Health and Social Care — House of Commons, 2015-06-02
Topic: Health
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), and I congratulate everybody who has made their maiden speech today; they have certainly put the rest of us under pressure My right hon. and hon. Friends have talked about cuts in social care. I will start by giving an example of what those cuts mean in practice. I called at a house one afternoon during the election campaign and an elderly woman in her 70s answered the door. She was dishevelled, distressed and clearly confused. She had an empty bubble-wrap pack of medication in her hands and she said to me, "I don’t know what I have to do". I called the pharmacist, and she came straight out, but this was clearly a very vulnerable woman on her own. What if I had not called? We saw £3.5 billion cut from social care in the last Parliament, while 87% of local authorities provide care only for people with substantial needs, and, as we know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the International Monetary Fund, the pressure on public services and funding for local authorities is going to get much worse over the next three years. Some 450,000 fewer people are being supported, and the number of cases like that of the woman I called on is only going to increase. We have also heard from right hon. and hon. Friends about the crisis in the NHS, which we can land firmly at the door of the Conservative party and the Health and Social Care Act 2012. In addition, this top-down reorganisation, which is wasting billions, is underpinned by an agenda to privatise the NHS. The Secretary of State refused to acknowledge that section 75 of the Act was entirely about compelling all health services to be put out to tender and that four out of every 10 health services put out to tender have been awarded to private healthcare companies At the time, the Government argued—I know because I was on two health Bill Committees—that increasing competition would improve service quality, but there is no evidence for that; in fact, international evidence shows exactly the opposite. In addition to not improving quality, we know—again from international evidence—that it will actually reduce health equity, in terms of access to care and health outcomes. Other effects of the Act have already been mentioned: hospital A&Es not meeting their four-hour targets for 97 weeks on the trot; an increase in the number of urgent operations being cancelled—up 40% on last year—and one in four people not able to see a GP within a week, or two in three in my constituency, according to a survey that I undertook. I think also of the shocking care that our children and young people have to face if they are suffering from a mental health condition—being kept in police cells or shipped hundreds of miles from their families, if they have an acute episode. And, of course, all of that is underpinned by the appalling state of the finances. Unfortunately, these trends will only increase over the course of this Parliament. The pace of the privatisation agenda will increase, and the principles of the NHS as a universal, comprehensive and free service will be under threat We heard the Secretary of State refer to the party mantra: "We have a strong economy, and we will have a secure NHS". But do we really have a strong economy? We have had a flatlining economy for the past three years, with only a tiny spurt of growth in the last year, while the Government have borrowed £219 billion more than they said they would in 2010. They did not clear the deficit; instead, they broke their own law. The debt to GDP ratio is 81%. Even after a global crisis, it was only 60%. They have increased that ratio. Our productivity is the second lowest in the G7, and the 19th lowest in terms of average productivity—the worst since 1992. Where are we going to get all the money needed to invest in our health service, social care and child care The Government do not get it. As any successful business will say, its most important asset is its people. Our people should be valued, but instead of supporting, enabling and investing in people—in our skills, our health and our care—the Government’s approach is reminiscent of a Victorian workhouse. Amanda Story is a case in point. In her late 50s, she came to me saying she had always worked as a teacher, but that 18 months before she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. As she went through her treatment, she became more and more poorly and had to take time off work. Eventually, she was made redundant. She applied for and was granted employment and support allowance. Months later, she was also able to take her teacher’s pension. Imagine her horror when she received a letter from the DWP last December informing her that she was being investigated for fraud, because she had not notified DWP that she was now receiving a pension. In the physical and emotional rollercoaster that she was going through—cancer, treatment, redundancy—she had not realised that although ESA is a non-means-tested benefit, she was meant to inform the DWP about changes to financial circumstances. Although she explained this in her interview under caution, she was told by the authorities that she was still going to be pursued. This is beyond sense One thing I recognise that the Government have done very skilfully—and other parties have done the same—is to demonise certain groups of people. Using language such as "shirker" or "scrounger", they try to point the finger at others, making us angry and likely to blame others for our lot. They have successfully created the perception that all people in receipt of social security are on the take, lazy or not worthy of support. The facts are against them. Whenever people hear this language, I urge them to think of Amanda and the thousands of honourable people like her—because tomorrow, "it could be you".