It’s still the economy, stupid
Two weeks on and our “New Priorities in Difficult Times” document is still defining the contours of the political debate. It has the backing of a number of independent economists and nobody has even tried to knock any major holes in it. In fact, even the few attack statements from DUP sources - as usual, the economically illiterate SF camp couldn’t even work how to attack - had to acknowledge our positive contribution before trying to rubbish it. Peter Robinson, for example:
The First Minister: I welcome the fact that the SDLP has taken an interest in efficiencies and matters relating to the Budget. It has always had the opportunity to bring forward proposals in the Executive, as it is part of the four-party mandatory coalition. The fact that the SDLP brought its proposals to the public’s attention, as opposed to bringing them to the Executive, might indicate the mindset in that party - one might even think that there was an election in the offing.
It is important that all parties, not only the SDLP, look at how we can best use the resources that are available to us. To be frank, having looked at the SDLP’s proposals, I see that a significant number of the better ones are proposals that my party has made in the past, proposals that have been considered by the Executive or proposals for capital spend that have been outlined already - in the Varney report, for instance.
Some of the SDLP’s proposals are inaccurate and some are grossly exaggerated, but at least the SDLP is looking at efficiencies and recognising that, given that we have a finite Budget, choices must be made. …The SDLP’s paper is significant in that it identified that, if more money is to be spent in some areas in order to inflate the economy, the resources for that must be found elsewhere. The whole House needs to start examining its priorities.
Considering how tetchy and nasty Peter the Great was with Martina Purdy of the BBC in the Great Hall a couple of weeks ago, that was pretty mild. However, he tried once again to muddy the waters on our voting record: “… contrary to what is said in the SDLP’s statement, the SDLP did not vote against the Budget - the House accepted, and is tied to, the Budget unanimously.
Dolores Kelly soon put him right:
Mrs D Kelly: I welcome the First Minister’s statement, although I must correct him: he said that all parties voted for the Budget, when, at one stage, he accused the SDLP of almost bringing the House down by not supporting the Budget. Therefore, there are some inaccuracies in his comments.
Peter was making a statement on the setting up of a cross-sector advisory forum composed of social partners and other stakeholders in the economy. The forum is a very good idea but it would have been a better one if they could have got it up and running last year when we first called for action. That was Declan O’Loan’s point:
Mr O’Loan: I also welcome the statement and the creation of the advisory forum; I regret only that it was not established sooner…. I welcome what he said about meaningful discussions leading to action as a result of the meetings of the advisory forum. Does the First Minister see the striving for consensus leading to action that will carry through into the political arena? I welcome his positive comments about the SDLP proposals. More broadly, will he assure the Assembly that he will take a positive and constructive approach and spirit to all the political parties’ intellectual energies in addressing what he referred to as the current crisis and to the longer-term task of the Assembly to revitalise the economy?
Peter waffled his way around that one but there is no question that he is under great pressure to re-open his budget and Wednesday’s budget statement in Westminster will increase the pressure. And he threw us a few more bones later:
“….if one takes even the SDLP proposal - its Members will forgive me for mentioning it because they, at least, have a proposal to be discussed - even at its fullest, if one were to believe it as they have outlined it, that proposal would only mean a 1% change in the overall Budget for Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I think there is some double-accounting on the part of the SDLP, which it needs to take into consideration. There are valuable elements in the SDLP’s overall proposal, but many of them are already taken into account by Government.
No cuts, no closures, no firings in Social Security
When Margaret Ritchie took over at Social Development she inherited a Strategic Business Review of the Social Security Agency. The equivalent review across the water resulted in swinging cuts and reductions in direct counter contact with the public, and there were a lot of negative rumours and briefings circulating from certain political quarters. Her statement to the Assembly was a model of clarity.
Whatever else Members may have heard, the review’s proposals are designed to modernise and safeguard service delivery in order to benefit customers in the local office network. That is the straightforward and simple objective. …Let me restate the facts: there will be no loss of front line services for any local office or town; no offices will close; and no staff will lose their jobs…. Members will recall that I made it clear that I would not accept solutions that would result in large numbers of staff - some on low pay, some with caring responsibilities - having to move lengthy distances to a new place of work. That remains the case.
Some people have trouble recognizing good news even when it jumps up and bites them. Disinformation has become such a habit for Sinn Fein that they have trouble getting out of the groove:
Mr F McCann: In her statement, the Minister said: “we must not buckle or panic just because we may be subjected to vigorous lobbying by vested interests.” Does the Minister agree that those vested interests include staff, who are concerned about whether they will have a job at the end of the process, and the trade unions, who seriously dispute her Department’s assertion that job losses will not be a part of the process? Will the Minister tell the House whether any jobs will go as part of the strategic business review?
The Minister for Social Development: Again, I have to question whether Members are listening: but, of course, Mr McCann entered [the Chamber] in the middle of my statement -
Mr A Maginness: Mr McCann does not listen [Laughter.]
The Minister for Social Development: I reiterate for the benefit of Mr McCann and Members that there will be no job losses and no office closures. The Department will continue to provide the services it has provided up to now. That is because our primary, and most important, concern is the delivery of services to our current and future customers.
Mr A Maginness: I was surprised by Mr McCann’s reaction. He reminded me of a spoilt child who received his Easter egg, but did not like the colour of its wrapping paper….Will the Minister reassure the House and the public - amid wild speculation and rumours of up to 500 job losses - that jobs will not be lost but increased?
The Minister for Social Development: There was indeed talk of job losses, much of which was ill-informed. Some of it was ill-intentioned and scaremongering. No loss of employment will result from the strategic business review. No jobs will be lost, and no offices will close. … Indeed, only recently, I set about recruiting 150 additional staff, and if we need more, we shall recruit more.
Job losses in West Belfast
Alex Attwood and the party in West Belfast have been active in support of the workers occupying the Visteon plant. Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster came to the Assembly to make an emergency statement. Alex responded:
I thank the Minister for her presence this afternoon, and I acknowledge that, during the recent difficult weeks, she has been available in person and by phone. Given that Ford and its subsidiary Visteon have benefited from millions of pounds of grant aid over many years for operations in Northern Ireland, does she consider it unacceptable for Visteon to get up, go, and close its doors? It is a slap in the face for the company’s workers, who, during many difficult years, always turned up to work for Ford in this part of the North.
Furthermore, is she concerned that the actions of Visteon and Ford, in denying their obligations to workers and by setting up subsidiary companies, could become a model for other international companies that operate in Northern Ireland and which might do likewise in the future? Finally, what contact has the Minister, and other levels of Government, had with Ford in America in order to ensure that Ford and Visteon honour their obligations to the 200-odd workers in west Belfast?
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: I have made several attempts to speak to Ford in Europe - I forget the gentleman’s name - but have, unfortunately, been unable to connect with him. I will continue to try to contact him about issues that are within my remit. I encouraged trade union representatives to continue to seek legal advice and to continue to work with their unions. Furthermore, I urged them to look to their contract, which they showed to me, particularly the element that said that their conditions would mirror those of their Ford counterparts - I think that that was the term that was used. I understand that Unite continues to engage with Visteon and Ford, and Government will continue to monitor the situation and do what we can.
Cuts in nursing jobs
For sheer vindictiveness it is hard to beat Iris Robinson, who chairs the Health Committee and leads the DUP crusade against the UUP in general and Health Minister Michael McGimpsey in particular. Caught by a Treasury requirement to produce 3% efficiency savings every year and planning to lay off more than 700 nurses, he faced a DUP motion calling on him to reject the job cuts and a not very clever UUP amendment seeking exemption from savings for his department. Carmel Hanna was sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but made it clear that no Department can be totally exempt from efficiency savings.
Mrs Hanna: However, there should be no cuts to front line services. I have sympathy with the Minister in trying to balance a budget for such a demand-driven service, but I believe that the proposers of the motion are engaged in a bit of a cynical exercise. Rather than point-scoring, I would like to have heard some proposals for savings from the Chairperson of the Health Committee that would ensure that there will be no reduction in nursing posts, which is what the motion is about. Have the proposers of the motion asked their colleague the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether he has reviewed his comprehensive spending review policy with regard to the impact on employment and services? Indeed, do they have any suggestions for saving resources?
There is a fundamental contradiction between the loss of nursing jobs and the stated aim of the comprehensive spending review to free up resources to reinforce front line services. Speaking as someone who was a nurse for all too many years, there is nothing more front line than a nurse at the bedside of a desperately ill patient, or a nurse in the community who is an essential member of a primary care team.
I recognise that the reform and modernisation of health and social services is a never-ending and ongoing challenge. We support the Minister’s intent and his commitment towards an ever-greater focus on positive public-health promotion. It is not just about treating the consequences of ill health, it is about appropriate care in the community.
We recognise that the comprehensive spending review efficiency targets have been imposed on the Health Minister in an arbitrary fashion. The SDLP also recognises that given that the health budget accounts for almost half of Executive spending, there must be greater efficiency and enhanced productivity in the Health Service.
The trusts must put in place robust workforce development plans to ensure that registered nurses are adequately trained for the new service delivery that is expected of them. The planned cuts and redeployment of staff will have significant training and professional regulatory implications.
Nurses cannot be treated like pieces on a chessboard: a nurse cannot be taken out of an acute ward and shifted into community nursing without appropriate training, induction and support, or into mental-health nursing without statutory post-registration induction, education and support. Adjustments will certainly be required in the clinical mix among doctors, registered nurses, allied health professionals and care assistants. However, the casualization of nursing skills, which occurred so disastrously in the Thatcher era, cannot be repeated. So much was lost, and we are still trying to regain that ground.
The Royal College of Nursing has produced credible evidence to show that the critical role of the ward sister and other nurse managers is being undermined by the proposals. In some hospitals, ward managers are being asked to work across too many wards and too many locations. When that happens, the role of nursing ward managers as clinical leaders and patient advocates is undermined.
There is a continuing reduction of specialist nursing posts and a tendency to place inappropriate and unpaid leadership responsibilities on band 5 and 6 registered nurses, particularly on night duty staff. Senior nursing posts should be created in every acute hospital, which might convince nurses that their concerns are being listened to.
All changes must, of course, keep section 75 in mind. Any changes must be implemented with equality, integrity and probity, and, at all times, they must put patients’ interests first. The bottom line is that there should be absolutely no reduction in front line services and in nursing posts, as has been stated in the motion.
Tommy Gallagher finished up his speech by pointing up a classic piece of Sinn Fein hypocrisy, trying to blame the Brits for a decision that has their own fingerprints all over it.
Mr Gallagher: I acknowledge the commitment and professionalism of our nursing staff across Northern Ireland. They are, as I have said, true professionals. They are the people who make sure that patients are treated with care, compassion and dignity, whether in their home, in a community setting, in primary care, or in hospital, as is often the case.
It is a disgrace that we are now in a situation whereby more than 700 nursing posts are to be lost. Whether the UUP wants to blame the DUP, or the DUP wants to blame the UUP, this matter is so serious that it needs to be sorted out between the Health Minister and the Finance Minister, because they both have a responsibility from which they cannot escape.
Despite the fact that nurses are such a key group of workers, we know that when these proposals were taken forward by the trusts, there was very little real, meaningful and true consultation with the nurses on the ground. That has only added to the frustration that many of them currently feel.
The Western Health and Social Care Trust, as Claire McGill has mentioned, will lose more than 130 posts, and we have been told by the health authorities - at a number of different levels - that that will be taken care of through natural wastage. We are asked to believe that it will be all right. The reality is that I have had nurses come to me in recent months - well-trained, highly-qualified nurses, some of them at intensive-care level, and many of them young - who have had notification in writing that their contracts are coming to an end. They do not know what the future holds for them.
Instead of cutting nursing jobs, we should be challenged by the task of finding some alternative means of employing them, if it comes to that. If some of those nurses are now to leave our hospitals, there must be appropriate and well-resourced training so that they can move into other settings, because, at the end of the day, they are the people who will take the pressure off the Health Service - the primary-care and secondary-care sectors in particular - and will, with appropriate treatment, screen out many patients before they get to other levels. Therefore, we need more resources if the worst comes to the worst here with regard to working in hospitals.
We have arrived at this point because some Members voted for the Budget, which contained the comprehensive spending review measures; unfortunately, we are now living with the consequences. I notice that the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee [Michelle O'Neill, Sinn Fein] described the efficiency savings as British-inspired. Yes, it is a Gordon Brown initiative and in that sense it is British-inspired, but it is here because that British-inspired initiative was voted through by Sinn Féin. Therefore it is time that we all look at the Budget afresh.