Wednesday, 22 October 2014

Wage ambitions

Last week’s spat over what government minister Lord Freud thinks about minimum pay rates for people with disabilities has rather over-shadowed debate about the National Minimum Wage itself.

This year marks the fifteenth anniversary of National Minimum Wage (NMW).  It boosted pay at the bottom without leading to a loss of jobs, and has had wide support from business as a result.

Before it was introduced, some people were paid as little as £1 an hour.  For example, the Low Pay Unit found someone working in a chip shop in Birmingham earning just 80p an hour. It also found a factory worker earning £1.22 an hour and a residential home worker earning £1.66 an hour.

The Conservatives and many Liberal Democrat MPs bitterly opposed the introduction of the minimum wage legislation. Critics of the NMW said before its introduction that it would lead to job losses. However, now, the widely accepted consensus is that those predictions have proved false.

Today the extremes of exploitation have been eliminated but the problem of low pay – people working hard and struggling to make ends meet – has actually grown. Low pay has got worse in the last 4 years and the value of the NMW has been eroded in real terms since 2010.  

Families are on average £1,600 a year worse off since David Cameron and Nick Clegg took office. The UK now has the one of the highest rates of low pay in the developed world, with more than five million workers paid less than the Living Wage in the UK. Low pay also represents a considerable cost to the Exchequer in the form of in-work benefits and foregone tax receipts.

That’s why I believe we need to see a more ambitious target for the NMW.  It won’t be quick and it won’t be easy, but that’s why we need to be determined.

There’s no reason why a goal of halving the number of people on low pay in our country by 2025 cannot be achieved if we have the commitment. A clear long term target will give businesses time to plan and adapt their business models to boost productivity to support higher wages.  

Tuesday, 21 October 2014


Regulators were originally established in law to secure the interests of consumers in markets where people depend on essential goods and services – food, money, energy, water, post and communication, transport – to go about their daily lives.

This government’s Better Regulation Agenda changed the overall brief for regulators. It says it is “committed to reducing regulatory burdens and supporting compliant business growth through the development of an open and constructive relationship between regulators and those they regulate” and wants regulation which “supports and enables regulators to design their service and enforcement policies in a manner that best suits the needs of businesses and other regulated entities.”

Perhaps the real agenda can be taken from the fact that it measures progress by calculating savings to business that have resulted from reducing the costs of regulation, rather than whether consumers are being properly protected. It appears that the regulators have taken this new Code to mean that the interests of the companies are to take priority over the interests of customers.

Well, how else are we to interpret their approaches to some of the issues that are really important to protecting consumers?

It has now been revealed that the energy regulator, OFGEM, has given its approval to price comparison sites which actually hide the best energy deals from the customer. And, why would they do this? Because they don’t get paid commission on the best deals. It’s astonishing. How could anyone acting in consumers’ interests ever believe that that is reasonable? Clearly it isn’t.

And, what about the position of those customers who enter into – often very expensive - phone contracts only to discover that, in practice, they simply can’t get decent reception for all or most of the time, even in their own homes, but find that they are locked in to payments for a service they can’t get? You would have thought that any half-decent regulator would say “if you can’t get the service you are paying for, the contract is void”. Does OFCOM do that? No. It allows the phone-providers to have all sorts of get-outs.

We urgently need a new over-arching brief which puts protection for customers, rather than the interests of the companies, right at the heart of the regulatory regimes.

Friday, 17 October 2014


The Times recently carried the headline ‘NHS reforms our worst mistake, Tories admit’. The story goes on to report that ‘Senior Tories have admitted that reorganising the NHS was the biggest mistake they have made in government. David Cameron did not understand the controversial reforms and George Osborne regrets not having prevented what Downing Street officials call a “huge strategic error”.’ One Downing Street insider described the reforms as “unintelligible gobbledegook”.

Thus, this Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government wasted £3 billion and caused chaos with a damaging NHS reorganisation that David Cameron promised wouldn’t happen, and that has led to over 4,000 NHS staff being laid off and then rehired, many on six-figure salaries. And these reforms put private profits before patient care, and have tied hospitals up in competition law.
Well, I always knew that David Cameron couldn’t be trusted with our National Health Service. Since his promise to protect the NHS, it’s getting harder to see a GP, there’s a crisis in Accident & Emergency and waiting lists are going up. And, this week, for the first time in more than 30 years, we see nurses, midwives and other professional health staff taking industrial action.
There is a crisis in A&E. In the last 12 months, almost a million people have waited more than four hours to be seen; more people are having to wait on trolleys before being admitted; and more people are being kept in ambulance queues outside A&E. After years of falling waiting lists, because of the investment made in the first decade of this century, waiting lists for treatment are growing again. They’re now at their highest level for five years.  This is being compounded by cuts to elderly care that end up with more older people in A&E and make it harder for them to get the care they need at home.
David Cameron scrapped Labour’s guarantee of a GP appointment within 48 hours – and now 60 per cent of patients report that they can’t get an appointment to see their GP within two days.  But it’s not just speed which is the problem. The latest GP patient survey shows that the proportion of people who can’t regularly see their preferred GP has risen from 34% in 2012 to 39% in 2014 – an increase of 1.2 million people. When will Cameron understand that it’s not just the speed of access declining under this Government but it’s continuity of care too? And, in many parts of the country, we now see treatments like cataract and knee operations being rationed which is particularly hitting the well-being of older citizens.

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have been Cameron’s little helpers in undermining people’s experience of and trust in our NHS. And what is UKIP’s answer to these challenges? To introduce a charge – we don’t know whether it would be £15 or £25 – to be paid by everyone each time they visit their GP or hospital.

Labour rescued the NHS IN 1997 after years of Tory neglect before. We’ll clearly have to do it again from 2015.

Thursday, 18 September 2014


Carbon monoxide poisoning causes approximately 40 deaths and 200 serious injuries a year. About 4000 people require hospital treatment – more than 10 a day, on average.

Carbon monoxide alarms save lives. While the financial cost of an alarm is small - basic models start at £15 - there are huge human costs to not installing one.

In a survey for the Carbon Monoxide – Be Alarmed! campaign, only 39% of respondents said that they have a carbon monoxide alarm. It is likely that the real proportion is much lower. Safety checks carried out by the fire service in over 22,000 homes across Merseyside found that less than one in ten homes had a carbon monoxide alarm.

Of those without a carbon monoxide alarm, 42% said this was because they have a smoke alarm, suggesting that there is a high level of confusion between carbon monoxide and smoke alarms.

Surveys suggest that 88% of homes now have smoke alarms, although the private-rented sector, at 82%, still lags behind owner-occupied, council and housing association homes. But this is still a significant improvement from 62% just a decade ago.

Building regulations require the provision of smoke alarms in all new dwellings but at present, landlords are not legally required to install or maintain smoke alarms in their properties. The regulations also require that a carbon monoxide alarm must be installed in any property when a solid fuel heating system, for example, a wood burning stove, is first installed. There is no requirement for any other property to have a carbon monoxide alarm.

The Government has got the powers to insist that rented homes do have smoke and carbon monoxide alarms but it has failed to act. It said that it will only introduce the necessary statutory instruments to make smoke alarms mandatory if this is supported by a quite separate review of the building regulations. Although that review has been completed, the government has still refused to say if it will act, and, if so, when.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarms cost peanuts, save lives and cut the number of serious illness and injuries. The government should just get on with it.

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

Building the future

We need to build 250,000 new homes every year, probably for the next 20 or 30 years, if we are to address the housing crisis properly. The last Labour Government did not build enough homes. The present Government are building even fewer. 
If we are to build sufficient homes, it has to be through all-party agreement, because the construction industry cannot be turned on and off like a tap. And we need to train and keep construction workers to build those homes.
There is no single silver bullet; we need a range of different measures. We need the volume house builders to build more. In 2007, there were more than 5,000 firms building between one and 10 houses a year. Now, there are fewer than 3,000 such firms.
We must encourage and nurture self-building initiatives of the sort that have made a significant contribution in other European countries like Holland.
But we also need to build houses for social rent. There are people who not only cannot afford to buy, but cannot afford market rents. Since 2010, there has been a 60% cut in the funding for social housing. Some, if not all, of it will have to be restored if we are to build sufficient social homes in the future.
The Government’s right to buy policy envisages a one-for-one replacement. But, there’s no point selling a family home and replacing it with a one-bedroom flat. Like-for-like replacement is what is needed. If there is an acute shortage of social housing in some areas the right to buy should be restricted.
We have to ensure that development is on brown-field sites first. Why is the proportion of houses built on brown-field sites declining? But, we must also be honest with people. Even if we build on all the available brown-field sites, we will still have to build on some green-field sites in this country. So, we need to sign up local communities to recognise and accept some green-field, sustainable development. 

Over the past 30 years we have had a collective failure to build sufficient homes in this country. We need some collective agreement across the political parties about how we do build those homes over the next 20 or 30 years.

Never let the facts……..

Whenever you are trying to make a case for a particular policy, it helps to have some facts to support your case.

Of course, there are facts…….. and then…. there are facts. Or, as Mark Twain popularised it ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics’.  Today, no-one is quite sure who said it first, nor who originally described witnesses in three classes ‘liars, damned liars and experts’. It is natural that people will try to promote the facts that best fit their story. In politics, as in business and PR, this is called ‘spin’.

I was recently reminded of ‘spin’ , when Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a big speech in support of his welfare reform agenda. On first reading, his list of statistics about employment, income and child poverty were quite impressive. That was until you looked at how time periods had been carefully chosen (and were different for each issue), changes in data methodology had been conveniently ignored, and relevant contextual data just forgotten.

Less surprising was that the bedroom tax, and its disastrous outcomes, was not mentioned. Neither was mention made that his Universal Credit policy is way behind schedule, way over budget and that HM Treasury has been simply unable to approve the business case for the policy ie IDS’s sums simply don’t add up.

Competition about facts, their interpretation and analysis, is at the heart of debate. One child’s kicking a football against a wall can be described either as ‘getting healthy exercise’ and/or ‘making an interminable noise’.

However, this is quite different from simply ‘making facts up’. Far too often, I hear or see assertions of fact about particular issues where it is clear that the said facts have just been invented. Rarely a day goes by when I don’t see an assertion which has no basis in reality. They are commonly found in letters to newspapers or postings on websites, and almost inevitably from someone remaining anonymous.

More worrying is when you see the same (un-true and un-factual) assertions being endlessly repeated. The House of Commons’ Library has received so many enquiries from MPs about the contents of some viral e-mails that it has now published some notes which contrast the e-mail claims and the facts.

Leaving aside economic statistics, it is not really surprising that, right now, the statistical divide between fact and fiction is dominated by international aid, immigration, and welfare and benefit entitlement.

So, if you’ve seen those e-mails that claim that the UK has given international aid of £351m to Hamas (actual = £0), £1.4bn to Haiti (actual = £3.3m in 2012) and many, many more….. or that every immigrant to the UK receives £29,000 in benefits in the first year…… can find out the truth for yourself at


Sport for all?

The Tour de France and Commonwealth Games have re-ignited many people’s interest in sport and the positive impact it can have on individual health and community participation – it’s fun!

Increasing participation is not something that can be dictated from central government.  What we need to do is agree on some long term set of objectives and then help everyone, nationally and locally, to play their parts in achieving them.

But, recently, we have gone backwards. For instance, in 2002, just 25 per cent of school children were taking part in two hours PE and sport each week. Because of the initiatives and investment by the then Labour government, this reached 90 per cent by 2010.  Unfortunately, Michael Gove, as Education Secretary, axed these two hours. He also axed School Sports Partnerships. It’s not surprising that activity has slumped.

In July, the Labour Party published a consultation document “More Sport for All” which makes proposals on how everyone, from children through to the elderly, both women and men, can be supported to do more sport and physical activity. 
The policy ideas, include:

                    ensuring the Premier League meet their commitment to give 5% of the revenue                  from the sale of their television rights to help develop grassroots football;
                    a new levy on sports betting to support community sport and help raise awareness              about problem gambling;
                    re-introducing two hours of sport for every primary school child;
                    adopting new targets for increasing female participation in sport and upping the                  women on the boards of our top sporting organisations; and
                    a ten-year National Strategy for Sport.

Obviously the media attention has been on proposals to levy the Premier League and sports betting to invest in grassroots’ sport, but there are many other policy ideas as well. I’d be interested to hear what you think.

You can read and respond to the consultation at

Different Class

In 1997, the in-coming Labour government inherited a legacy of rising class sizes, crumbling schools and poor attainment. Massive investment in new and modernised schools, more teachers and qualified teaching assistants, a phenomenal increase in books and equipment, and a determination to raise both expectations and standards saw a dramatic and continuing improvement in educational outcomes. I’m pleased to pay tribute to the role of my good friend and colleague, David Blunkett, in driving those changes.

In their 2010 manifesto, the Conservative Party promised to create "small schools with smaller class sizes". In the Yorkshire Post, David Cameron told us “the more we can get class sizes down the better”.

But in 2012, David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s government relaxed the rules on infant class sizes. Now, the number of infants taught in large classes of over-30 has spiralled by 200 per cent since 2010 – to over 93,000 children. Astonishingly, there are more than 40,000 children now being taught in classes of more than 36 pupils.

Since 2010, there have been big increases in the numbers of local children being taught in lasses of more than 30 children. I know about the increases in my own area, where Sheffield has seen a 147% increase. Parents and teachers are continually raising the issue with me, because not only have class sizes gone up, but an increasing number of parents are unable to get a place in their local primary school. 

But, Sheffield’s problem is small compared to Barnsley, up 553%; Doncaster, up 355%; Rotherham, up 688%. And both Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire have also seen big increases.

At this rate, in 5 years’ time, one in four infants – that’s 450,000 children - will be being taught in large classes of over 30 pupils.

The government has been quite reckless and irresponsible about its investment in new school places. David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s Free School programme has diverted funding away from areas of need. 

According to the independent National Audit Office report published in December, two thirds of all of the places created by the programme have been created outside of areas classified as having high or severe primary school need.

It’s a new form of class war!

Monday, 21 July 2014

Out with the old, in with the new

The media has been full of David Cameron’s government re-shuffle.

I cannot be other than pleased that the badgers have got their revenge. Cameron decided to cull Owen Paterson as Environment Secretary. Clearly the badgers moved the goalposts a bit further than he expected!

I don’t think I can remember an Environment minister from any previous government who was as ideologically blinkered as Paterson. After all, it wasn't just his determination to push ahead with the hugely expensive and technically incompetent badger-cull in the face of all the independent scientific advice. He was also the minister who refused any briefings on climate change issues from the government’s own chief scientific officer.

However, more media attention has been given to Michael Gove who was relieved of command of schools – the job he had always wanted – and demoted to the prefects’ study, otherwise known as the Whips’ Office.

Mr Gove’s ideological supporters have been outspoken on his behalf, suggesting he was the Minister who had had the greatest impact, short- and long-term, in delivering the Conservative agenda. Of course, they totally ignore the fact that Gove secured and presided over a dangerous lack of local oversight in our school system; it’s what the investigations into the Trojan Horse allegations in some Birmingham schools described as ‘benign neglect’ from the Department for Education, with the local council having been stripped of powers to investigate and intervene. Gove also introduced and allowed unqualified teachers into the classroom on a permanent basis.

But the most serious criticism must be that, at a time when some areas are desperate for school places, and some children are having to travel many miles to get a school place, Michael Gove chose to give priority to establishing new Free Schools in areas with a surplus of places. That is unforgiveable.

He wasn’t sacked because he had fallen out with teachers. He was sacked because he was out of touch with the vast majority of parents and school governors about what needed to be done to secure continuous improvement in education.

We can only hope that Paterson and Gove’s successors have learned some lessons.

Monday, 7 July 2014

Panicking for the wrong reasons

I make no apology for returning to this Government’s appalling housing record. Its housing policies fly in the face of logic and sensibility. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers are in complete denial about the impact on individuals, families and communities.

Like all MPs, I meet the victims day-in, day-out. It is not possible to go to a residents’ meeting or a local bring-and-buy or fayre or even to go shopping without someone wanting to talk about housing problems.

New house building has fallen to its lowest levels in peacetime since the 1920s.

The very first new coalition government housing decision in 2010 was to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. Unsurprisingly, the number of affordable homes built in the last year was just two-thirds the number built in 2009/10.

The number of homes built for social rent has fallen by 75% since 2009/10 to 7,759 the lowest in twenty years and since records began.

Last week, the House of Commons Library revealed that since 2010, a housing gap (the gap between housing supply and demand) of more than 500,000 homes – nearly 46,000 in Yorkshire and Humberside - has arisen due to the Government’s failure to build the homes the country needs.

After a decade of falling numbers, homelessness has risen by a third since 2010 and rough sleeping is up by nearly a third. The number of families with children living in bed and breakfasts is at a 10 year high and the number in B&Bs illegally (more than six weeks) has risen by 800%. .

Meanwhile the government is fuelling house price inflation and the Bank of England is being forced to intervene to cap mortgage lending policies. Owner occupation is becoming simply unaffordable for many low to middle income families.

This week, a leaked government document revealed that the number of new homes to be built this year will be even lower than last. Ministers are now panicking because the actual figures will be published before the next general election.

Are they now acting urgently because they are concerned about the thousands of families who are in B&B, or living with relatives or friends, or in over-crowded bed-sitters? No. I don’t think so. They’re only concerned about avoiding a bad news story next year.

For thousands of families, the housing prospects are bleak.