Local Bus Services

I have received many representations from Liverpool residents, opposing plans to remove bus routes. These include the C4 and C5, 101 and 173.

I know how important these services are to commuters, to getting to hospital appointments and in some cases retaining a service to allow older residents to keep their independence.

I have objected to Merseytravel about these plans and call for the plans and proposals to be reconsidered. These services matter to our communities and their connectivity to other parts of Liverpool and beyond.

Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI)

Louise EllmanOn Wednesday (8 March 2017), I was delighted to show my support for a mass lobby of Parliament organised by the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign and supported by UNISON.

I was proud to sign a pledge to call on the government to implement fair transitional arrangements for WASPI women affected by the State Pension Age changes. MPs from most political parties signed this pledge, representing the widespread concern of parliamentarians of this issue.

The campaign is fighting for compensation for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who are facing hardship in retirement as a result of the government’s changes to their state pension age.

The 1995 Pensions Act increased women’s state pension age to 65, the same as men’s. At the time, many organisations recommended that the government should ensure that the women affected were given fair notice of the changes.

But these recommendations were ignored by the government and as a result hundreds of thousands of women have had no time to make alternative arrangements and their plans for retirement have been shattered.

It is totally unacceptable that these women are heading for financial hardship in old age because the government failed to communicate the changes with them effectively. The government must reconsider their stance on this important issue and implement fair transitional State Pension arrangements so that these women get the retirement they deserve.

The cuts to services in Liverpool

Yesterday in a debate on local government finance, I challenged the government again on cuts to services in Liverpool.

By 2019, Liverpool City council is forecast to face real terms cuts of 68%. These cuts are putting our services under great strain and have caused a crisis in social care.

I asked:

I agree with the Secretary of State about drawing attention to the importance of local government. Will he explain why Liverpool, with its high deprivation and low tax base, has now lost more than 60% of its central Government funding?

Sajid Javid replied:

The hon. Lady will know that all councils have been asked to make a contribution to deal with the large deficit that the country had in 2010. That does not mean it has not been challenging—it has been for Liverpool and other councils—but many other councils have demonstrated that there are ways to deal with that and have been able to handle the challenges well. It might reassure the hon. Lady to remind her that the Liverpool city region is part of the business rates retention pilot, which I shall address in a moment and which may help to deal with some of the challenges.

I was totally dissatisfied with Sajid Javid’s answer which disregarded Liverpool’s problems.

I call on the government to call a halt to these savage cuts which are cutting services and inflicting great hardship on the people of Liverpool.

You can read my further contributions to the debate here
(Video here)


Article 50 – Feb 8th

On 8 February, at the Third Reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, I voted against triggering Article 50 and beginning the formal process of withdrawing from the EU. The Bill was passed by 494 to 122.

I voted in favour of the following amendments and clauses, all of which were defeated by the government:

  • Amendment 29 – That the Prime Minister may only notify the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU following consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.
  • Amendment 11 – That the Government publish a report on the effect of EU withdrawal on the national finances, including the impact on health spending.
  • Amendment 86 – Require the power for the Prime minister to notify withdrawal from the EU to be exercised with regard to the constitutional, institutional and rights provisions of the Belfast agreement
  • Clause 57 – Protecting the residence rights of those EU citizens who were lawfully resident in the UK on the date of the EU referendum.
  • Clause 192 – That nothing in this Act will affect the UK’s membership of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
  • New Clause 7 – That the government must have regard to the public interest all existing EU tax avoidance and evasion legislation.

I am extremely concerned about the consequence of a Brexit outlined by the government that involves leaving the single market and the customs union and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This will have a severe impact on jobs, investment funds and research partnerships affecting the medical and university sectors in Liverpool.

I felt I could not support the government to begin this damaging process of withdrawing from the European Union; particularly as 73% of people in Liverpool Riverside voted to Remain. I voted against the government proposal and the Labour whip.


Asking the PM about social care cuts and Liverpool

At Prime Minister’s Questions today, I asked Theresa May about cuts to social care, mentioning the situation at the Royal.

I asked:

“The dedicated and talented staff at the Royal Liverpool hospital’s A&E struggle to find the beds for sick people. 135 patients at the Royal are unable to be discharged solely because of government cuts to social care. When will the Government face up to its responsibilities and stop blaming GPs for the crisis it has created itself?”

The question and the PM’s reply can be seen here:

Liverpool has lost 58% of its budget and more cuts are being demanded by government.

This situation is out of control.

The Government must act immediately to stop more suffering.

NHS and Social Care Funding

My contribution from Wednesday’s debate in Parliament regarding NHS and Social Care Funding. The Government must do more.

It is important to talk more widely about the NHS—about its importance and its funding and perhaps about its organisation, too—but the purpose of today’s debate is to highlight the current crisis in many parts of our national health service and to ask the Government to do something about it.

Our national health service is undoubtedly highly valued, has dedicated staff and provides excellent services. In many parts of the country it is under pressure, however, and today’s debate calls for specific actions to address that crisis. It calls for more funding for social care now, and for an improved settlement for both the NHS and social care in the next Budget. So in our general discussion about how things might be reorganised and changed in the future it is important not to lose focus on the current problems, and those are the reasons for today’s debate.

There has been a lot of discussion about what is happening in hospitals—that will inevitably be the case, as in many areas there is a crisis in A&E and great pressure on hospital services—but reference has also been made to services provided by our NHS outside hospitals, in the community. It is important that we focus on those as well, not just because they are important in their own right, but because if they are working effectively they can prevent hospital admissions from occurring and improve people’s health. Those services include community health services, which involve GP practices, which is the bedrock of our NHS, and the nurses, physios and pharmacists. They also include social care, where the NHS has some responsibility, although local authorities, which are under ever-increasing pressure, are primarily responsible.

I am extremely concerned about the cuts that the Government have imposed on community pharmacists. Pharmacists are essential to our NHS. They are part of the NHS, but in the main are privately run. They offer advice as well as specific services, and where pharmacists can give proper advice and services they can often prevent people from having to go to their GP, let alone to hospital. It is a matter of great concern that the Government’s plan for cuts to community pharmacies will put pharmacies in areas such as mine in Liverpool at risk. I also deplore the reduction in independent pharmacies, which provide an excellent service. I ask the Government to think again about their cuts to community pharmacies, which form a vital part of our health service. Once they are closed, it will be far too late. The Government should act now. They should not go ahead with those cuts, which will have a dramatic effect in Liverpool and elsewhere in the country.

I also ask hon. Members to think a little more about what is happening in social care. In Liverpool, we are facing a major crisis in social care, as local authority funding has been cut severely and is to be cut again. Liverpool City Council’s budget has already been cut by 58%, and £90 million of further savings have been demanded over the next three years—half of that to be achieved in the next year. One result of that has been a severe reduction in social care provision: 40,000 social care packages have been reduced to 9,000, and there are many more cuts in the pipeline.

Providing social care is essential not just to enable people to leave hospital when they are healthy enough to do so—although that is important—but to enable them to live a constructive life. Many people are now fearful of possible cuts to their social care packages. They believe that they will be unable to lead a reasonable life in their own home if their essential services are cut. I ask the Government to think again about what they are doing. They tell us that the better care fund is an answer, but that is simply not the case. In Liverpool, £39 million has been proposed for the social care fund for the coming years, but that will simply scratch the surface of the problem. In poor areas such as Liverpool where it is difficult to raise money, a 1% increase in the council tax fund would raise only £1.4 million. Neither of those measures, either singly or put together, will address the looming and very real crisis in social care. I urge the Government to look again at this, rather than offering platitudes about other funding being available. That funding is not there, and there are no plans for it to be there. A new approach needs to be taken to this urgently; something needs to be done.

The subject of mental health has been raised by a number of Members. I should like to mention two instances from my constituency. The first involves someone who can live a reasonable life at home with some assistance, but that assistance has now been withdrawn. Among other things, it involved helping the person to open letters in order to deal with normal queries, but that has now gone and she is facing great problems.

The second example involves Mr B, who faces very serious mental health conditions. Indeed, he has an incapacitating condition, which means that he cannot work. He was promised specialist help at the Tuke Centre in York, but that offer was withdrawn because it was made in error. That is unforgivable. I have followed this through, and Mr B was promised local treatment, although it was unclear whether that treatment would be appropriate. However, that treatment is not now being offered in the way that was previously suggested. I have followed that up, but 14 months on from the time when Mr B was first offered help for his incapacitating and extremely serious mental health condition, nothing has happened. That is simply not good enough, and I shall be pursuing the matter further.

Those are just two illustrations of how the cruel cuts in mental health services are affecting individuals. I agree that we should perhaps look more generally at funding for our national health service, but the crisis in local services is happening today. The Government are responsible now, and they must act.

Planet lightship

I remain very concerned about the future of lightship Planet and have made strong representations to the Canal and River Trust. These are ongoing.

Planet was included as a waterfront attraction in the original proposals for the renovation of the Albert Dock complex in the early 1980s. It was the last manned working UK lightship when she was retired from Trinity House in 1991.

Putting the ship up for sale endangers its future. It must not be sold for scrap.

Its home is in Liverpool!

Cuts to services in Liverpool

I have challenged the Government twice this week on cuts to services in Liverpool.

Redistribution of Education Funds.

Government are “redistributing” funding to give more help to children in need outside of major cities. This is a redistribution, not new money. It is estimated that Liverpool primary and secondary schools will lose £3.6 million in funding.

“Funding should be related to need, and this is a long-standing problem. In Liverpool, which is one of the most deprived areas, over 58% of the budget has already gone, and the NUT says that over £602 per pupil will be lost under the Government’s programme. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the students of Liverpool will not lose out in this redistribution of funds?”

(Hansard: https://goo.gl/mhBd2t)

Social care

The Local Government settlement does not address the major crisis facing social care in Liverpool.

“Liverpool has high levels of poverty. It also has an innovative local authority that believes in value for money. Liverpool City Council has already lost 58% of central Government funding, and yesterday, in a redistribution of education funding, it lost £3.5 million more. What does today’s statement do, in concrete and specific terms, to address the crisis in social care, except ask poor people to pay more? Even that will not address the growing crisis of people in need.”

(Hansard: https://goo.gl/ot4sKo)


On Wednesday, Labour selected Brexit as the topic for Opposition Day.

Labour tabled a motion asking the government to set out their Brexit policy before triggering Article 50 to leave the EU. (https://goo.gl/yicGlE)

I agree with this.

The Labour Whip instructed Labour MPs to vote for a Tory amendment which called for Article 50 to be invoked by 31st March 2017. We do not yet know the government’s negotiating position.

I strongly disagree with this. I did not follow the Labour Whip and voted against the Tory amendment.

The Amendment was passed 461-89 by a large majority.

73.1% of those who voted in the EU referendum in Liverpool Riverside voted to remain.

This is not a binding vote. It is an expression of opinion by the House of Commons. It is, nevertheless, important in current circumstances.