Spin or Whoppers?

Over the last decade, the media have become obsessed with ‘spin’. It’s rare to pick up a newspaper without some reference to it. We have satirical programmes about it. But, I’m not sure there is any more of it today than when Bernard Ingham span for Margaret Thatcher, although it’s probably more professionally done nowadays.

We shouldn’t be surprised by ‘spin’, for it is simply ‘putting the best gloss on your story’. Surely nobody expects that anyone, whose reputation is in the public arena, would deliberately go out to ‘put the worst gloss’ on what they want to say?

But there is a big difference between ‘spin’ and ‘telling whoppers’. I only wish our media became more obsessed with the latter than the former. In that way, they would do a public service by properly holding public representatives to account.

My Barnsley colleague, Michael Dugher, has just published a long list of  ‘Whoppers’ that David Cameron has told at Prime Ministers’ Questions over the last 12 months. Of course, we all occasionally make mistakes. Last week, my friend David Blunkett got something wrong in an interview on Radio 4; but, discovering his mistake, he was back on the radio within 30 minutes to apologise and to correct his error. But, to the best of my knowledge, David Cameron hasn’t once set about correcting one of his ‘whoppers’. He does us all a dis-service.

And these things are not unimportant, because our Prime Ministers’s statements are publicised throughout the world and, if left uncorrected, give a clearly wrong impression of what is happening. Judge for yourself, with these examples of what Mr Cameron said at PMQs on January 25th and what the facts actually are:

David Cameron: “Hospital waiting times are down”

Fact: The number of patients not being treated within 18 weeks has soared by 43% since Mr Cameron became PM

David Cameron: “Disabled children will not have their benefits cut.”

Fact: Department for Work and Pensions’ assessment on the new universal credit showing that the rate paid to disabled children will fall from £53.84 to £26.75 a week.

David Cameron: “There are more people in work today than there were at the time of the last election”

Fact: The Office for National Statistics says there are now 26,000 fewer people in work than at the last election.

I’d prefer more spin and fewer whoppers.

Health concerns

A damning report by MPs on the Health Select Committee left David Cameron clutching at straws at Prime Ministers’ Questions last week, in his desperate bid to shore-up collapsing support for his Health Bill.  

The all-party Committee, which includes senior Conservative MPs, said the Bill was ‘a dangerous distraction’ to the NHS, which is trying to keep a grip on patient care as it is being required to make £20bn in efficiency savings. There is so much which is good about the NHS, but inevitably the chaos caused by the Health Bill will start to take its toll.

This week, the British Medical Journal, Health Service Journal and Nursing Times unanimously condemned the Government’s shakeup as a 'damaging … unholy mess'.

The latest data on waiting times showed that, nationally, 42% more patients were forced to wait longer than 18 weeks for their treatment, since 2010.Locally, the number of people waiting 18 weeks or more has shot up by 84% in Sheffield and a massive 135% in Derbyshire. These increases follow year-on-year decreases in waiting-times which followed the significant investment in new buildings and equipment and increases in doctors and nurses made by the last government.

 
If the Prime Minister succeeds in allowing hospitals to fill 49% of hospital beds with private patients, this is certain to get worse.

For the last 12 months, my colleague John Healey MP (Wentworth, Rotherham) has been asking Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, to publish a report prepared for the government on the risks it was taking with its top-down NHS re-organisation proposals costing £2bn. Lansley has consistently refused to release the report, but now the Information Commissioner has instructed him to make it public. He must do that now, whilst Parliament is still debating his proposals.

The Prime Minister is pushing the NHS to the brink by re-organising at this time of financial stress. It’s time he listened to patients, staff and the independent experts. He should drop this Bill and put our NHS first.

Clock watching

Over the last few years, our seasons seem to have gone all awry. I had some begonias still flowering in December, yet spring bulbs are bursting into flower already.

Although seasonal temperatures have been confusing, daylight hours have remained unchanged. Currently, we set our clocks to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) in winter, and GMT+1 in summer. Of course, we don’t enjoy putting our clocks forward, but we love the extra hour when we put them back.

I’m backing a campaign called Lighter Later. It has the support of MPs from all parties and from a huge group of organizations – from sport to road safety associations, and from tourism to pensioners’ groups.

Basically, Lighter Later is asking the government to objectively investigate the benefits of moving Britain’s clocks forward one hour throughout the year. So, instead of the current arrangements, we would have GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in summer. This would mean that more people are up and about in daylight hours than is the case now.

An extra hour of light is more valuable in the evenings than in the mornings – not least because most people sleep through the first hour of sunlight for much of the year.

There has been lots of research about the impact of various ways of setting our clocks during the year. Moving the clocks forward throughout the year is estimated, among other things, to:

• Save 80 lives each year and prevent hundreds of serious injuries by making the roads safer – also saving the NHS about £138m each year
• Create an extra 60-80,000 jobs in leisure and tourism
• Cut nearly 500,000 tons of CO” pollution
• Lower our electricity bills
• Reduce crime and the fear of crime

Lighter Later is campaigning for a three-year trial in which the clocks in Great Britain shift forward by one hour throughout the year. You can find out more information at http://www.lighterlater.org. Tell me what you think. 

All fuelled up

When global fuel prices rise, our gas and electricity bills go up like a rocket; when they come down, our bills fall like a feather. Last week’s headline grabbing ‘British Gas cuts prices by 5%’ hid the reality that BG wasn’t cutting gas prices at all, just electricity prices. And, that cut only applied to some customers; for many, there was no cut at all.

The cost of a typical dual fuel bill is now £1,345 – a 48% increase since 2007; in plain English, that’s £9 a week. Standard tariffs rose by £175 between June and November last year alone.

The number of households in debt to their electricity supplier has increased by more than 25% to 850,000. The number of gas customers in the red has also risen by 20% to more than 700,000. Many families will be in debt on both accounts.

Yet, the ‘big six’ energy companies are enjoying record profits. This is because, between 2007 and 2011, they have more than doubled the gap between wholesale (what they buy at) and retail (what they sell at) prices. And, the executives and directors of the energy companies have enjoyed massive pay hikes at our expense.

Before the General Election, David Cameron said that claims that the Tories would cut the winter fuel allowance were “lies” and that if the Conservatives won the election they would “protect” it.

But, as energy bills have rocketed, the Conservative-led government has cut Winter Fuel Payments, cut the Warm Front programme – insulating homes – by 70%, and is replacing the social tariffs with the poorly designed Warm Home Discount, which will leave millions without support this winter.

It’s time to stand up against the powerful vested interests in the energy industry. We need:

• an investigation into the mis-selling of energy, and compensation for consumers who have been ripped off
• simple tariffs – people should automatically be on the cheapest applicable tariff
• transparency on trading data – full openness about what they pay and what they charge
• reform of the energy market – it’s clear there is no real competition
• to use the soaring profits to help families and businesses with rising energy bills now.

Changing Tack

The economic prospects are bleak, and redundancies, unemployment and short-time working are all likely to increase. The government has no growth strategy, but is inflicting a series of stealth taxes.

Small firms need help to survive and to grow. Whilst confidence in the economic prospects remains low, they will be nervous and reluctant to invest more. Yet they could make an important contribution to the immediate jobs’ crisis and provide the potential to build sustainable economic growth.

New figures, slipped out by the Treasury last week, reveal that, in its first year of operation, the government’s flagship national insurance holiday for new businesses has supported just 2.5 per cent of the businesses promised help by the Chancellor in his first Budget. The scheme, which has a budget of almost £1 billion, is also set to cost more in administration and red tape than it has so far given in support for new businesses.

In his first Budget George Osborne said his policy would benefit 400,000 businesses but the Treasury’s own figures show that just over 10,000 firms received support from the scheme between September 2010 and November 2011. Just £6 million was paid out to small firms to support 12,400 jobs in the period for which figures are available, but the Treasury estimates that the administration costs of the scheme will be double that at around £12 million.

This is ridiculous. A scheme which ends up supporting just one in forty businesses of those promised help is clearly not working.

The government should now use the hundreds of millions of pounds of unspent money allocated to the scheme to extend the tax break to all existing small firms, with fewer than 10 employees, who take on extra workers. The national insurance tax break would apply for a year for each additional employee taken on.

This could be one component of a serious economic growth strategy to benefit us all.

Planning Change

I’ve been chairing an all-party investigation into the Government’s proposals to change the national and local planning policy frameworks. We’ve taken a lot of oral and written evidence and there has been a lot of comment in the media, with organizations ranging from the National Trust (NT) to the Confederation for British Industry (CBI) all determined to make their views known.

We’ve now published our report and recommendations. Because it’s all-party and because our conclusions were unanimously agreed, I hope it’s very powerful and influential.

In particular, we agreed that sustainable development requires consideration of environmental and social issues as well as the economic ones that the government wanted. And we said that the presumption that any planning application should be agreed unless it could be proved that ‘the adverse effects significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ was just unacceptable, and ran counter to the very notion of sustainable development.

The committee was convinced that the priority for development must be ‘brownfield  first’ – brownfield basically means sites where there has previously been development.

And we said that shop and office developments need to be concentrated on existing town and district centres, not on new greenfield or out-of-centre sites.

I was particularly pleased that the committee agreed that existing sportsfields needed protection. There are rare occasions when it would be appropriate to develop on a sportsfield, but we said a like-for-like replacement must be provided.

We also agreed that new planning legislation must unambiguously confirm the supremacy of Local Plans. This means local planning decisions have to be consistent with the Local Plan. It is unacceptable that so many councils have yet to develop and adopt a new Local Plan. If they are serious about localism, this will be their chance to prove it.

Of course, you might be tempted to think this has got nothing to do with me. Well, it has. Because, if it means that

• new development is concentrated on brownfield sites in Darnall and not on greenfield sites around Eckington and Mosborough
• new shops and offices are concentrated in existing shopping centres and not on out-of-town greenfield sites
• our existing sportsfields are protected

it will be much better for all of our communities.

Badger threat

As I predicted more than a year ago, this Government is determined to cull badgers.

Bovine TB is a terrible disease, endemic to cattle in the UK.  Around 25,000 cattle were slaughtered for TB control in England in 2010 with a total cost to the taxpayer of £87 million in testing and compensation for farmers. There were 2025 herd breakdowns in England in 2010.

I have consistently opposed a badger cull on 4 grounds: scientific, effectiveness, humaneness and cost. My view is supported by scientists and conservation groups, including Lord Krebs who is the leading expert in the field.

The government has now announced a trial cull in two areas. Their proposals are ineffective and will not tackle the problem of bovine TB. Their preferred option of ‘free shooting’ is not supported by the science, and may increase the problem by spreading TB.

Even on its own estimates, an extensive badger cull will only save £29 million over 10 years, out of an expected cost to the taxpayer of £1 billion.

Why is this important locally? Well, we have a good badger population spread around the area. Although many – perhaps most – local residents have never seen them, a number of local groups and individuals have been quietly ensuring that their habitat is protected. They are very concerned about these proposals and the potential impact on local wildlife.

I agree with them. I have already made my protest to the government and will continue to do so, as I believe the proposals are just wrong-headed and irresponsible. I hope that no landowner in the area will apply for a licence but, if you hear differently, please let me know.

This Conservative-led government is also committed to lift the ban on fox-hunting. What’s it got against our wildlife?

It makes no sense

The last Conservative government in the 1990s cut police numbers and crime rose across all categories.

Today’s papers report that police numbers have been cut this year, and that burglaries and robberies have increased by 9% and 4.5% respectively. Given their record, I wonder why anyone has ever taken seriously the Conservative claim to be the party of law and order.

It’s worth remembering what happened between the last and the present Conservative governments. Most people will remember Tony Blair’s promise to be ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. Of course, he didn’t get everything right – none of us do. But, helped by the record number of police officers, crime fell by 43 per cent between 1997 and 2010 and the chance of being a victim of crime was at the lowest since records began.

When Labour left office in 2010, there were record numbers of police on the street, over 16,500 more than in 1997 in addition to over 16,000 new PCSOs. Because of the investment – especially in technology – it was also possible to identify and make significant efficiency savings. The clear plan was to deliver 12% efficiency savings between 2010 and 2015. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said this could be achieved without impacting on frontline policing. It all made sense - cutting costs and cutting crime at the same time.

However, this Government has decided to ignore all the evidence and to implement early cuts of 20%. It’s too far and too fast.

The Inspectorate has already confirmed that nationally this will mean cuts of more than 16,000 police officers and 1,800 PCSOs. In South Yorkshire, 436 police officers are to be lost – nearly 1 in 6. More than 2000 of the most experienced police officers are being forcibly retired – a government term for ‘compulsory redundancy’.

So, it’s police down, crime up.

It makes no sense.

Keep it local

People are rightly proud of the BBC. When I visit other countries, I’m forever told that the things they most admire about the UK are our NHS and our BBC. It’s no surprise that they say they believe the BBC to be the most fair, balanced, impartial and trusted news service in the world. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it never gets thing wrong; it does, but don’t we all?

We may also grumble about the ludicrous amounts paid to some celebrities and the number of repeated programmes. But I think the (less than) £3 a week I pay for my TV licence – which covers the cost of all BBC TV, Radio and website – as one of my best value buys. It’s about the same as the cost of a pint of bitter, just two days of my national and local newspapers or a woman’s magazine. The average household watches, or listens to, 19 hours of BBC programmes each week.

But the licence has now been fixed for the next 6 years, which means the BBC has to make 20% cuts in its net expenditure. Some services - like BBC One, Radio 4, Children’s Television and BBC News – are to be protected, which means the planned cuts are to fall much heavier on other areas.

Local radio in England – but not N Ireland, Scotland or Wales – is targeted for a 20% cut. The BBC is proposing not only cuts in local news and current affairs journalism, but also increased syndication - some programmes will not be local but be common across the region – and that the commentary of football matches will only come from the home team’s reporters.

So, when Sheffield Wednesday play at Leeds Utd next season, the Radio Sheffield commentary will only be made by the Radio Leeds team. But, it’s precisely because current local radio coverage is provided by reporters who know and understand the local area, community and club that makes it qualitatively different and superior. I’ve been in correspondence with BBC bosses about this and I have to say that they just don’t get it.

So, if you’re a regular listener to Radio Sheffield who values its local news, current affairs, chat, sport and music programmes, I suggest that you write to the BBC Director General immediately and tell him, before it’s too late.

Not Working

Given the precarious state of the global economy, every family has to be concerned about their own economic prospects and their job and earnings’ security. Families with children leaving school, college or university are especially concerned about the prospects for their children.

Youth unemployment has never been higher. It now stands at 1,016,000 (1.02 million) in the three months to September. This is the highest level since comparable records began in 1992. Since January, there has been an 83% rise in young people on the dole for six months or more.

What we do know is that the government scrapped Labour’s Future Jobs Fund which created over 100,000 jobs for young people, and now youth unemployment has shot up by 77% this year alone. Since January, when the Future Jobs Fund ended, the percentage of people moving off benefits and into work has fallen by a fifth.

Further, the latest statistics showed unemployment up by a huge 129,000 to the worst figure since 1994 and a sharp decline in the number of people leaving welfare and going into work. There are now fewer people moving from benefits into work than at any time since 1998. The fall coincides with the government’s decision last year to cancel Labour’s back to work programmes – and replace them with the Work Programme.

And now – and only after rigorous questioning - the Government has been forced to admit that it can only produce figures for one of its 11 schemes aimed at getting people back into jobs, and that is a programme funded by the European Social Fund. The government could not provide a single piece of evidence to show that its other much-publicised schemes were working.

To rub salt into the wounds, the latest government initiative is to be funded by cutting working tax credits. So, hard-working families on low to middle incomes are to be hit hard in their pockets to pay the additional costs of keeping their children unemployed. It doesn’t sit easily with this weekend’s revelations that bankers’ bonuses are up again and that the wealthiest in the UK are avoiding £1 billion each year in stamp duty on house purchases, with the government saying they have no plans to close the loopholes.

It is clear that the government’s welfare to work schemes are simply failing to cope with the scale of the jobs crisis. We need a change of direction, based on a plan for economic and jobs’ growth.