Category Archives: Discrimination

The Socialist Health Association (SHA) published its first Blog on the COVID-19 pandemic last week (Blog 1 – 17th March 2020). A lot has happened over the past week and we will address some of these developments using the lens of socialism and health.

  1. Global crisis

This is a pandemic, which first showed its potential in Wuhan in China in early December 2019. The Chinese government were reluctant to disclose the SARS- like virus to the WHO and wider world to start with and we heard about the courageous whistle blower Dr Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist in Wuhan, who was denounced and subsequently died from the virus. The Chinese government recognised the risk of a new SARS like virus and called in the WHO and announced the situation to the wider world on the 31st December 2019.

The starter pistols went off in China and their neighbouring countries and the risk of a global pandemic was communicated worldwide. The WHO embedded expert staff in China to train staff, guide the control measures and validate findings. Dr Li Wenliang who had contracted the virus, sadly died in early February and has now been exonerated by the State. Thanks to the Chinese authorities and their clinical and public health staff we have been able to learn about their control measures and the clinical findings and outcomes in scientific publications. This is a major achievement for science and evidence for public health control measures but….

Countries in the Far East had been sensitised by the original SARS-CoV outbreak, which originated in China in November 2002. The Chinese government at that time had been defensive and had not involved the WHO early enough or with sufficient openness. The virus spread to Hong Kong and then to many countries showing the ease of transmission particularly via air travel. The SARS pandemic was thankfully relatively limited leading to global spread but ‘only’ 8,000 confirmed cases and 774 deaths. This new Coronavirus COVID-19 has been met by robust public health control measures in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. They have all shown that with early and extensive controls on travel, testing, isolating and quarantining that you can limit the spread and the subsequent toll on health services and fatalities. You will notice the widespread use of checkpoints where people are asked about contact with cases, any symptoms eg dry cough and then testing their temperature at arms length. All this is undertaken by non healthcare staff. Likely cases are referred on to diagnostic pods. In the West we do not seem to have put much focus on this at a population level – identifying possible cases, testing them and isolating positives.

To look at the global data the WHO and the John Hopkins University websites are good. For a coherent analysis globally the Tomas Peoyu’s review  ‘Coronavirus: The Hammer and the dance’ is a good independent source as is the game changing Imperial College groups review paper for the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). This was published in full by the Observer newspaper on the 23rd March. That China, with a population of 1.4bn people, have controlled the epidemic with 81,000 cases and 3,260 deaths is an extraordinary achievement. Deaths from COVID-19 in Italy now exceed this total.

The take away message is that we should have acted sooner following the New Year’s Eve news from Wuhan and learned and acted on the lessons of the successful public health control measures undertaken in China and the Far East countries, who are not all authoritarian Communist countries! Public Health is global and instead of Trump referring to the ‘Chinese’ virus he and our government should have acted earlier and more systematically than we have seen.

Europe is the new epicentre of the spread and Italy, Spain and France particularly badly affected at this point in time. The health services in Italy have been better staffed than the NHS in terms of doctors/1000 population (Italy 4 v UK 2.8) as well as ITU hospital beds/100,000 (Italy 12.5 v UK 6.6). As we said in Blog 1 governments cannot conjure up medical specialists and nurses at whim so we will suffer from historically low medical staffing. The limited investment in ITU capacity, despite the 2009 H1N1 pandemic which showed the weakness in our system, is going to harm us. It was great to see NHS Wales stopping elective surgical admissions early on and getting on with training staff and creating new high dependency beds in their hospitals. In England elective surgery is due to cease in mid April! We need to ramp up our surge capacity as we have maybe 2 weeks at best before the big wave hits us. The UK government must lift their heads from the computer model and take note of best practice from other countries and implement lockdown and ramp up HDU/ITU capacity.

In Blog 1 we mentioned that global health inequalities will continue to manifest themselves as the pandemic plays out and spare a thought for the Syrian refugee camps, people in Gaza, war torn Yemen and Sub Saharan Africa as the virus spreads down the African continent. Use gloves, wash your hands and self isolate in a shanty town? So let us not forget the Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs) with their weak health systems, low economic level, weak infrastructure and poor governance. International banking organisations, UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO and national government aid organisations such as DFID need to be resourced and activated to reach out to these countries and their people.

  1. The public health system

We are lucky to have an established public health system in the UK and it is responding well to this crisis. However we can detect the impact of the last 10 years of Tory Party austerity which has underfunded the public health specialist services such as Public Health England (PHE) and the equivalents in the devolved nations, public health in local government and public health embedded in laboratories and the NHS. PHE has been a world leader in developing the PCR test on nasal and throat samples as well as developing/testing the novel antibody blood test to demonstrate an immune response to the virus. The jury is out as to what has led to the lack of capacity for testing for C-19 as the UK, while undertaking a moderate number of tests, has not been able to sustain community based testing to help guide decisions about quarantining key workers and get intelligence about the level of community spread. Compare our rates of testing with South Korea!

We are lucky to have an infectious disease public health trained CMO leading the UK wide response who has had experience working in Africa. Decisions made at COBRA and announced by the Prime Minister are not simply based ‘on the science’ and no doubt there have been arguments on both sides. The CSO reports that SAGE has been subject to heated debate as you would expect but the message about herd immunity and stating to the Select Committee that 20,000 excess deaths was at this stage thought to be a good result was misjudged. The hand of Dominic Cummings is also emerging as an influencer on how Downing Street responds. Remember at present China with its 1.4bn population has reported 3,260 deaths. They used classic public health methods of identifying cases and isolating them and stopping community transmission as much as possible. Herd immunity and precision timing of control measures has not been used.

The public must remain focused on basic hygiene measures – self isolating, washing of hands, social distancing and not be misled about how fast a vaccine can be developed, clinically tested and manufactured at scale. Similarly hopes/expectations should not be placed on novel treatments although research and trials do need supporting. The CSO, who comes from a background in Big Pharma research, must be seen to reflect the advice of SAGE in an objective way and resist the many difficult political and business pressures that surround the process. His experience with GSK should mean that he knows about the timescales for bringing a novel vaccine or new drugs safely to market.

  1. Local government and social care

Local government (LAs) has been subject to year on year cuts and cost constraints since 2010, which have undermined their capability for the role now expected of them. The budget did not address this fundamental issue and we fully expect that in the crisis, central government will pass on the majority of local actions agreed at COBRA to them. During the national and international crisis LAs must be provided with the financial resources they need to build community hubs to support care in the community during this difficult time. The government need to support social care.

COVID-19 is particularly dangerous to our older population and those with underlying health conditions. This means that the government needs to work energetically with the social care sector to ensure that the public health control measures are applied effectively but sensitively to this vulnerable population. The health protection measures which have been announced is an understandable attempt to protect vulnerable people but it will require community mobilisation to support these folk.

Contingency plans need to be in place to support care and nursing homes when cases are identified and to ensure that they can call on medical and specialist nursing advice to manage cases who are judged not to require hospitalisation. They will also need to be prepared to take back people able to be discharged from acute hospital care to maintain capacity in the acute sector.

Apart from older people in need there are also many people with long term conditions needing home based support services, which will become stressed during this crisis. There will be nursing and care staff sickness and already fragile support systems are at risk. As the retail sector starts to shut down and there is competition for scarce resources we need to be building in supply pathways for community based people with health and social care needs. Primary health care will need to find smart ways of providing medical and nursing support.

  1. The NHS

In January and February when the gravity of the COVID pandemic was manifesting itself many of us were struck by the confident assertion that the NHS was well prepared. We know that the emergency plans will have been dusted down and the stockpile warehouses checked out. However, it now seems that there have not been the stress tests that you might have expected such as the supply and distribution of PPE equipment to both hospitals and community settings. The planning for COVID-19 testing also seems to have badly underestimated the need and we have been denied more accurate measures of community spread as well as the confirmation or otherwise of a definite case of COVID-19. This deficiency risks scarce NHS staff being quarantined at home for non COVID-19 symptoms.

The 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic highlighted the need for critical care networks and more capacity in ITU provision with clear plans for surge capacity creating High Dependency Units (HDUs) including ability to use ventilators. The step-up and step-down facilities need bed capacity and adequate staffing. In addition, there is a need for clarity on referral pathways and ambulance transfer capability for those requiring even more specialised care such as Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO). The short window we now have needs to be used to sort some of these systems out and sadly the supply of critical equipment such as ventilators has not been addressed over the past 2 months. The Prime Minister at this point calls on F1 manufacturers to step in – we wasted 2 months.

News of the private sector being drawn into the whole system is obviously good for adding beds, staff and equipment. The contracts need to be scrutinised in a more competent way than the Brexit cross channel ferries due diligence was, to ensure that the State and financially starved NHS is not disadvantaged. We prefer to see these changes as requisitioning private hospitals and contractors into the NHS. 

  1. Maintaining people’s standard of living

We consider that the Chancellor has made some major steps toward ensuring that workers have some guarantees of sufficient income to maintain their health and wellbeing during this crisis. Clearly more work needs to be done to demonstrate that the self-employed and those on zero hours contracts are not more disadvantaged. The spotlight has shown that the levels of universal credit are quite inadequate to meet needs so now is the time to either introduce universal basic income or beef up the social security packages to provide a living wage. We also need to ensure that the homeless and rootless, those on the streets with chronic mental illness or substance misuse are catered for and we welcome the news that Sadiq Khan has requisitioned some hotels to provide hostel space. It has been good to see that the Trade Unions and TUC have been drawn into negotiations rather than ignored.

In political terms we saw in 2008 that the State could nationalise high street banks. Now we see that the State can go much further and take over the commanding heights of the economy! Imagine if these announcements had been made, not by Rishi Sunak, but by John McDonnell! The media would have been in meltdown about the socialist take over!

  1. Conclusion

At this stage of the pandemic we note with regret that the UK government did not act sooner to prepare for what is coming both in terms of public health measures as well as preparing the NHS and Local Government. It seems to the SHA that the government is playing catch up rather than being on the front foot. Many of the decisions have been rather late but we welcome the commitment to support the public health system, listen to independent voices in the scientific world through SAGE and to invest in the NHS. The country as a whole recognises the serious danger we are in and will help orchestrate the support and solidarity in the NHS and wider community. Perhaps a government of national unity should be created as we hear much of the WW2 experience. We need to have trust in the government to ensure that the people themselves benefit from these huge investment decisions.

24th March 2020

Leave a comment

While we welcome the £5bn emergency fund for the NHS and other public services and the open ended commitment made by the Chancellor that the government will provide whatever the NHS needs to meet the challenge of COVID-19; we are concerned to point out three big issues on sustaining an NHS, social care and protecting all workers including those in the gig economy.

The Chancellor re-iterated the discredited election manifesto statements about 50,000 more nurses while we know that there are already 43,000  funded nurse vacancies. He repeated the mantra about 50 million more GP appointments while recruitment of young doctors to become GPs remains poor and it is not clear how this can be achieved in the short term. He reiterated the discredited election slogan about 40 new hospitals. Both staffing promises ignore the fact that it is not only money that is needed – the legacy of austerity cannot be reversed by a cash injection alone – training a GP/medical specialist takes 10 years. Turn the tap off for 10 years and turn it back on expecting accolades is not good enough.

We are very concerned too about the immigration health surcharge, which is being increased to £624 per person. The NHS needs to continue to ethically attract health workers into our country for training and service. The surcharge will apply to EU citizens from January next year. This health surcharge is a serious disincentive and opens another pathway for Tories to introduce insurance charging into the NHS. The cost of collection as with all insurance schemes will be prohibitive.

Social care has been ignored. Everyone involved knows that we should be investing in health and social services and even Jeremy Hunt who presided over NHS austerity is on record as saying that this is a glaring omission in the budget. You need to invest in health and social care and the budget is silent on social care. The budget statement of 8,700 words mentions social care twice only and the manifesto commitment of £1bn/year for 5 years seems to have been lost. Local government leadership role has been ignored such as their role in housing, childcare and social support in communities. The attention given to cars, roads, potholes, red diesel and fuel tax does not signal that the other existential emergency on climate change is being addressed.

Finally we welcome the steps taken to move entitlement to SSP to day one but worry that the 111 service is already over stretched and should not have the burden of certification forced on them. The health and wellbeing of those who are not eligible for SSP, such as the estimated 2m part time and zero hours workers and the 5m self-employed is inadequately protected: the ESA is probably too small a compensation. Many will feel they have to continue to work, putting their own health and that of their families at risk.

The SHA campaigns for health and social services to be free at the point of need and to be funded by general taxation. We know that the 10 years of Tory austerity has damaged the fabric of our NHS and we need to invest in capital and training of staff with confidence in long term growth and sustainability. In a modern society the social care services need to be an integral part of our system and should be planned together with joint investment. This budget has missed an opportunity to make this change.

 

On behalf of the Officers and Vice Chairs

1 Comment

Assemble 12:00 Portland Place, London W1A

In anticipation of the above march and rally we are making preparations for Unite members  to travel to London to support the above march and rally.

Unite are providing day return train tickets for members  from Manchester Piccadilly station and Liverpool Lime Street, anyone requiring transport to the march and rally should contact Lorna Woods Moses at the Liverpool office by email – lorna.woodsmoses@unitetheunion.org

Please ensure you provide your name, membership number, contact details and preferred departure point.

Please note that block bookings will not be accepted and seats are limited.

Bookings will not be accepted after Monday 10 March.

Further information about the march route can be found on the Stand Up to Racism website

http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/un-anti-racism-day-demo-saturday-21-march/

or on the Unite website

https://unitetheunion.org/news-events/events/march-against-racism/

Kind regards

Lorna Woods Moses

Secretary to Deputy Regional Secretary Debbie Brannan  & Regional Coordinating Officer Mick Chalmers

Unite the Union Liverpool

Leave a comment

 

Make the UK the safest place world to have a baby!

Why is the UK still not in the top ten countries for infant mortality and for maternal deaths? Why? We are a rich country. We have an established high-quality health service. Healthcare is supposed to be accessible to all. How come babies and mothers die or are badly hurt at birth? How come Black and Ethnic minority babies suffer most? Why do poor areas have worse outcomes than wealthy areas? Why is infant mortality rising? (The infant mortality rate is the number of children that die under one year of age in a given year, per 1,000 live births. The neonatal mortality rate is the number of children that die under 28 days of age in a given year, per 1,000 live births. These are both common measures of health care quality, but they are also influenced by social, economic and environmental factors). Are there fundamental problems with core policy documents like the maternity review “Better births”? These are painful questions.

Our campaign wants real improvements for mothers and babies. This posting is not intended as a clinical paper, it is a discussion amongst activists and concerned citizens about where the problems lie. A key set of participants in this discussion are mothers who have given birth, including those who have lost babies, grandmothers and other birth partners, and women who could not conceive.

Our campaign published our Maternity Manifesto during the election but though well shared on Facebook, it did not get into any parties’ manifesto.

We also called a national meeting on issues in maternity care.

What then are the factors that result in UK outcomes at birth worse than other advanced countries?

The answers include shortage of NHS funding, staffing shortages, poor management in some hospitals, staff in fear of speaking out, some policies and procedures, disrespect towards the women carrying the baby, and, as cited in the East Kent enquiry, a lack of practical understanding by staff and by mums of the need to “count the kicks” in the latter part of pregnancy. The introduction of charges for migrant women has also caused deaths. NHS material seems to centre the cause on mothers who smoke, or who are overweight. (Now smoking in pregnancy is plain stupid, it really is, and most mums would not do so if they were not addicted. Don’t do it!). However, other countries, Greece for example, who smoke more, have better outcomes in pregnancy than does the UK. Wider problems like obesity and diabetes, and even women giving birth older, are mentioned in the literature about this. Again, the age of the mother as a factor, but this is only partly true. Giving birth older is often safer than giving birth too young. Globally it is most often young girls who die in childbirth.

Answers may lie in the financially and emotionally vulnerable place that pregnant women occupy in our society, including poverty, violence and stress. Poverty and inequality are factors in infant mortality; “The sustained and unprecedented rise in infant mortality in England from 2014 to 2017 was not experienced evenly across the population. In the most deprived local authorities, the previously declining trend in infant mortality reversed and mortality rose, leading to an additional 24 infant deaths per 100 000 live births per year (95% CI 6 to 42), relative to the previous trend. There was no significant change from the pre-existing trend in the most affluent local authorities. As a result, inequalities in infant mortality increased, with the gap between the most and the least deprived local authority areas widening by 52 deaths per 100 000 births (95% CI 36 to 68). Overall from 2014 to 2017, there were a total of 572 excess infant deaths (95% CI 200 to 944) compared with what would have been expected based on historical trends. We estimated that each 1% increase in child poverty was significantly associated with an extra 5.8 infant deaths per 100 000 live births (95% CI 2.4 to 9.2). The findings suggest that about a third of the increases in infant mortality between 2014 and 2017 can be attributed to rising child poverty (172 deaths, 95% CI 74 to 266).” (Our bold for emphasis).

The UK is a rich advanced country, with a long history of universal healthcare but we have rising infant mortality. “Rising infant mortality is unusual in high-income countries, and international data show that infant mortality has continued to decline in most rich countries in recent years” and “In the most deprived local authorities, the previously declining trend in infant mortality reversed and mortality rose, leading to an additional 24 infant deaths per 100,000 live births per year, relative to the previous trend“.

Poverty is not the sole cause of high Infant Mortality though, Cuba has good outcomes equal to the UK for infant mortality. Cuba is very poor indeed and the UK is one of the wealthiest economies (sadly Cuba does less well on maternal deaths).  

Research shows out of 700,000 births a year in England and Wales, around 5,000 babies are stillborn or die before they are a month old”. 5,000 babies each year. There have been major news stories about baby deaths in many hospitals, notably in ShropshireEast Kent and Morecombe Bay.

Maternal deaths. The UK is not in the top ten countries with the lowest infant mortality rate, neither is it the safest place to give birth. In 2015-17“209 women died during or up to six weeks after pregnancy, from causes associated with their pregnancy, among 2,280,451 women giving birth in the UK. 9.2 women per 100,000 died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after childbirth or the end of pregnancy.” In 2016 The UK ranked 24th in the world in Save the Children’s Mothers’ Index and Country Ranking Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Singapore, Slovenia, Portugal, New Zealand, Israel, Greece, Canada, Luxembourg, Ireland, and France, all did better than the UK. The situation in some other countries is massively worse than here but that is no excuse. But these baby and mothers’ deaths must stop. We cannot sit back and let these deaths continue.

Let’s be clear, the situation for women in pregnancy and childbirth is massively better than before the NHS, and is head and shoulders better than in the USA today. But maternal mortality is an issue here in the UK, and a huge issue in poorer countries, especially where women give birth without a trained professional being in attendance. Quite rightly professionals and campaigners in the UK participate in international endeavours to improve this situation. The NHS should be training and sending midwives to those countries, instead, it is recruiting midwives from poorer countries. In Europe we have cuts in healthcare through Austerity; in the global south, the same concept of cutting public services to the bone is called Restructuring.

Why is the UK, a rich country with (almost) universal health care not doing better by its mothers and babies? Look at just this case and see the problems in the provision of maternity care;

Archie Batten

Archie Batten died on 1 September 2019, shortly after birth.

When his mother called the hospital to say she was in labour, she was told the QEQM maternity unit was closed and she should drive herself to the trust’s other hospital, the William Harvey in Ashford, about 38 miles away.

This was not feasible and midwives were sent to her home but struggled to deliver the baby and she was transferred by ambulance to QEQM where her son died. Archie’s inquest is scheduled for March. (BBC).

We know that temporarily “closing” maternity units because they are full is a common occurrence. Women then have to go to a different hospital. Induction of labour can be halted because the unit is full. It is not a pleasant situation for mothers. Some maternity units have closed permanently, meaning mothers have to travel further for treatment, at a time when the ambulance service is under great strain (though being in labour is not considered an emergency for the ambulance service!).

Shortage of Midwives and consequent overwork for the existing staff. The UK has a shortage of three thousand five hundred midwives. The midwife workforce is skewed towards older midwives who will retire soon.

Gill Walton, general secretary and chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives said “We know trusts are facing huge pressures to save money demanded by the government, but this cannot be at the expense of safety. We remain 3,500 midwives short in England and if some maternity units regularly have to close their doors it suggests there is an underlying problem around capacity staffing levels.

Training midwives is not just about recruiting new starters to university courses. There need to be sufficient training places in the Hospitals who are already working flat out, leaving little time for mentoring of students, as well as places in the Universities. Alison Edwards, senior lecturer in midwifery at Birmingham City University, who says: ‘It isn’t as simple as recruiting thousands more students as this requires the infrastructure to support it.

‘You need more tutors, more on-site resources and, perhaps more importantly, more mentors and capacity in placement areas – which is currently under immense strain.’ 

One student midwife wrote about her experiences in this letter, where she described very hard work without either pay or good quality mentoring.

The government and the NHS call for Continuity Care from Midwives. This means the same midwife or small team of midwives cares for the mother through her pregnancy, birth and postnatal period. We too believe this would be wonderful if it were possible. It is however impossible with the existing ratio of midwives to mothers. Providing continuity of care to the most vulnerable mothers is a good step. NICE have reduced this to the idea of each woman having a named midwife. One to One a private midwife company claimed to provide this but was unable to continue trading, and went bust leaving the NHS to pick up the pieces.

Nationally the NHS is underfunded and looks set to continue so. Much of the problem comes from a long period of underfunding. We spend less than 9.8 per cent of GDP on health. Switzerland, Germany, France, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Denmark. Belgium Austria Norway and the Netherlands all spend more. That places the UK 13th in the list of high spenders on health care. The US spends 16.9 %. (although a lot of that money is diverted from patient care to the big corporations and insurance companies). The NHS was the most cost-efficient health care service in the world.

Underfunding causes staff shortages. Some errors at birth come from staff being overworked and making mistakes.

Some, our campaign believes, flow from fundamental flaws in government policy such as in the Maternity Review, where the pressure is on staff not to intervene in labour.

 Listen to the Mother. Some of the deaths are from women not being heeded in pregnancy and childbirth. This is backed up in reports from mothers, including some quoted in the big reviews mentioned above. However, overworked and tired staff who know labour like the back of their hand can easily stop heeding an inexperienced mother.

Poverty kills mothers and babies. As we said above, some deaths, poor baby health, and injuries come from growing maternal poverty and ill-health. Low-income families find it hard to afford good food. Food poverty affects a staggering number of children. The charity UNICEF estimates that “2.5m British children, or 19%, now live in food-insecure households. This means that there are times when their family doesn’t have enough money to acquire enough food, or they cannot buy the full variety of foods needed for a healthy diet. In addition, 10% of these children are also classified as living in severe food insecurity (the European average is 4%) and as a result, are set to experience adverse health.”

Studies show that;

The Independent inquiry into inequalities in health (Acheson 1998) found that a child’s long term health was related to the nutrition and physique of his/her mother. Infants whose mothers were obese had a greater risk of subsequent coronary heart disease. Low birth weight (under 2500 g) was associated with increased risk of death in infancy and with increased risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes and hypertension in later life. Accordingly, the Inquiry recommended, ‘improving the health and nutrition of women of childbearing age and their children, with priority given to the elimination of food poverty and the reduction of obesity’. (NICE )

A significant number of deaths of new mothers come from mental health issues that spiral out of control. Some of these will be newly developed conditions and some existing conditions made worse by pregnancy and childbirth. Mothers family and professionals must all be on the alert and intervene early. There are good ways to treat mental health in pregnancy.

Reducing the social and economic stresses around pregnancy would also help reduce the deaths and suffering

When Birth goes wrong it can be a dreadful experience for everyone involved. In most cases, the panic button brings in a well-drilled team of experts who can solve nearly every problem and do it calmly. At other times, it is dreadful, as described in the coverage of the birth and death of baby Harry Richford. Harry Richford was born at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital in Margate in 2017 but died a week later. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-51097200

Sands, the baby death charity explains that there are many causes of babies dying before birth. Crucially important is that mothers are heeded when they are concerned and that everyone Counts the Kicks

 

Maternity is not the only area of the NHS that suffers. There have been serious mistakes in NHS planning including closing far too many beds. The NHS closed 17,000 beds and now is working beyond safe bed occupancy. There are 100,000 staff vacancies. Waiting times in A and E are dreadful, as are waiting times for cancer treatment. NHS managers and the Government have taken the NHS far from the Bevan model of healthcare (for history read this).

Press coverage. How does the press cover the NHS, and baby deaths? There are very real problems in the NHS and maternity care but the coverage in the press of these problems seems to switch on and off in strange ways, often to suit Conservative Party political requirements. The NHS and the Government are masters of propaganda and news manipulation. The public needs to learn to judge the news and to look both for actual problems and look out for bullshit and manipulation. Why was news of the arrest of the nurse from the Countess of Chester hospital headlines on the 70th Anniversary of the NHS? Why was the news of the understaffing there not given similar nationwide publicity? Why have we heard little or nothing since?

If the government can switch the blame to the professionals in the NHS (but not their mates the high admin of the NHS), then they seem to be happy to publicise the problems. In other cases, problems are swept under the carpet.

Professionals expect to (and do) take responsibility for their own actions. Mistakes will be made. It is impossible to go through life without some mistakes. When we are dealing with life and death mistakes can be catastrophic, even where there is no ill intent.

Malicious action is rare.   There are the terrible cases of serial murderer Harold Shipman, and the convicted surgeon Ian Paterson who falsely told women, they had breast cancer and operated on them unnecessarily. The hierarchical system in the NHS and the lack of regulation in private hospital, which was described as “dysfunctional at almost every level” allowed that harmWe have not found such a case in maternity.

Unintentional bad practice, however, has also harmed babies. No one went to work intending to harm in the events publicised in the Morecombe Bay Enquiry into the deaths of 11 babies and one mother. It was said that “The prime responsibility for ensuring the safety of clinical services rests with the clinicians who provide them, and those associated with the unit failed to discharge this duty over a prolonged period. The prime responsibility for ensuring that they provide safe services and that the warning signs of departure from standards are picked up and acted upon lies with the Trust, the body statutorily responsible for those services.”

The Enquiry described what happens like this “In the maternity services at Furness General Hospital, this ‘drift’ involved a particularly dangerous combination of declining clinical skills and knowledge, a drive to achieve normal childbirth ‘whatever the cost’ and a reckless approach to detecting and managing mothers and babies at higher risk.”

The Furness General Hospital was pushing for Foundation Trust status at the time and was not exercising the necessary supervision.

“Maternity care is almost unique amongst NHS services: the majority of those using it are not ill but going through a sequence of normal physiological changes that usually culminate in two healthy individuals. In consequence, the safety of maternity care depends crucially on maintaining vigilance for early warning of any departure from normality and on taking the right, timely action when it is detected. The corollary is that, if those standards are not met, it may be some time before one or more adverse events occur; given their relative scarcity in maternity care, it is vital that every such occurrence is examined to see why it happened.

So, many factors come into play in such incidents of harm to mother and baby. Professionals too can be emotionally wrecked by tragedy.

Huge personal and professional lessons can be learned from a detailed review of cases where mistakes are made. There is a whole literature about learning from mistakes. The worst such incidents are referred to as Never Events. This is just one article about such errors but there is a whole field of research devoted to it. Serious Mistake Reviews often happen at the end of shifts, and in the worst cases, may lead to long public enquiries.

NHS as a research organisation One of the great virtues of the NHS is the research base it offers professionals. What happens in the NHS which covers 62 million people is studied, evaluated, and researched. This is invaluable to staff and above all to patients. Sadly this research is also of interest to big business especially to those who sell health insurance and to the big corporations who have their ‘snouts’ in the NHS ‘trough’. Research for the common good is clearly different from research to make money. We see that regularly in big pharma. Cheap effective medicines do not make money for the companies. Yet the government is giving away our medical data to companies to make a profit.

There are also “errors” that happen when everyone is following accepted procedures and protocols; “untoward events, complications, and mishaps that resulted from acceptable diagnostic or therapeutic practice”. Procedures within the NHS can be robust and well researched, and problems still occur.

https://www.mamaacademy.org.uk/news/mbrrace-saving-lives-improving-mothers-care-2019/

Research matters. Only by studying outcomes can these errors be revealed. A classic example is the once customary practice of episiotomy, cutting a woman to prevent tears to the perineal skin in childbirth, which is now no longer used except in an emergency. Research both formal and informal changed that practice. As another example of such research, Liverpool Women’s hospital has been involved in research about the benefits of leaving the baby attached by the cord if they are born unwell. NHS staff and other health professionals, academics and pressure groups are working hard to improve outcomes for mothers and babies. Each mothers death is reviewed in the MBRRACE-UK report

https://mamadoc.co.uk/the-maternal-mortality-report-we-should-all-learn-from/

Never again. The tragedy of the death of a mother and or baby is felt by that whole extended family. Most families want to know it will never happen again. Cover-ups and lies mean it will happen again, so brutal honesty is needed.

 

The aftermath of medical treatment or neglect which causes real harm is complex. Whether the outcome is death, life long impairment, or long term physical and mental health issues, these are very significant events for all concerned.

Campaigners in Liverpool campaign for SEN funding to be returned. 2019

If a baby is born with life-changing impairments, the baby is left facing catastrophic difficulties and the mother and family can face major heartbreak and hardship. The huge love we have for our kids (may it long continue), whatever their issues, does not prevent the financial, housing and employment issues families with disabled children face. Nor does it guarantee the best educational opportunities, SEN is being battered by cuts. but parents and teachers are fighting back.

 

The cost of financial “compensation” from an injury to a newborn is huge because it is life long. The cost of this “compensation” used to be carried by the government but the system changed to make hospitals “buy” insurance from a government body which is set up like an insurance company. The cost to the hospital is charged on the basis or earlier claims, like car insurance. Obstetrics make the highest claims of any section of the NHS.

Liverpool Women’s Hospital had a huge case (not about babies) some years ago, arising from a surgeon who left many women damaged after incontinence operations. Their total bill, over 5 years, according to the Echo, was £58.8 million. “The NHS trust has been forced to pay out £58.8m in the last five years for both recent and historic negligence cases.

The limited work we do, as a campaign, in holding the hospital to account, leads us to believe lessons have been learned by the hospital. However, in every hospital, there are pressures which could lead to problems. These pressures include financial and organisational, problems of management ethos, and the potential for bullying, the distrust by the staff of their management, and disrespect for whistleblowers.

The NHS has gone through years of reorganisation after reorganisation. In that time the financial and government pressure has been to complete the re-organisation, or face catastrophic consequences so very many hours of admin and senior doctor time has been wasted on this process. That time could have been focussing on saving babies.

At STP and national level, there are other problems. The NHS is intensely political. There are deep structural problems. (We believe the NHS should return to the Bevan Model of health care)

The NHS is not only deprived of adequate funding, but it has also been forced to implement many market-based changes, including the internal market, outsourcing and commissions of services to for-profit companies. These market-based structures are expensive.

The NHS has also seen dire staff shortages resulting from stupid decisions like removing bursaries, not training enough doctors and the hostile environment to migrant staff.

There are moral and financial issues in all cases of such errors. The hurt to the babies is our priority.

Baby deaths and severe injury at birth have complex roots. Though what happens in the hospital is crucial, it is not just what happens in the hospitals that matter. The stress, poverty and anxiety many mothers endure during pregnancy do sometimes affect the outcomes for the child. Many women are still sacked for being pregnant but families can rarely cope with just one wage (do fight back against sacking pregnant women!). See Maternity Action for details. Both mums and midwives can call Maternity Action for advice.

Low pay or the dreaded universal credit can make food heating and rent all too expensive. This can lead to food poverty. Women do not yet have real equal pay but mothers have the worst pay of all  Benefits are no longer allowed for a third child. even though most claimants are working. Whether parents are working or not, every child has a right to food and shelter, be they first or 10th child. The child gets no choice!

Not every pregnant woman is in a stable caring relationship. Housing, especially private renting, becomes more difficult when women are pregnant. Who can forget the story of the homeless woman giving birth to twins in the street? Pregnancy is often the time when domestic violence is inflicted on a woman but it is the time when women are least able to walk away. Poverty kills babies too.

Please join us in campaigning for better outcomes for all mothers and babies in the NHS and across the globe. We want this to start a discussion, so please send us your views. and information

 

Leave a comment

Today the Mail on Sunday published an article headlined ‘HIV treatment now costs NHS as much as breast cancer – Fears £606m annual bill for sexually transmitted disease is fuelled by flood of foreign health tourists‘.

The only views to ‘balance’ the diatribe published in the paper and online was a short rebuttal from BHIVA  (British HIV Association) and NAT (National AIDS Trust) as well as a short statement from NHS England on how costs for HIV treatment are actually reducing:

A spokesman for the BHIVA said: ‘In the UK, new diagnoses of HIV are now falling because of the success of testing and treatment.’

An NHS England spokesman said the cost of HIV treatment had fallen £28 million from £634 million in 2017/18 to £606 million in 2018/19.

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘We’ve seen a decline of almost a third in new HIV diagnoses in the UK in recent years.

‘As with all other serious infectious diseases, we do not charge overseas visitors for treatment for HIV as, if left untreated, there is a significant risk to others in this country.’

Deborah Gold, chief executive of the NAT, said: ‘The concept of health tourism for HIV treatment is an outdated myth.

‘It is actually a problem that we have such long average delays, usually years, between migrants’ arrival in the UK and them accessing HIV testing and care.

‘Universal availability of HIV treatment is a cornerstone of the response in the UK. Any suggestion this is a poor use of NHS money, or that access to treatment should be limited for anyone, is outrageous. In fact, it is evidence of the NHS at its best: saving lives and preventing ill-health.’

UK-CAB (the UK Community Advisory Board) responded to the article via this tweet with the following statement:

“The UK is a world leader in reducing the numbers of new HIV diagnoses and one of only six countries to have already met the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets. This achievement would not have been possible without upscaling HIV testing and providing immediate antiretroviral treatment to all people living with HIV in the UK.

People with HIV on effective antiretroviral treatment cannot pass the virus on to their sexual partners or to their unborn child during birth and pregnancy. The investment in free HIV treatment for everyone with HIV is fundamental to meeting the Government’s commitment to end new transmissions by 2030.

Stigmatising information like that reported in today’s Mail on Sunday only serves to hinder the UK’s response to the HIV epidemic. Whilst we have made huge strides in reducing new diagnoses by an incredible 28% between 2015 and 2017, the numbers of people diagnosed late is still too high.

Late diagnosis not only increases the chances of premature death but also heightens the risk of HIV being unknowingly transmitted to sexual partners. We cannot tolerate attitudes which put people off testing and finding out their HIV status.

People living with HIV should not be pitted against other patient groups or conditions.

Access to treatment and care for all people living with HIV ensures that individuals can live well and in good health and also stops transmission of the virus to others. Any insinuation that denying HIV treatment to those without ‘settled’ status would be a benefit to the nation’s public health or NHS budgets is nonsense.”

Please circulate this as widely as possible.

1 Comment

Grenfell laid raw the harsh realities for many living in London today. Many stories unfolded in the aftermath. There was the tale of two cities. The question of worth. The story of inexcusable inequality, and lives cut short by political failings. There was also the story of invisibility and fear. The undocumented migrants who died in the fire, forever anonymous, and the survivors who went into hiding, too scared to seek help.

I went to Grenfell with the charity Doctors of the world UK, a week after the fire. At Westway, the pop-up relief centre, we enquired who to liaise with and were told to speak to Sheena*, she appeared to be coordinating the medical response. We arranged a meeting, she explained what medical support was currently happening and we discussed the logistics of how our charity could help. At the end of the meeting, I asked what was her position. I had assumed she was from the government, or Public Health England, or at least from the council. She told us she was a filmmaker, lived locally, and had come to help the day after the fire. In the void of any eminence of leadership, she ended up as the unofficial coordinator of the medical response. I was dumbfounded.

There was no doubt that Sheena* and all the other volunteers at Westway, were doing incredible work to provide their best support for the Grenfell victims. But I couldn’t help ask myself the question; Had it been the neighbouring luxury flats in flames, would the medical relief effort be left to be coordinated by a filmmaker? It just seemed ludicrous.

In the weeks after the fire, the question I heard repeatedly, how did this happen in the richest borough in London? The question we should have been asking, prior to Grenfell, is why in Kensington borough, is there a 14-year difference in average life expectancy between the richest and the poor? Why, since 2010, did that century-long increase in life expectancy plateau?

Across the UK lives every day are silently cut short, from austerity, poor housing, deprivation and political decisions. According to DoH own data, in all of their 15 markers, health inequality among rich and poor has widened under the coalition and the Tories (after improving over the previous decade). Grenfell laid it raw. But the squeeze on public finances since 2010 is linked to nearly 120,000 excess deaths in England. Housing is core factor. 100,000s live in squalid, unsafe housing. Research by Shelter found that 48% of families in social housing who reported issues about unsafe conditions felt ignored or were refused help. The health implications of this we will be felt for decades.

It also became very clear within our first few hours at Westway, that in Grenfell tower there had been many asylum seekers and undocumented migrants residing. Many had since gone into hiding, too scared to seek help or medical care as they feared deportation. A volunteer told me there was a family that had escaped and were worried about their baby’s breathing but was too scared to seek help as they had a teenage son who was undocumented. We were told of an African woman in her 40s, who had fallen down the stairs on escaping the fire. Her partner and relatives were missing, She was experiencing dizziness and memory loss, but was too scared to go to A&E.

Unfortunately, their fears are not ill-founded. Migrants too scared to access care is not a new story. At the Doctors of the World clinic, regularly see pregnant women, cancer patients, victims of trafficking and abuse, too scared to access mainstream health services. This is due to laws brought in under Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment’ policy, which uses health care as an anti-immigration tool. The most recent, brought in 2 months before Grenfell, made it a mandatory legal requirement for healthcare staff to refer migrant patients to the home office if they access hospital care.

Thee were also concerns about visiting the GP surgeries. This is due to a controversial deal the home office has with NHS Digital (that was introduced without the knowledge of NHS staff) allowing the home office to access migrants data held by GP surgeries. The British Medical Association has vehemently opposed this, stating this breach of confidentiality undermines the sacred doctor-patient relationship and will deter the potentially vulnerable from seeking care. In January, after years of us campaigning, the Health Select committee enquired into this data sharing, determining “We are seriously concerned about the way NHS Digital has approached its duty to respect and promote confidentiality”, calling a halt and full review. Yet, the data sharing continues. It appears migrants do not have the right to medical confidentiality as the rest of us.

It was under these circumstances that Doctors of the World was forced to launch a safe and confidential pop-up clinic near Grenfell Tower, staffed by volunteers, to help survivors who were too afraid to get NHS care. We also had to write Jeremy Hunt, urging him to publicly state that survivors will not have their details shared with the Home Office. It was shameful this needed to be done, in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. These racial ‘hostile environment’ policies remain in place in the NHS, as highlighted by the Windrush scandal. Encouraging fear around accessing services is a dangerous policy, makes migrants vulnerable, marginalized and invisible.

Grenfell exposed the human cost of austerity. To give justice to the victims, we need to ask the difficult questions. Do the lives of those on our streets have equal worth? Have our politicians addressed the structural discrimination, classism, and racism that underlaid the tragedy?

Lessons learnt? I’ll let you answer that.

*name changed to maintain anonymity

Dr Sonia Adesara – NHS Doctor and activist

Tagged | 1 Comment

On 15 April 2018 Doctors of the World (DOTW) and the National AIDS Trust (NAT) issued a joint statement that called on NHS Digital to immediately stop sharing patient details with Home Office immigration authorities.

DOTW and NAT believe that sharing confidential patient information with the Home Office will deter vulnerable migrant groups from seeking antenatal care or urgent care for infectious diseases.

Here is the DOTW statement:

MPs repeat demand for an end to NHS Digital sharing patient data

The House of Commons Health & Social Care Committee has, for a second time, called on NHS Digital to immediately stop sharing patient details with the immigration authorities. Expressing deep concern about the Government’s approach to sharing confidential patient information, a report released by the Committee on 15 April stated: ‘we believe that patients’ addresses, collected for the purposes of health and social care, should continue to be regarded as confidential.’

The report also states the Committee’s lack of confidence in the leadership of NHS Digital, citing the failure of NHS Digital to act independently of Government and its disregard for the underlying ethical implications of this data-sharing.

Currently, the Home Office receives information about patients from NHS Digital, the body charged with safeguarding patient data. The data is used to trace migrants, which creates a climate of fear where vulnerable people – including pregnant women and those who have been trafficked – are too afraid to access healthcare.

DOTW (Doctors of the World) UK and NAT (National AIDS Trust) have been campaigning for an end to this practice since it came to light in 2014. Both charities gave evidence in the Health & Social Care Committee’s initial hearing on the issue.

Lucy Jones, Director of Programmes at DOTW, said: “In our clinic, day in day out, we see the incredibly harmful impact the data-sharing deal has on our patients. It has reached a point where people do not want to give the NHS their contact information out of pure fear. While confidentiality is in such a precarious state, mothers are not accessing the antenatal care they need, public health is put at risk, and we fear this is only going to get worse”.

“Doctors of the World UK stand with the Health Select and Social Care Committee in opposing this dangerous information-sharing deal between NHS Digital and the Home Office, and are thrilled the Committee has taken such a strong stance. This view is also shared by the British Medical Association[1] and the Royal College of GPs[2]. As a healthcare charity, we believe in the right to healthcare for all. Yet this immoral deal works to scare some of the most vulnerable people in society from seeing a doctor.”

Deborah Gold, Chief Executive of NAT said: “It is scandalous that our data is being shared and our privacy corroded with less and less justification. As an HIV charity, we understand the importance of treating infectious conditions and limiting the spread of epidemics. When people can’t trust the NHS with their data, that good work is undone and we face a public health risk. There is nothing to be said for this practice, which deters people from accessing healthcare.

“Data sharing should have been stopped when the Health & Social Care Committee first called for it, and it certainly should stop now they have, for a second time, demanded an end to this short-sighted and unethical practice.”

Sign our #StopSharing petition to support our NHS Doctors and tell NHS Digital they are NOT Border Guards:

https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/stopsharing-campaign

[1]https://www.bma.org.uk/news/2018/january/patient-information-shared-with-immigration-officials

[2]http://www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/News/2018/RCGP-letter-to-NHS-digital-from-chair-march-2018.ashx?la=en

The Commons Health Select Committee says:

Dr Sarah Wollaston MP (Chair): NHS Digital are an organisation that the public need to have absolute confidence will respect and understand the ethical principles behind data-sharing [and they] have not shown us at all that this is part of what [they] are considering’.

Dr Paul Williams, MP for Stockton South and a practicing GP, questioned “what advice would you give to clinicians about what they should inform their patients so that this information is classed “with consent”?’

Luciana Berger, the MP for Liverpool, Wavertree urged NHS Digital to reconsider, calling the deal ‘a matter of life and death’ for an extremely marginalised and vulnerable patient group. 

Tagged | Leave a comment

Evidence and policy priorities

There are stark ethnic inequalities in health: Black Caribbean, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi people have between six and nine fewer years of disability-free life expectancy than do White British people

Ethnic Minority health

How do we understand this diversity?

Making sense of ethnic inequalities in health – The epidemiological method

‘Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of disease. The main method of study, particularly for investigating the causes of disease, is to compare populations with different risks of disease. Ethnicity is a variable that is used increasingly to define populations for epidemiological studies.’

Senior and Bhopal (1994)

  • But this encourages an unreflexive and uncritical use of the concept of ethnicity. Ethnic groups are treated as pre-constituted entities with pre-specified properties, with an emphasis on the different/exotic.
  • Explanations are then ‘read’ from the ethnic and disease categories available in data. The presumed properties of ethnic groups, be they cultural or genetic, become the source of explanation for the disease outcome.
  • Rather, we need an approach that pays attention to the processes that lead to the construction and racialisation of ethnic identities, and how these processes shape life chances – what might be called fundamental causes.

Ethnicity, social relationships and social structure

Racial and ethnic groups … are discursive formations, calling into being a language through which differences are accorded social significance, and by which they may be named and explained. What is of importance for social researchers studying race and ethnicity is that such ideas also carry with them material consequences for those who are embraced by them and those who are excluded from them.

Solomos (1998)

The ways in which identities are perceived, valued, mobilised and interacted with are shaped by economic, cultural, legal, political and symbolic resources. Important here is how emotions are attached to symbolic resources, emotions around risk, danger, fear and disgust, which then shape the practices of individuals and institutions. ‘Racial life [is] suffused with shared passions, imageries and fantasies’.

Emirbayer and Desmond 2015

Racism as the fundamental cause

  • Racism has its origins in ongoing historically determined systems of domination that serve to marginalise groups on the base of phenotypic, cultural or symbolic characteristics, thereby generating a racialised social order.
  • Explanation, then, needs to examine the role of three inter-related dimensions of racism – structural, interpersonal and institutional.
  • Structural racism is reflected in disadvantage in access to economic, physical and social resources. This does not have just material implications, but also cultural and ideological dimensions, material inequality justified through symbolic denigration.
  • Interpersonal racism (ranging from everyday slights, through discrimination, to verbal and physical aggression) is a form of violence/trauma and emphasises the devalued status of both those who are directly targeted and those who have similarly racialised identities, thereby engendering meaningful psychosocial stress.
  • Institutional racism (first coined by Carmichael and Hamilton 1967) is reflected in routine processes and procedures that translate into actions that shape the experiences of racialised groups within these institutions.
  • These disadvantages, accumulating across a life course, are the drivers of ethnic inequalities in health outcomes.
Ethnic differences in household income

Ethnic differences in equivalised household income

Low birth weight by occupational class

Low birth weight by occupational class

Standardising for socioeconomic position:

Standardising for socioeconomic position

This reflects both the particular economic location of ethnic minority groups and the multi-dimensional nature of the economic and social inequalities they face, meaning that no realistic statistical adjustment can plausibly simulate randomisation.

Racialised socioeconomic inequalities mean:

  • Lower incomes;
  • Lower status occupations;
  • Poorer employment conditions;
  • Higher rates of unemployment and longer periods of unemployment;
  • Poorer educational outcomes;
  • Concentrated in economically and environmentally depressed areas (but positive effects of ethnic density);
  • Housing tenure;
  • Poorer quality and more overcrowded accommodation.
  • And inequalities that accumulate across the life course and across generations.
Persisting ethnic inequalities in unemployment

Persisting ethnic inequalities in unemployment 1991-2001-2011

Experiences of racism and discrimination:

  • One in eight ethnic minority people experience racial harassment in a year.
  • Repeated racial harassment is a common experience.
  • 25% of ethnic minority people say they are fearful of racial harassment.
  • 20% of ethnic minority people report being refused a job for racial reasons, and almost three-quarters of them say it has happened more than once.
  • 20% of ethnic minority people believe that most employers would refuse somebody a job for racial reasons, only 12% thought no employers would do this.
  • White people freely report their own prejudice:
    • One in four say they are prejudiced against Asian people;
    • One in five say they are prejudiced against Caribbean people.

Research across outcomes and contexts consistently shows the adverse impact of racism on health (for example, Wallace et al. 2016

Racism, discrimination and health:

Changes in levels of racism

Changes in levels of racism 1993-2009

Persisting prevalence of racial prejudice

Persisting prevalence of racial prejudice 1983-2013

Institutional racism in health services?

Access to and outcomes of care:

  • No inequalities in access to GP services.
  • No inequalities in outcomes of care for conditions that are largely managed in primary care settings:
    • Hypertension, raised cholesterol and, probably, diabetes.
  • The effect of healthcare systems – a health service with universal access and standardised treatment protocols?
  • Marked inequalities in access to dental services.
  • And marked inequalities in the US insurance based system.
  • And institutional racism evident in some areas:
  • Some inequalities in access to hospital services.
  • Ethnic inequalities in reported levels of satisfaction with care received.
  • And, mental illness and psychiatric services …

Conclusion

  • Racisms are fundamental drivers of observed ethnic inequalities in health.
  • In investigating this, it is important to examine the ways in which structural, interpersonal and institutional racisms operate and constitute one another.
  • Structural conditions of socioeconomic disadvantage and interpersonal experiences of racism both create an increased risk of poor health for ethnic minority people.
  • They also shape encounters with institutions that have policies and practices that lead to unequal outcomes – education, employment, housing, criminal justice, politics, etc., as well as health and social care.
  • Institutional settings represent sites where we see the concentration and mediation of structural forms of disadvantage and interpersonal racism. This is produced via both the unwitting practices and overt agency of individuals operating within particular structural conditions.
  • Institutional racism will take different forms, will operate differently, across institutions with a different focus – for example, the functions of institutions dealing with cancer screening compared with those implementing coercive treatments for severe mental illness.

Reflecting on Policy

  • There has been little development of policy to specifically address ethnic inequalities in health, only occasional, limited and local intervention, with no real evaluation of the impact of specific or general policy on ethnic inequalities in health.
  • For example, a shocking neglect of ethnic inequality in the Marmot Review – assumption that socioeconomic inequalities are unimportant for ethnic inequalities in health, or that general policies to address questions of equity will also address ethnic inequalities.
  • But not a policy vacuum, there are clear policies around identity, culture, community, segregation and migration, all of which are likely to negatively impact on ethnic inequalities in health.
  • And ethnic minority people have been disproportionately impacted on by public sector retrenchment (austerity measures).
  • In fact, the evidence base strongly suggests that policy development should focus on the social and economic inequalities faced by ethnic minority people.
  • Need short term policies to address economic inequality (tax, employment, welfare, housing, etc.).
  • However, the economic inequalities faced by ethnic minority people cannot be addressed by policies targeted at on average reductions in economic inequalities, because such policies don’t address processes impacting on ethnic minority people – reflected in institutional practices.
  • Example: early years investments, which don’t address the emergence and persistence of racial disadvantage in the education system and labour market.
  • Example: failure of favoured ‘up-stream’ interventions, such as SureStart, to engage with and meet the needs of ethnic minority groups.
  • Example: public sector workers bearing the cost of the recession.
  • Example: rise in part-time work and zero hours contracts.
  • Rather need long-term policies that promote equitable life chances and that address racism and the marginalisation of ethnic minority people – a focus on institutions, including politics and Government, is crucial.

Institutional reform: an example

  • As an employer, the public sector has the opportunity to provide significant leadership.
  • For example, in 2017 the NHS directly employed 1.2 million people, indirectly many more, so employment practices within the NHS are able to impact on the labour market nationally and regionally.
  • Ethnic minority people are over-represented in the NHS (and public sector) workforce – 22 per cent of NHS staff are not White, compared with 13 per cent of all workers.
  • Discussion around public sector employment has focussed on enhancing efficiency by reducing labour costs, consequently opening up opportunities for private investment.
  • Instead could use this as an opportunity to implement positive and equitable employment practices, setting a standard: employment rights, holidays, sick leave, study leave, maternity leave, job security, job flexibility, guaranteed hours, limits to unpaid overtime, promoting autonomy and control, and, importantly, pension rights.
  • Such changes are likely to mostly benefit those in lower employment grades and more precarious employment conditions – ethnic minority workers.
  • Could also address the marked ethnic inequalities within the public sector workforce – ‘snowy white peaks’ – rethinking institutional structures and practices, and addressihng pay differentials.
  • Reforming institutional cultures – the whiteness of institutions – and addressing discrimination and racism in the workplace.

This was presented at our conference Public Health Priorities for Labour

Leave a comment

Impact on refugees, people seeking asylum, and other vulnerable groups

The Government recently proposed to amend a set of rules, known as the ‘NHS Charging Regulations’, which govern how people access healthcare in England, and when they have to pay for it. New regulations were laid before Parliament on 19 July 2017. This briefing explains what changes the new regulations seek to make – with a particular focus on their impact on refugees and people seeking asylum.

Which NHS services are currently free for everyone?

  • All GP services
  • Family planning services, compulsory mental health care, and treatment for a range of communicable diseases that might pose a public health risk and treatment provided in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic
  • Treatment of a physical or mental condition caused by torture, female genital mutilation, domestic violence or sexual violence when the patient has not travelled to the UK for the purpose of seeking such treatment
  • Accident and Emergency services

Health services affected by extending charging

  • Health Visiting
  • School Nursing
  • Community Midwifery
  • Community Mental Health Services
  • Termination of Pregnancy services
  • District Nursing
  • Support Groups
  • Advocacy services
  • Specialist services for homeless people and asylum seekers

Some people in the UK are not entitled to free NHS hospital care. This includes people who are here for short-term visits, undocumented migrants, and some asylum seekers whose claims have been refused. The situation is different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where devolution agreements allow for different healthcare arrangements. There are already processes in place for hospitals to identify and bill patients for their care. The Government has now made new regulations extending NHS charges to community healthcare services, and placing a legal requirement for all hospital departments and all community health services to check every patient’s paperwork and charge up front for healthcare; refusing non-urgent care where a patient cannot pay. These two changes are looked at in more detail below:

Extending charges into community services

From August 2017, healthcare charges will be introduced for services provided by all community health organisations in England, except GP surgeries. Any organisation receiving NHS funding will be legally required to check every patient before they receive a service to see whether they should pay for their care and, in some circumstances, patients will be charged for accessing these services. See  full list of exemptions.

A wide range of health services may be affected (see above for details), including NHS organisations and, as of October, community interest companies and charities. These services are often specifically commissioned to reach marginalised communities and individuals unlikely to seek out NHS care. The introduction of charges undermines the vital role they play in protecting public health and safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. The Government has made multiple commitments to carry out an assessment of the unintended consequences of extending NHS charges on vulnerable people, pregnant women and children4, but this has not happened.
As we read the regulations, public health services commissioned through Local Authorities, which include public mental health and drug and alcohol services, will also be affected.
While the regulations do not alter the fact that GP services and Accident and Emergency5 services are currently free to all, the Department of Health have indicated this may be subject to review at a later date.

Introduction of upfront charging

From October, every hospital department in England will be legally required to check every patient’s paperwork before treating them, to see whether they are an overseas visitor or undocumented migrant and should be charged for their care. Every patient, British citizen or person under immigration control, will be asked about their residency status and will need to prove they are entitled to free NHS care. Pilots requesting all patients to provide two forms of identity prior to appointments are being carried out in 20 hospital trusts across England. The obligation to check patient paperwork applies to services exempt from charging on public health grounds, such as infectious disease departments and HIV clinics.
If a patient cannot prove that they are entitled to free care, they will receive an estimated bill for their treatment and will have to pay it in full before they receive any treatment other than that which is ‘urgent’ or ‘immediately necessary’, as defined by doctors on a case-by-case basis.
The regulations also introduce an obligation on trusts to record that a patient is not entitled to free NHS secondary care against that patient’s NHS number. Both this measure, and up-front charging, were not included in Department of Health’s 2016 consultation on NHS cost recovery and as such have not received public scrutiny.
These changes have been laid before parliament and will become law without debate unless there is an objection from either House.

What does this mean for refugees and people seeking asylum?

Refugees and people seeking asylum are exempt from paying for treatment. However, refused asylum seekers have different entitlements. Those in receipt of some form of statutory support (Home Office Section 4/ Section 95 support or Local Authority support) are entitled to free care. However, in England, refused asylum seekers who are not in receipt of support are currently chargeable for secondary (hospital) care, unless they started their course of treatment prior to being refused or qualify for a treatment based exemption (for example, they are HIV positive). The situation is different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where the devolved governments have seen fit to ensure refused asylum seekers can still receive healthcare for free.
Under the new regulations, refused asylum seekers would become chargeable for a range of community health services in England, and would also be subject to up-front charging for non-urgent care.
Even under the current system, it is difficult for health services to accurately identify who is chargeable under the regulations and who is exempt, particularly when the immigration status of individuals regularly changes over time. Those who are most adversely affected are often the most vulnerable, who have little understanding of their rights or ability to advocate for themselves and navigate the NHS, particularly without a translator.

The result has been that all too often, even those who are exempt from charging – such as refugees and asylum seekers – are wrongly denied or charged for treatment, or deterred from accessing treatment altogether for fear of being charged. We are concerned that new plans to extend the charging mechanisms within the NHS will further deter people seeking refugee protection from accessing the healthcare they need.
Our key concerns about regulations to extend charging into community care settings, and introduce up-front charging are:

  • Up-front charging and the need to present paperwork proving eligibility for free care will increase barriers to healthcare for refugees, asylum-seekers and other vulnerable groups: There is a risk that healthcare, including lifesaving care, may be withheld from refugees and asylum seekers who are entitled to free care because they do not have easy access to paperwork and passports to prove entitlement. Other vulnerable groups, such as victims of trafficking, homeless people, elderly people, and those living with mental health conditions are also likely to be affected.
  • Preventing hard-to-reach communities from accessing essential services will lead to increased health inequalities: Any NHS funded organisation – including charities – that provides community based services such as termination of pregnancy services and community mental health services, will be legally required to check the eligibility of patients and, in some circumstances, charge patients. These services are often specifically commissioned to reach marginalised communities and individuals unlikely to seek out NHS care. The introduction of charges undermines the vital role they play in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, and will result in increased health inequalities.
  • The extension of charging will have dire consequences for refused asylum seekers: Denying healthcare doesn’t make health problems go away. Due to their experiences in their country of origin, their journey to the UK, and sometimes their experience in the UK asylum system, people seeking asylum often have particular physical and mental health needs. Additionally, the poverty, homelessness and social isolation faced by many refused asylum seekers can exacerbate existing health conditions. With no permission to work in the UK, they are unlikely to have any means of paying for health services, and will be deterred from accessing even those services that are free for public health reasons due to fear of being charged at a later date, or being identified by the Home Office. Both the Welsh and Scottish governments, and Northern Irish Assembly have seen fit to exempt this group from charging.
  • These measures will further undermine public health: Taken together, the extension of charging into community care services, coupled with the likelihood that public health services commissioned through Local Authorities – such as drug and alcohol services – will also be affected by the regulations, mean that access to immunisation programmes, early diagnosis of communicable diseases, and other preventative care programmes which protect us all will be undermined.
  • All this will cost the NHS more money: The Government has not carried out a full and robust assessment of the impact and cost of the new charging regime. The anticipated financial saving for the NHS is small (£200,000 a year), based on little evidence and likely to be overestimated. For example, it is estimated community services face a cost of up to £13.64 per provider per year to cover the retraining of staff and associated administrative costs of implementing the cost recovery programmes, but this fails to properly to take into consideration additional administrative time to check paperwork. In addition, the confusion around eligibility will result in late diagnosis and treatment amongst groups most at risk, with significant long-term costs to the NHS, particularly when considering emergency interventions undertaken after an individual’s health has deteriorated and they require urgent or immediately necessary treatment. A case study from Northern Ireland during the period when migrants were charged for primary and secondary healthcare illustrates this point: An asylum seeker could not get access to an inhaler for her asthma after her asylum application was rejected. She consequently became so ill that she was admitted to the Intensive Care unit at Belfast hospital in November 2012 and had to stay in hospital for five days before being discharged. In her case, the cost of a prescription would have been £12.87, while the cost of a visit to A&E by ambulance and five days in hospital was £1,508.
  • New systems to check patient eligibility will have unintended consequences: As ID checks are carried out on all patients in advance of appointments, and medical professionals are tasked with judging whether treatment is urgent or immediately necessary, patient waiting times are likely to increase, putting the NHS under even greater strain. There is also the risk of racial profiling being used as a means to identify chargeable patients, leading to an increase in health inequalities (a breach of the Secretary of State for Health’s duty to reduce health inequalities under the Health and Social Care Act 2012). The only way to check eligibility for free NHS services which does not contravene equality law is to check everyone. Reviewing every patients’ immigration status will be time consuming, costly to administer and frustrating for both patients and NHS staff. It is difficult to see how repeat eligibility checks can be avoided as service providers will have to ensure that a patient’s residency status in the UK has not changed over time. In Northern Ireland, reviews were carried out every six months, but this was later judged to be unworkable and consequently carried out every 24 months. One of the problems encountered was that the Home Office often failed to confirm people’s immigration status. Furthermore, these checks will place an additional administrative burden on the Home Office, to the detriment of their ability to manage the wider asylum system.

Recommendations

The regulations should be withdrawn. The government should carry out and make public the results of:

  • an assessment of the impact of extending charges into community services on vulnerable groups, pregnant women and children;
  • an assessment of the impact of upfront charging and checking patient paperwork on access to services, health outcomes and patient waiting times, including an evaluation of the ongoing pilots taking place in hospital trusts;
  • an impact assessment evidencing the proposed regulations do not breach the Secretary of State for Health’s duty to reduce health inequalities under the Health and Social Care Act 2012;
  • a human rights impact assessment on upfront charging;
  • a public consultation on the parts of the regulations not included in the 2016 consultation on NHS cost recovery: upfront charging and recording information against NHS number (consistent identifier);
  • a more robust and thorough assessment of the true costs of introducing these measures.

On the completion of the above, any regulations to extend charging into new areas of care and / or introduce upfront charges should:

  • exempt all services that protect public health, including drug and alcohol services, community midwifery services, health visiting and school nursing;
  • exempt all services provided by charities or community interest companies;
  • exempt all community mental health services;
  • exempt all abortion providers;
  • exempt asylum seekers whose claims have been refused, as is the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland;
  • require all decisions to withhold healthcare pending payment to be 1) subject to a second clinical opinion and (2) open to challenge by a patient
  • be accompanied by Department of Health guidance for hospitals and doctors 1) outlining how to implement the regulations in a way that is not discriminatory and does not violate human rights or increase health inequalities and 2) confirming that routine identity documents checks should not be carried out in services where NHS charges do not apply, such as infectious disease services and A&E, or in maternity services.
1 Comment

An announcement by Justine Greening, Minister for Women and Equalities, on 29 June indicated that Northern Irish women will no longer have to pay to access terminations in England. Motivated by the proposed amendment of backbench Labour MP, Stella Creasy, the government avoided a vote in the Commons on the issue and declared instead that they will pay for Northern Irish women who travel to mainland UK for abortions.

Such an announcement is to be welcomed. Northern Ireland was never covered by the 1967 Abortion Act which allows for terminations in England, Scotland and Wales. Although there has been a Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast since late 2012, it operates within an incredibly restricted legal framework which only allows for abortion in cases where there is a long-term risk to the woman’s health. As such, around 1000 women travel to England every year to access terminations. Depending on their personal circumstances, such a procedure can cost between a few hundred to a few thousand pounds. This ruling will therefore substantially diminish the financial impact that Northern Irish women seeking terminations face.

Abortion is politicised in Northern Ireland in a manner that does not compare to the rest of the United Kingdom. Protests continue to occur regularly outside the Marie Stopes clinic in central Belfast and Northern Irish politicians openly espouse anti-abortion sentiment that would rarely be heard in Westminster. Whilst there has been a steady drip of legislative action encouraging change (in late 2015 a high court judge in Belfast ruled that the legal situation in the province regarding abortions contravenes human rights law), on 29 June 2017 the Court of Appeal in Belfast ruled against the 2015 judgement. It argued again that this area was for the devolved Assembly to rule on, and could not be changed by the courts.

Earlier in June 2017, in relation to the case of a 15-year-old girl who had travelled to England for treatment, the Supreme Court in London ruled that women in Northern Ireland were not entitled to free abortion treatment on the NHS. Creasy’s amendment emerged in response to this. In the light of these judgements, her actions in the Commons and the declaration by the government take on even more importance. The legal system appears to have been exhausted as an avenue for change, so political action on this is to be welcomed.

Such action has been seen before, but has, until now, been unsuccessful. In 2008, Diane Abbott MP fronted a similar amendment to the one that Creasy argued for, proposing that the 1967 Abortion Act be extended to Northern Ireland. Then, however, the Labour-led government of the day aligned with the argument made by Northern Irish MPs (and courts, in both judgements referenced above), that this matter was entirely devolved and should be left to the attention of the Assembly.

Whilst it is true that abortion law has been devolved to Northern Ireland since 2010, national Parliament at Westminster could have made the decision that it made this June at any point since 1967. In light of the negative attention that the Conservative-DUP deal has received due to the very conservative beliefs of the DUP regarding abortion and LGBT issues, it is hard not to see the recent decision as damage limitation. Accused of making deals with a party which appears to espouse ideas antithetical to the majority of British voters, the Conservative government can now hold up this funding announcement as a way to both distance themselves from the DUP’s social conservatism and illustrate their own liberal values.

This move also illustrates once again the weakness of the current government. Creasy’s amendment looked set to pass easily, with substantial support from Conservative members. Will there be more backbench opposition challenges like this? It would appear likely, especially in light of a fractured Conservative party, reeling from the poor General Election result.

The government’s recent announcement does nothing to change the legal situation regarding abortion in Northern Ireland. Abortion will remain illegal (including in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities) except in extreme physical or mental circumstances. And although it now appears that Northern Irish women will not have to pay for the terminations they seek in England, they will still face substantial costs in terms of travel and accommodation.

In addition, this decision does not remove the more fundamental injustice of this situation. Women will still have to travel, leaving family and support networks behind. Women with complicated citizenship statuses, caring responsibilities or those in abusive relationships may find it impossible to travel at all. The decision by the government is to be welcomed, but it does not place Northern Irish women on an equal footing with their English, Scottish and Welsh counterparts. They still deserve better.

This first appeared on the British Politics and Policy blog

Tagged , | Leave a comment

In December 2015 I was approached by Jeremy Corbyn and Kate Green, then the shadow minister for women and equalities, to chair a review with an advisory group made up of academics, policy experts, elected representatives and grass roots organisations to make recommendation on a future race equality strategy. On the eve of the anniversary of the 1965 race Relation Act, Jeremy Corbyn stated: “Fifty years ago today (December 8) the Labour government of Harold Wilson introduced the first Race Relations Act – outlawing discrimination based on ethnicity. Labour has a strong track record. As recently as 2010 we passed the Equality Act.”

Two events in December 2015 and February 2016 started the 18 month process of collecting evidence and having dialogue with a range of stakeholders inside and outside the party.  The race equality advisory group was established in February 2016 to lead a consultation and make recommendations to Jeremy and the shadow team on key issues for Labour to consideration around policy development. In addition, as part of the review of the party’s governance structures, Shabana Mahmood and Kate Osamor were also conducting a review around BAME representation for the national executive committee.

However, the shadow cabinet resignations and the leadership race had a major impact on the review. Also the party focus was around the issue of anti-Semitism, which led to the Shami Chakrabarti report. The timescale for the review has been scaled down further especially if there is an early election as a result of the fallout of Brexit.

There is now a greater degree of urgency to respond to this consultation. The feedback will help shape Diverse Communities Manifesto which is being led by Dawn Butler, shadow minster for diverse communities. We are looking for written submissions by January with plans to prepare a report early in the new year.

The timing of this review is important as race is now slowly back on the political agenda as a result of the reports in August 2016 by UN Committee on race (CERD) which, every five years, reviews Britain’s record on race equality. There has also been a rise in hate crime since Brexit, rather depressingly.  In response to these reports Theresa May is now conducting a government wide public audit on race equality. Elsewhere David Lammy is continuing his review of the criminal justice system and impact of BAME communities.

It is clear that structural racism and social mobility are major issues in Britain which the coalition and the Conservative government not only failed to address but, in many ways, exacerbated with an austerity programme and failure to implement the Equality Act 2010. Too often the government and the media have spent excessive time debating migration of Eastern Europeans from the EU and the experiences of refugees caught in war and conflict. By doing this, we miss the real debate about the increasing wealth, income and power of exclusivity and privilege  taking us back to Victorian Britain. Today working class, women, disabled, LGBTI and BAME communities are further disfranchised and marginalised economically and socially.

As a result of the EU referendum there has been a fivefold increase in hate crime and uncertainty for millions of people from migrant and BAME backgrounds about their future status in this country. Global campaigns and the domestic launch of Black Lives Matter highlight racism faced by Black British people who are racially profiled and on occasion have died in police custody or a secure environment. The Prevent strategy, which aimed to tackle fundamentalism with the Muslim community, actually increased Islamophobia. We have now reached a crossroads in Britain where there is growing racial, social and class divide. We must call in to question how tolerant are we society in 2016.

Despite individual BAME achievement and success in politics, medicine, science, public services, media, sports, the arts and business, these communities still face discrimination. It has led to a growing gap between survival and aspiration which risks holding back third and fourth generation young BAME people despite their qualifications and abilities.

In many ways it feels we are going backwards as a society to the time just after the second world war with the arrival of the SS Windrush ship in June 1948 where the colour bar and infamous slogan used many landlords, and indirectly by employers, was “No blacks, No Irish and No dogs”. It was a fact of life regardless of the fact many of the migrants from former colonies now part of the Commonwealth served in the war and their parents made a similar contribution between 1914 and 1918.

Sixty years on and, despite race equality legislation which successive Labour government introduced, structural and interpersonal racism is getting worse, much like inequality. The Olympics in London was one of the most successful games built around the vision of diversity and inclusion but it feels like a dream and illusion after the toxic campaign during the EU referendum.

That is why Angela Rayner, shadow education secretary and shadow minister for women and equalities, and I launched a race equality consultation in August 2016 around the time of the EHRC and United Nations CERD.

Jeremy Corbyn also has recently reaffirmed his commitment in placing race equality as part of his future vision for Britain at a recent Black History Month reception.

We are still seeking the following responses to the key questions below as part of the consultation:

  • What would you identify as the key issues and themes around race equality that need to be addressed over the next five to ten years?
  • What are the top three policy measures/actions you would like to see to promote race equality?
  • What is the best way to ensure race equality is given full consideration in the policy and manifesto development process of the Labour Party?
  • What action should be taken to help eliminate race discrimination in Britain?
  • What action should be taken to protect race equality legislation now that the UK has decided to leave the European Union?

See the consultation document here and submit your response to  raceequality2020@gmail.com by 13 January 2017.

Finally, although we have the best race equality legalisation and practice in Europe, there is still a lot of work to done to tackle structural issues affecting BAME communities in relation to health and social care, housing, education, stop and search, business, employment, the arts, and civic and public life.

It important to acknowledge the achievements and aspirations of our multicultural and faith society in working towards a fair and just Britain for all – that is why Brexit negotiations and parliament must accept this.

First published by LabourList

Tagged | 2 Comments

Saturday 24 September 2016

Conference. Thank you for inviting me here to address you and I apologise about the disruption caused by the other engagement this morning. Thank you to you all for the inspirational contribution that you and the women that have come before you make to this incredible movement of ours.

I know everyone in this room today will want to join me in offering Sarah Champion our full and warmest support. Sarah you are a truly inspiring campaigner, who we all have complete trust in and I know you will continue with the excellent work you are doing.

The advances for women in Britain and around the world have been fought and won _ by determined campaigners like you working together for real change often in the face of intransigence, resistance and even abuse. That’s the legacy of women in our movement.

But there’s one person who isn’t here today. And she would be if it weren’t for an act of hatred and violence that has robbed two children of their mother and the Labour Party of a valued and cherished friend. So many of you here today knew Jo we will never ever forget her never forget what she stood for never forget what she campaigned for and together – united – let us fight for the things that would make her proud. Nobody who has seen the films and photographs shared by Brendan Cox can have failed to be touched by the images of a woman so clearly delighting in spending time with her young children. They remain in all our thoughts – and it is to them today that I would like to send my continued best wishes on behalf of all the Labour family.

As colleagues from across Parliament noted in their moving tributes to Jo she was adamant that there was much more that united than divides us. And there is no better way we can honour Jo’s memory than ensuring we unite and are resolute in our pursuit of making the world a better place.

We must ensure that the Labour Party remains at the forefront of championing policies which promote equality. That is why, earlier this week I urged the NEC to vote through a policy-making women’s conference, so that the voice of women across our movement can be heard loud and clear in our policy-making process.

The economic stagnation caused by austerity has seen a desperate drop in living standards for many people but it is women, above all, who have borne the brunt of this failed and destructive economic experiment. The Women’s Budget Group has found that 86 percent of the Government’s so-called tax and welfare ‘savings’ have come at the expense of women.

The U-turns and concessions we have wrung from this Government in the last year have in the main been victories which have stopped further cuts that would have disproportionately impacted upon women such as the cuts to Tax Credits. I am pleased that having set out a clear anti-austerity, pro-investment economic policy Labour has changed the terms of economic debate in this country.

But there is much more to be done. Our society continues to be marked by grotesque levels of inequality, magnified by the actions of this Government and the previous Coalition. We have to address the indefensible penalties which women pay in their everyday lives simply for being women. We need to keep campaigning loud and clear to tackle inequality wherever it is found.

I would like to pay tribute here to Paula Sheriff for her campaigning work on the tampon tax It is campaigns like that that will make the difference on so many issues for women across Britain. It means tackling inequality in the workplace where women remain in the lowest paid jobs and too often are paid less than men even where they are doing the same job.  I am proud that through our Workplace 2020 campaign, the Labour Party is setting out an ambitious vision for dealing with these issues I urge all of you to get involved in that campaign. And I want to pay tribute to Siobhan McDonagh for standing up for low paid women at M&S who are being deprived of the benefits of the increase in the minimum wage.

We know that creating a society in which everyone can achieve their full potential will also drive the creation of a stronger economy and that economic equality benefits us all. The Women1s Business Council estimated that equalising men and women1s participation in the economy would add 10 percent to GDP by 2030.

During the recent leadership campaign, we put forward a range of policies aimed at achieving equality for women policies built on the work done over the past year.

Through investing £500 billion backed up by a publicly-owned National Investment Bank and regional banks in infrastructure, manufacturing and new industries to move us to a high skilled, high tech, low carbon economy. We can transform our country’s economic fortunes and the opportunities and life chances of women across the country. We have set out concrete measures to achieve equal pay. Improving access to justice through abolishing Tribunal fees. Providing the Equality and Human Rights Commission with enhanced powers. Strengthening employment and trade union rights and taking on the occupational segregation in our labour market which contributes so much to women’s concentration in low paid, insecure work.

I have committed to the Labour Party publishing a regular ‘gender audit’ of our policies to better communicate the positive impact all our policies will have on moving us towards a more equal society. And I have committed to consult on establishing a high level, strategic Women’s Advisory Board supporting the work of the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and linked to the Leader’s Office to ensure gender equality is at the heart of all our policies.

I would like to take a moment here to thank Angela Rayner an MP who throughout the summer fought tooth and nail to hold the Tories to account on education, grammar schools, equality and women1s rights. Not for one second has she paused in that fight and I want to thank her for all that she has done.

To enable women1s equality we need to remove the barriers to their participation whether that is because of insecure work expensive childcare or entrenched out­ dated attitudes. The TUC report 1Still just a bit of banter?1found that more than half of all women polled have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. This is unacceptable. Campaigns such as the Everyday Sexism project have powerfully used social media to expose the day-to-day examples of sexism in every aspect of women1s lives.  Under my leadership1 the Labour Party has committed to consulting and working with women’s and other relevant organisations on how to strengthen the law and its implementation to tackle sexual harassment and threats online and increase organisations1 responsibility towards promoting safe and respectful ‘community standards’ online.

‘Reclaim the Internet’ which many colleagues here today1 including Jess Philips have been supporting brings together women1s campaigns think tanks trade unions and media platforms to challenge the abuse that women face online.

Women who are in the public eye including women in politics face greater challenges, and outrageous abuse both on and offline. Wherever abuse occurs1 it is incumbent upon us all to ensure that it is taken seriously and challenged. And we must acknowledge the terrible truth that the abuse, threats of violence and bigotry that women in all walks of life are subjected to online are a manifestation of attitudes, culture and society offline. Some 85,000 women are raped in England and Wales every year and domestic violence remains an appalling blight on our society. It will affect a quarter of all women in their lifetime. Two women a week continue to be killed by their current or ex-partners.

Colleagues in the women’s PLP have done an inspiring job of highlighting issues of domestic violence. One of the women in my own team said that she had been moved to tears by the powerful testimony of Angela Smith recently in Parliament as she recounted the tragic story of one of her constituents whose children were murdered by her abusive partner. That is why we are determined to resist at every opportunity the imposition of further cuts on services for women and girls facing violence cuts which have been devastating.

Supporting the provision of services re-balancing the economy ensuring that the law protects the rights of women. These are all changes in the world out there which I am confident we all want to see and they are changes which will only come about, I believe, if we are prepared to make changes in the world in here within our own Party.

Our party should be as inclusive as possible. I am committed to taking forward the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Inquiry to consult on and introduce a wider Equal Opportunities Policy, training and guidance for both Party members and staff. If we are to increase women’s representation, voice and power in society as a whole we must increase them too within the Labour Party. I have been clear in my support for All Women Shortlists to achieve 50:50 representations in Parliament. We should aim for 50:50 representations across all public offices with gender balanced shortlists.

Making this conference a representative and democratic annual policy making conference is a step towards strengthening women’s voice within the Labour Party.

Whatever result you were hoping for in the leadership election, I imagine that we are in agreement that it is deeply regrettable that the announcement of the election result should have been scheduled for the same day as this conference.

I hope very much that you will all enjoy Women’s Conference and that this will have been a rewarding and enriching day for you all. And I hope that for those of you who remain here in Liverpool you will find the rest of the week equally enjoyable and stimulating. I look forward to working with you all over the coming weeks, months and years and building a united Labour Party that together can win the next election and win for women across Britain.

Tagged , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: