
In response to the coroner, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is now in the other place—the noble Lord Pickles of Brentwood and Ongar—said that detailed national guidance on the issue was already available in “Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats”, produced by the Local Government Association; I think someone has referred to that. However, this guidance does not give any direction on the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to move from a “stay put” to a “get out” policy—in fact, it restates the “stay put” policy.
The Grenfell inquiry cannot be another example of failure, where good intentions fail to turn into meaningful actions. I will ask the Minister a few direct questions: will he meet the Fire Brigades Union to draft a detailed and effective policy on “stay put” and identify when a “get out, stay out” policy should come into effect? If so, does he accept that he needs to change the guidance and warn residents in high-rise buildings of the risks that they face?
Will the Minister and the Prime Minister now accept that cuts to the fire and rescue services in London and nationally have increased the risk to the public and undermined fire safety? The latest figures show the decline in response times to primary fires, with firefighters taking two minutes and 42 seconds longer to respond to a primary fire compared with 1994-95, under a previous recording system. Seconds count when it comes to fire. In the case of Grenfell, it took just 12 minutes for the fire to spread 19 floors to the roof. If we are going to improve fire safety and response times, we need to replace the firefighters that have been lost and provide our fire service with the resources and equipment that it needs to maintain public safety.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to thank our firefighters from the Dispatch Box—as the Secretary of State did in his opening remarks—but I want him to accept that a decade of austerity has had an effect on morale and resources. The firefighters who went to Grenfell Tower, risking their lives in circumstances that few of us can imagine or will ever experience, are nothing short of heroes—I accept that they will not thank me for calling them that. Grenfell was avoidable. The warnings from past tragedies were written in black and white and sat on Ministers’ desks. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker—I am almost finished.
Grahame Morris
I am sorry; I did not hear that—I do apologise. The wrong decisions were made in Westminster and Whitehall and communities such as Grenfell have suffered. I believe that it was avoidable, and I think that David Cameron’s obsession with deregulation and privatisation paved the way to this disaster.
Royal Bank of Scotland
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about some of the business practices, but does he accept that the motion is a reasonable and moderate proposal, and the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that we should consider other models, such as the Sparkassen model in Germany? Does he agree that bankers’ bonuses have been a significant factor in driving the misbehaviour that led to the downfall and the financial crash in 2008? Is it not true that the German banking system is geared towards supporting jobs and the real economy, and it would be a far better approach altogether if we did the same?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Interventions need to be a little bit shorter. I am bothered that hon. Members are all down to speak and they will have nothing to say because everything will have been covered in interventions.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. A plethora of organisations —[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am desperate to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hear him because there are too many conversations or too many interruptions. Whichever it is, I call Grahame M. Morris.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s point was excellent and well made. In modern times, e-balloting is an accepted method of improving participation.
In truth, the Bill is a smokescreen to divert attention away from the Government’s policies of austerity and to limit the response of working people to object to the assault on their pay, pensions and working conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) and other hon. Members have made interesting comparisons with hedge funds, the banking system and the financial sector. Such organisations and institutions promoted the casino economy that brought Britain, and indeed the world, to the brink of financial disaster. Yet, they seem to be allowed to wield considerable and unfettered political influence, and there is no proposal for similar constraints or levels of transparency. Our recovery is being built on a private debt bubble, and as austerity fails to eradicate the deficit or to improve the income or living standards for ordinary people, it is more important than ever for them to have a trade union to represent their interests.
In addition to significant and unnecessary new burdens, trade unions will also be expected to pay a levy to fund the certification officers’ new role. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the role will be much more proactive. They will have new powers to impose financial penalties and to scrutinise how unions use their political funds and for what purposes. Several Members have talked about the diverse reasons for which funds are used, but I hope that Government Members would agree that HOPE not hate and Bite the Ballot, as well as voter registration and improving public services, are all laudable aims that political funds support.
Unions must secure the continued consent of members to maintain a political fund, but that happens already as there must be a separate ballot every 10 years. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), have mentioned that. Winston Churchill said:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached…between the leaders of the main parties”.—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859-860.]
I ask all Members to vote against this most pernicious, partisan and overtly political Bill, which is one of the most objectionable that I have seen in my time in the House. I ask those with a genuine interest in enhancing workplace democracy and improving industrial relations to engage and work with trade unions, not to see them as an enemy. They aim to create safer, fairer workplaces for our constituents and address grievances in an amicable manner—
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do think it is an absolute outrage that the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) did not give us notice that she was raising the matter. She is subject to a referral. Other Select Committees have chosen not to publish reports.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sure that you are aware that Mr Speaker has sent a letter to the Chair of the Select Committee. I can also inform you that it is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Committee. In the new Parliament, there will also be a new Committee that can look into it. Unfortunately, as I say, it is not a matter for the Chair.
NHS (Government Spending)
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris
I would rather weaponise it than privatise it, which is what I accuse the Government of doing. That would not have been possible without the active support of the Liberal Democrat party—talking of which, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has just taken his place in the Chamber. I feel bitter about what has happened. The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Health and Social Care Bill, which has now been enacted. The lead advocates were the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). That Act was a really dangerous move, because part 3 opened up our national health service to the full force of competition. Conservatives may say that the difference is only marginal, but the truth is that that Act allows hospital trusts to have up to 49% of their income come from private patients.
I know that we are desperately short of time, but I want to set out some political dividing lines. Labour and the Conservatives are making very different offerings for the NHS. Labour’s offering is that it will provide more nurses and GPs, and I think it will find favour. In the next general election—
Francis Report
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Member for Beckenham has only just come in. He perhaps ought to hear a little bit more of the debate to get the flavour of it before he intervenes. That would help his good self.
Grahame M. Morris
We should remember that most hospitals provide very high standards of care, and have dedicated and compassionate staff. I am not just talking about doctors and nurses, but ancillary workers, cleaners and support staff. I worked in a pathology department as a medical scientific officer for a number of years. We should remember that the NHS is an integrated service that relies on all of its elements to perform at a high level and deliver a high-quality service.
Clearly, what happened in Mid Staffs was alarming. There were unacceptable practices, including, as other Members have said, professional failings. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in a terrific speech that was considered, thoughtful and non-partisan, alluded to those professional failings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), a former Chair of the Health Committee, made the point strongly that many Labour Members feel there should be a duty of candour on individuals. That is one of the recommendations of the Francis report that was rejected by the Government but could well make a difference. There were clear signs that changes needed to be made and we need to ensure that failures are never repeated elsewhere.
When care failures are uncovered, the priority above all else is to make a candid assessment of what went wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. Francis was clear on the need for cultural change. That is exactly what happened in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal. Despite attempts by some Government Members to undermine Labour’s commitment to the NHS, for the record we should be aware that it was the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is now in his place, who called in Robert Francis to lead the initial review into what had happened so that we could find out what went wrong and learn lessons for the future.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford that we should not hark back to previous Administrations, but my recollection, as a relatively new Member from 2010, is that that was not something we engaged in. It was a huge issue for Labour, and for me personally, that people were dying due not to lack of care in a hospital setting, but to the length of waiting lists—people were dying on waiting lists. After 1997, the NHS was transformed. Spending had tripled to £104 billion when Labour left office. Under Labour, 100 new hospitals were constructed, and the Labour Government employed 89,000 more nurses and 44,000 more doctors than had been employed in 1997. The transformation of the NHS under the last Government was reflected in public satisfaction with the service, which rose from record lows before 1997 to record highs.
There was a bit of contention during Prime Minister’s Question Time, and subsequently during the opening speeches in the debate. The Secretary of State suggested that the number of nurses had risen, but my information from the Royal College of Nursing and FactCheck indicates that that is not the case. I hope that the record can be corrected, because staff numbers are a key issue. A number of Members have referred to it today, and Robert Francis cited staffing as a causative factor.
It would, I think, be irresponsible to assume that a combination of implementing the Francis recommendations—even all of them—and talking down the last Government will be sufficient to ensure the provision of high-quality care throughout the NHS. The truth is that the combination of cuts in alternative services—I am not just talking about the replacement of NHS Direct with the 111 service, the reduction in the number of walk-in treatment centres, the difficulties in gaining access to GP services and, indeed, the cost and disruption caused by the top-down reorganisation—is more likely to contribute to failures in care. It will certainly increase the pressure on accident and emergency departments.
The Francis report made it clear that the “overwhelmingly prevalent factors” in the failures at Mid Staffordshire
“were a lack of staff, both in terms of absolute numbers and appropriate skills”.
It was made clear that ensuring that our hospitals are adequately staffed is key to ensuring that standards of care are high. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who I know has been campaigning on the issue for some time. A year on from the Francis report, a survey found that 39% of nurses believed that the staffing position had become worse rather than better, and 57% said that their wards remained dangerously understaffed. I hope that the Minister has noted that, because it must be cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Stafford told us that when he was first elected the NHS trust was running a deficit of £10 million, and the focus of the hospital management was on reducing the deficit in order to secure foundation trust status. What went through my mind then were figures given to the Select Committee, according to which nearly a third of NHS trusts are predicting deficits towards the end of the current financial year, and the possibility that similar pressures will be applied as a result. We are now seeing the spectre of clause 119 of the Care Bill, which we are to debate next week on Report and Third Reading. If it paves the way for rapid hospital closures—Labour Members fear that predatory private health care interests may seize the opportunity—that will be very dangerous. We must examine that issue very seriously.
According to evidence from the survey conducted, I think, by the RCN, not only are hospital wards increasingly understaffed, but nurses are being burdened with work that is preventing them from doing their jobs. I am sorry to fire statistics at the House, but, according to that evidence, 86% agreed that the amount of non-essential paperwork had increased in the last two years. There has thus been an historic recent increase in administrative duties. That has been keeping nurses in their offices or at their nurse stations, standing in front of computers or photocopying machines, instead of being available on the wards providing the TLC—that direct health care—that patients require.
Just this week the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned the Government that the mental health sector is heading towards its own Mid Staffs-type scandal. I am very concerned about that. The figures for that field were given earlier, but the fact that the budget for mental health services is reducing in real terms should be a cause for concern. This Government gave a commitment to parity of esteem as between physical and mental health. That was promised and loudly trumpeted as a significant step forward, but in truth it has failed to materialise. There is a clear funding imbalance between acute providers and non-acute trusts, which will disproportionately impact on mental health services in the wake of the Francis report.
I also want to touch on the tariff reduction. In 2014-15 there will be an overall reduction in the tariff price—essentially, the price that hospitals are paid for procedures and operations they perform—of 1.5% for acute providers and 1.8% for non-acute trusts. A third of NHS trusts are predicting they will be in deficit at the end of the financial year, and this tariff reduction will only compound that problem. This means the efficiency target for mental health and community trusts is in practice a fifth higher than for acute trusts, so perhaps it is no wonder that we have a chronic bed shortage, highlighted by various newspapers and the BBC, with children and adolescents travelling long distances to access appropriate care and sometimes temporarily being put in police cells. This is not acceptable, and there are real concerns that programmes introduced by the last Labour Government to make talking therapies available to people with mental health conditions are not getting the priority they deserve. Last year half of all patients referred for counselling did not see a specialist, with a third giving up entirely because the waits were so long.
As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, 1,700 mental health beds have been lost over the last two years, and services are under such pressure that people with mental illnesses are ending up either in police cells or presenting at accident and emergency departments, as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said. Those are completely inappropriate locations.
I want to mention the cuts to social care since 2009 and the impact they are having on the ability of the service to deliver quality care in the light of our review of the Francis recommendations. We should not forget that since 2009-10 some £1.8 billion has been cut from local authority budgets for adult social care. The cumulative spending power of my own local authority, Durham county council, is being reduced by 17.3% under this Government.
Areas such as mine with a legacy of coal mining or industry have higher care needs. These are the areas that are being hardest hit by cuts to local government. It is simply not possible to make cuts of this significance to local government without it having an impact on standards of care. Some 76% of community nurses agree that social care cuts have resulted in increased work pressures, with just 15% thinking that patients are receiving adequate support from social care services. Cuts mean that an increasing number of those with care needs are going without any support—the figure I have seen is about 800,000—and those receiving support are not even having basic needs met. We know about the 15-minute visits, and councils are now having to introduce or increase charges for services that may well have been free before or might be free in other parts of the country.
Care in the home and in the community is declining, and people are turning to their local hospitals—this is the point I am trying to make—as the default option. That means that those who should be taken care of at home are staying unnecessarily in hospital beds. Accident and emergency is the coal face—the pressure point—and any failures in the system show up there, putting even more pressure on an already burdened system. In “The Francis Report: one year on”, Robert Francis said that there needs to be
“a frank discussion about what needs to be provided within the available resources…It is unacceptable to pretend that all can be provided to an acceptable standard when that is not true.”
I agree with him. It is no good telling people that care standards will be improved or maintained while removing the support that is required to provide high standards of care, particularly social care. In conclusion, I agree with the Health Committee that legislation and regulatory bodies can only do so much to ensure that care standards are met if the necessary staff and resources are not available.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I now have to announce the result of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
On the motion relating to the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014, the Ayes were 360 and the Noes were 104, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014, the Ayes were 363 and the Noes were 100, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to the draft Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Use of Armed Forces’ Chapels) Regulations 2014, the Ayes were 366 and the Noes were 103, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to the draft Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014, the Ayes were 367 and the Noes were 100, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014, the Ayes were 365 and the Noes were 103, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to the draft Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014, the Ayes were 368 and the Noes were 98, so the Question was agreed to.
I now call Alex Cunningham.
National Health Service
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris
I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I do not think I will get any injury time if I do so and I have rather a lot to get through.
I have mentioned the transfer of resources from the NHS budget to meet the growing costs of social care. We have also discovered, from evidence that was given to the Select Committee, that there has been an underspend of almost £2 billion—much of it from the capital budget, with some of it, presumably, being saved by cancelling the new hospital that was to serve my area. Meanwhile many NHS trusts are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds of debt, and figures produced by the Department of Health show that six large NHS trusts in London are predicting year-end deficits of £170 million. The pressures on the system are enormous and will inevitably show through in reductions in services, having an impact on the front line.
The reductions in tariffs for operations and the further pressures in that area will also mean that foundation and NHS acute trusts will bear the brunt of financial pressures within the system. Again, that means that the buck and the spotlight of transparency are being passed away from the Secretary of State to the NHS Commissioning Board, although he might have to reconsider that after last night’s Lords amendments.
Another area of pressure in the NHS comes from the huge redundancy costs being incurred as a consequence of the premature closure of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, which is estimated to cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion. The opening up of the NHS entirely to the private sector, and the prospect of the £103 billion NHS budget being taken out of the public sector and placed within the remit of shareholders in private health care companies, is anathema to the majority of the British public. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is cringing, but the majority of the British public are cringing at the thought of this proposal.
NHS Reorganisation
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris
We have heard about the layers of bureaucracy that the coalition Government propose to take away, but what does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the additional layers that they are imposing through the exponential growth of Monitor, which will be the economic regulator? They are increasing its budget from £21 million a year to as much as £140 million a year. How many more thousands of people will it employ? How many lawyers? It will cost £600 million over the course of a Parliament.
Point of Order
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on what recourse is available when a ministerial answer to a written question is not only incorrect but directly contradicts the Government’s own impact assessment of the Health and Social Care Bill? When asked about the cost distortions involved in the private sector providing health care services, compared with an NHS provider, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said in his written answer:
“it has not been possible to determine, on balance, whether NHS bodies or private providers of NHS services are systematically advantaged or disadvantaged relative to the other.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 1007W.]
And yet, Mr Deputy Speaker—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is not a point of order, or a matter for me. I would advise the hon. Gentleman that the Table Office is the place to take this matter up, and I am sure that it will be very helpful in trying to put it right. If he takes the matter to the Table Office, I am sure that it can be sorted out quickly.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Grahame Morris(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman
Order. The next set of amendments deals with no confidence motions. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of jumping ahead, and I am sure that he does not want to do that.
Grahame M. Morris
I am concerned less about hon. Members’ definition of a confidence issue than about whether that definition would be acceptable to the court if a certificate were challenged. However, I accept that that is the subject of a later clause.