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)

Europe

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.

Primodos

I have now received an answer from the Minister following my question regarding the inquiry into Primodos:

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to alter the terms of reference of the Expert Working Panel Group Inquiry into Primodos. (48751)

Answer:
Nicola Blackwood:

The terms of reference of the Commission on Human Medicines’ Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests were reviewed by the Group at their first meeting on 14 October 2015, endorsed by the Commission on Human Medicines and formally adopted by all members, invited experts and observers of the Expert Working Group at their second meeting on 4 December 2015.

On 13 October 2016 at a Backbench Business Committee debate secured by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Hormone Pregnancy Tests, the Government committed to respond in detail to the concerns raised by the APPG, which include the terms of reference of the Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests, and to then meet with the APPG to discuss these concerns.

Supporting the Homelessness Reduction Bill

 

cv16peuusaa1whfLast Friday in the Commons a new bill to help tackle homelessness passed its Second Reading. It will now move on to the next stage.

Proposed by Bob Blackman MP and supported by homelessness charities including Crisis, the bill could transform the help available to homeless people in Liverpool and right across the country.

The bill has the backing of both the Government and the Opposition.

Commitment, Experience, Vision – why I’m backing Joe Anderson for Metro Mayor

CaptureThis Summer, Labour Party members from across the Liverpool City Region will have the chance to select our candidate for the Metro Mayor election.

It is an exciting new opportunity for the region to shape its own future; delivering services, investment and opportunities for all.  It will also be about promoting Liverpool’s profile as a global, European city attracting investment and bringing prosperity.

Joe Anderson has the commitment, experience and vision to build a successful City Region.

I have seen first-hand how Joe has provided the leadership and creativity needed to keep Liverpool moving forward in the face of the austerity inflicted by central government.

In his six years leading Liverpool in adverse circumstances, Joe has displayed an unrivalled track record of delivery; building 8,300 new homes and 16 new schools; creating 30,000 jobs; tackling poverty; bringing the International Festival for Business and securing the return of the cruise liners.

Under Joe’s leadership, Liverpool’s prominence in the region and the country has increased.

Joe’s exciting vision will see the City Region explore a bid to host the Commonwealth Games; establish 10 mayoral development zones; introduce a 50p bus fare for children and develop the region’s transport network. He has the profile to work with national and international leaders to benefit the region.

Joe’s track record shows he can deliver!

I am proud to be backing Joe Anderson to be Labour’s candidate for Metro mayor.