Tory/LibDem austerity policies hit people's health

At the start of a Parliamentary session, we debate the 'Queen's Speech' which sets out the government proposals for the new session. I decided to speak in the debate on 'Health and Social Care', and chose to highlight the way in which health policies are closely linked to other government policies, on issues like child poverty, jobs, and housing. Here is what I said:

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): It is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), as he made an important point about the economic aspects of the Queen’s Speech, and that serves to remind us that health is not just a matter of hospitals, doctors, nurses and medicine—important though all that is—but it is also affected by Government policies in other areas. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in this respect, as I am very concerned that many of this Government’s policies are, directly or indirectly, having a damaging effect on the health of many millions of people in this country.

The first of those effects is illustrated by the growth in real poverty, which has led to the mushrooming number of food banks throughout the UK. I now have two food banks operating in my constituency, along with other sources of free food for those in need, and that situation is replicated in every constituency across the land. The food provided through the food banks is healthy food that is beneficial to the diets of those who receive it. In most cases food is provided only for a limited period, however, which suggests that at other times those who depend on food banks do not get decent meals and a decent diet, and often go hungry. Evidence from the Trussell Trust suggests that about one third of the people who are dependent on food banks are children, and we all know that those who have a bad diet at the beginning of their life can face serious lifelong consequences.
I acknowledge that the reasons why people go to food banks are complex. There is a world economic crisis and increases in food prices at a worldwide level, so I do not pin all the blame on this Government’s policies. No doubt in the current global circumstances we would have seen an increase in food banks under any Government. I would, however, have liked to have heard some mention in the Queen’s Speech about policies that would serve to tackle child poverty and the scandal of so many in our society being dependent on food banks.
 
We might have reversed policies such as the 1% cut* in many benefits that passed through Parliament not long ago. Another broader area that has a direct impact on health is poor-quality housing and lack of housing provision. The situation has been exacerbated by the bedroom tax. There cannot be a single MP on either side of the House who has not been contacted by constituents who are suffering directly as a result of the introduction of the bedroom tax. I shall not comment on the tragic case recently reported in the media and which was mentioned earlier, but I know of plenty of cases in my constituency where people’s lives have been turned upside down by the bedroom tax. It often has a serious effect on their mental health and sometimes takes away their ability to work, which in turn affects their ability to feed themselves and their family and to meet their energy bills. So, too, does the fact that the bedroom tax leads to people losing benefits, but there was not a word in the Queen’s Speech to amend a policy that has increasingly been shown to be indefensible.

The housing problem is not just about homes being under-occupied. Many of us know from our own constituencies about the problems of poor-quality housing, overcrowded housing and lack of affordable housing. The Queen’s Speech did not give sufficient priority to addressing that. Yes, there were policies designed to support the housing market, some of which will have benefits as regards affordable housing, and I welcome that. However, the Government still seem desperately keen to promote a housing boom at the higher end of the market, because houses worth up to £600,000 will be eligible for their programme. Again, that is an example of the wrong priorities when the real priority should have been to tackle poor-quality housing, and not to force people into the terrible situation in which many find themselves because of the bedroom tax.

Another area where wider policies have a direct impact on health is employment. We all know that health and being in a job go together. In many cases, being unable to work or being in insecure employment is likely to be extremely damaging to health. I was taken by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) about workers on zero-hours contracts in the health service. That is not only bad for the health service but for the workers whose health may be directly affected by the insecurity of being in such a situation.

No matter what the official employment figures say, and they are bad enough, the reality of unemployment, low employment and under-employment is underestimated. In all our constituencies, people are working part-time when they do not want to and being forced to take large wage cuts. We have the spectre of people working on zero-hours contracts, returning to a day-labourer system where people do not know from day to day whether they will be in employment. If anyone thinks that that does not have direct effects on people’s health and well-being, they are deluding themselves. If we do not tackle these issues, there will be increasing health problems for many people in our society. That is why Labour’s job-creation programmes, which we will discuss in later debates on the Queen’s Speech, are so important. We also need international action, with a change in direction to get away from the austerity programmes that are causing so many problems and so much unhappiness not only in our country but throughout the rest of Europe.

Toby Perkins: The link between health and unemployment was addressed very well, under the previous model of the NHS, by Derbyshire primary care trust, which supported and funded programmes to get the long-term unemployed into work. This does not seem to be happening as much in the restructured NHS. Will my hon. Friend expand on the importance of getting the long-term unemployed into work and the impact that joblessness has on their health?

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Measures to address long-term unemployment and child poverty, to tackle housing inequality and poor housing provision, and to provide more security in jobs and housing and in other ways are some of the biggest things that could have been done to promote health throughout our country.
I wish that Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate on the Queen’s Speech and the debates leading up to it had shown as much concern and passion about these issues as they have with the in-fighting on European issues that has taken up so much of the internal debate within their party. I accept that in the past few hours we have heard mainly constructive and thoughtful speeches on health issues by Conservative Members, but I suspect that that is simply because the ones who are doing the plotting and the in-fighting are doing it elsewhere. It is a pity that more Conservative Members have not paid attention to the issues that the people in our country want addressed—health, employment and housing. In those areas we need a significant change in direction from the Government which the Queen’s Speech did not give us.

(* NOTE: The 1% increase in many benefits represented a cut in real terms)

Keeping the East Coast line public

I've blogged and spoken in Parliament on numerous occasions about the case for keeping East Coast trains publicly operated. Indeed, a few weeks ago there were even rumours in the media that even the government had accepted the case for keeping the line with the current public operator.

Unfortunately, they were just rumours, and the government has now announced it will be putting the East Coast line out to tender by a private operator again, aiming to have it start operating the line from just before the expected date of the UK general election in 2015. Ironical, then, that a recent report has just highlighted how advantageous to the tax payer has been the operation of the line in private hands over the last few years.

However, we're not giving up on the campaign to keep the East Coast rail lines operated by and for the public, and I welcome the campaign on this launched by my Edinburgh Labour MP neighbour, Sheila Gilmore. You can see more about that here.

5200 to be hit by bedroom tax in Edinburgh

This weekend, Edinburgh Labour is organising a big city-wide campaign on the 'bedroom tax'. So  I thought I would check on the latest figures for Edinburgh. And the figures are bad. Over 5,200 people living in the social rented sector in Edinburgh are likely to be hit by the Government’s ‘Bedroom Tax’ , including nearly 20% of Council tenants.

That is because they are considered by the government to be living in a home larger than they need or ’under-occupying’ and from the beginning of April their housing benefit will be cut to reflect that.
According to the latest figures from Edinburgh City Council, 5,263 Council or social landlord tenants are currently live in a bigger home than the government says they need.

4,529 live in a home with one bedroom more than they are said to need and another 734 tenants live in a home with 2 or more bedrooms more than the government says they should have.

Nearly one-fifth or 3,851 of the 20,331 Council tenants in the City are likely to be affected. And yet currently there are only 27 one-bedroom flats available to rent, either in Council or housing association property.

These figures show just how severe the impact is likely to be in Edinburgh. There is a real danger that people who see their housing benefit cut will either fall into arrears or debt and in extreme cases may even become homeless. This will hit the most vulnerable hardest – a parent who needs an extra room for children who they share custody of or a disabled person who sometimes needs an overnight carer.

The result of the ‘bedroom tax’ may be that people go from ‘under-occupancy’ to overcrowding, especially if they have to be rehoused in bed and breakfast accommodation.It will cause tremendous problems for local councils who will struggle to provide alternative accommodation and to cope with the effect on their finances if tenants fall into arrears or have to be rehoused in more expensive short term accommodation.

It highlights the desperate shortage of affordable housing both here in Edinburgh and across the rest of the UK but the Government seems to have turned its back on the problem and the people who will be affected by this.

Concessions announced this week by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions affecting foster carers and armed forces personnel are expected to have only marginal impact on the figures.

Bedroom tax rightly moves up political agenda

Like other Labour MPs, I've been highlighting the effect of the 'bedroom tax' is going to have on hundreds, maybe more, of people in my constituency. It was a major theme at Prime Minister's Questions this week, and Ed Miliband very accurately highlighted the effects that the new policy is going to have on individuals.

In fact, the government itself in its own 'impact statement' has told us how many will be hit, and how much they will lose out - see here http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-sector-housing-under-occupation-wr2011-ia.pdf

I think the government is now belatedly beginning to see how this policy is going to be widely unpopular, not only with those affected, but with those who can see the injustice. Otherwise why would see such crass statements as the suggestion from LibDem Work and Pensions Minister Steve Webb that people who had a spare room should try and work a few hours extra a week to pay for the cost of it! He may not realise, but many people on low income would love to be able to work for a few hours extra a week!

The change has gone though, so the government won't be changing the policy itself soon, I fear. However, it can save face by at least increasing the sums paid to councils for the 'transitional arrangements' to deal with the change - and the government in its own impact statement (see above) has said it will review the policy in 2013/14 or later. So it's important to keep up the pressure to make sure they do (1) increase, substantially, the transitional sum available, and don't phase them out; and (2) review the policy in a way that ends the injustice.

Slow train to High Speed Rail

The Transport Secretary told Parliament this week that his plans for High Speed Rail will mean High Speed trains for Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Newcastle. But he didn't make such a great play of the fact that we may be getting High Speed trains, but they will be travelling at normal speed, on existing lines, for half of their journey even when the proposed High Speed lines reach Manchester and York by their target date of 2033.

The plans announced this week include only a commitment to a 'study', which will then identify 'the remit for further work' for the options for full high speed links to Scotland and the North East of Scotland.

Of course, noone would want to go ahead with planning a high speed route to Scotland without being certain the right route and option was chosen. But I am disappointed that we are still some way off final decisions for a route to Scotland, and as a result even further away from getting the necessary legislation and funding in place. That's why although I welcome the announcement this week as a first step, I will still be campaigning for proper high speed links to Scotland. Our existing rail lines are already getting full to capacity in many places. The easiest way to provide new capacity on the scale that is needed is to include new lines as part of that strategy. It makes sense to make sure new lines are built for high speed trains - and that will also release capacity on existing lines for services that run at existing speeds, freight in particular.

Government failing on fuel poverty

Last week, Labour called a debate in the House of Commons on fuel poverty. Today is the day the 'Warm Front' scheme introduced by the last Labour government has been terminated by the UK government. The cold weather throughout the country highlights the way in which the new government has failed to bring its replacement, the 'Green Deal' into operation in time to take over from the Warm Front.

I spoke in the debate on this and other issues, and here is my speech:

It is a statement of the obvious to say that fuel poverty is a function of both the cost of fuel and the income of the household of the consumers involved. We all know that over the next few years there are going to be massive changes in the benefits system because of the Government’s welfare reform measures. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of them, which can be done on another day, but it is quite clear that such changes bring a great risk that those who are already vulnerable and on low incomes will lose out even more. That is true not necessarily because of the changes to benefits—I have said I am not raising that issue today—but because under any new system, major change or major upheaval in the applicable criteria bring the real risk of people falling through the net. Their applications for support from fuel companies might not get through at the right time.
That point has been made in an excellent report from Citizens Advice Scotland on energy issues recently brought to the attention of its citizens advice bureaux. The report states:

“With several years of upheaval ahead for the benefits system, suppliers should be proactive in monitoring usage, particularly amongst prepayment customers. Where customers are self-disconnecting, suppliers should proactively contact those customers…Arrears should be identified quickly by suppliers and communicated to customers to allow them to address the issue before the debt becomes unaffordable.”

 

I shall not go into any more detail, but this is a good report. I can send a copy to the Minister, who I hope will agree to read it and to take account of its suggestions. The Government must take that on board to ensure that what is being done through the green deal is closely linked to changes in the benefit system. This applies not just to the Government, but to suppliers, who need to keep an eye on what is happening.

My second point relates to the Government promise to make energy companies offer the lowest tariffs to their customers. I do not think we heard much about that in the Secretary of State’s opening speech, and there is still a lot of uncertainty, as we all know, about how that is going to operate. What still appears to be the case is that any benefits from that new policy will not go to those on prepayment meters—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I urge the Government to make it absolutely clear when this policy is developed that those on prepayment meters should automatically be given the cheapest tariff that the supplier offers. There should be no qualification or hesitation about that.

My final point relates to how the green deal will operate in Scotland. The Minister will know that, because the energy company obligation is a UK or Great Britain-wide measure while the green deal equivalent is delivered in effect by the Scottish Government, the responsibility falls on two Governments to ensure that the system works as effectively as possible. I raised this matter with the Minister, who was helpful in providing some information about it. I have to tell him, however, that there is still a great deal of uncertainty within the industry and among consumers in Scotland about how the green deal will operate in Scotland. That is partly because of the role of the different Governments and partly because of the need to work on solid-wall properties, reflecting the peculiarities of the Scottish system of property ownership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) will know, that can sometimes vary between different cities. I hope the Minister will ensure that attention is paid to making the green deal work effectively in Scotland and in all our constituencies. I am a great supporter of the principles behind the green deal. That is why I find it a tragedy that such a very good idea has not to date shown its full potential. As the Minister well knows, the Insulation Industry Forum has pointed out that although it strongly supports the green deal, “the delays in the Government’s implementation of it have now begun to destroy some of our businesses as well as undermining the Coalition’s green ambitions for the country.”
 
That is, as I say, a tragedy. I hope that the defects in the implementation of the scheme so far can be repaired, so that all of us who support the green deal in principle can see it bring the benefits that we want to all our constituents.

Time to get the investment into infrastructure

In the last Parliamentary week before Christmas, the first major vote will be on the so-called 'Growth and Infrastructure' Bill. In fact, most of it is really a 'Planning (England) Bill - and one of the few parts which is not is the proposal to allow/encourage/force workers to become 'employee owners' in return for giving up rights, as I commented on in my last post on this blog.

And that highlights the way in which both the UK and the Scottish governments have been so slow to actually get new infrastructure projects going, in spite of a lot of talk. The case for infrastructure investment at a time of economic downturn in particular is overwhelming. It means jobs, of course - and each extra person who is working means less money spent on benefits. Infrastructure investment should also bring its own financial return in the future to pay, directly or indirectly, for the initial cost. And of course it provides a boost to the economy at a time when there's talk of even a 'triple-dip' recession.

And yet in spite of all the talk of 'shovel ready' projects, there's been precious little actual activity on the ground even though there have been announcements promising action again and again since 2010. To be fair, the UK government has confirmed funding for super-fast broadband in Edinburgh and a number of other cities as one of the infrastructure projects, and there are to be new railway carriages on the East Coast and other lines. On the other hand, the government announced the extension of High Speed Rail from London to the North of England (HS2) as one of its infrastructure projects, but it's now clear that the project is stalling because of objections from within the Tory Party - and whatever happens, it's clearly going to be many years before any work starts on HS2 - it's certainly not going to mean jobs and economic benefit any time soon.

So there is still an urgent need for projects which will make a positive difference for jobs and growth quickly, to go alongside the longer term investments. One possibility is in energy conservation and efficiency, and the new 'Green Deal' along with the 'Green Investment Bank' could be important here, even though they were slow to get off the ground, and I hope that the Edinburgh community, public and private sector alike, can take advantage of these initiatives. Another one which I'm pleased to see the Scottish government has identified as a 'shovel ready' project - I hope it is - is the Port of Leith 'masterplanning' development amounting to £119 million.

But there must surely be other projects which could get under way soon here in Edinburgh. More investment in affordable housing, of course. Funding to complete the Water of Leith flood prevention scheme which the Scottish Government has so far not provided is another, and UK Ministers have said flood prevention schemes could be included in this type of infrastructure project. Proposals to upgrade local shopping streets including their local environment (eg roads and pavements, street furniture, and open space) must surely be regarded as projects which will bring an economic return in the future. And surely there must be historic buildings awaiting renovation or conversion which could now be given the go-ahead, where again investment now will lead to both economic and social benefits in the future.

Living Wage shows contrast with Tory/LibDems

This last week has showed up very clearly the real contrast between Labour and the Tory/LibDems in power. On Thursday, Edinburgh's Labour-led Council coalition used the opportunity of Living Wage week to confirm that from 2013, it would be fulfilling its manifesto commitment to introduce the 'living wage' for all council workers, guaranteeing a minimum for adult workers of £7.50 an hour. In so doing, they join 40 or so local councils, the vast majority Labour (but not only, of course - Edinburgh's commitment was a Labour promise, but I acknowledge it's one that has been accepted by its SNP coalition partners) who are making sure that their lowest paid workers are getting some more help at a time of rising prices and financial hardship for many people. £7.50 an hour is not a lot of money - but some Edinburgh council workers will gain up to £1000 a year, which will make a real difference.

Meanwhile, what was happening in Westminster? The Tory/LibDem government was pushing forward its proposals to allow employers to 'offer' their workers a'deal' where they gave up some of their employee rights (in areas such as unfair dismissal, for example), in return for 'employee shares'. I've been a great supporter of genuine employee share schemes and employee ownership, but it's all too easy to see how these proposals could be used to get workers to give hard-up employee rights in return for 'shares' of dubious value, quite likely untradeable, and which in a time of crisis for a business might prove worthless. And although the government says these arrangements would be voluntary, how voluntary would they really be? The government has made it clear, for instance, that businesses could make all new employees agree to such a terms - so the choice would be 'get a job, with shares but less rights', or no job at all.

My Edinburgh MP colleague, Ian Murray, spoke for Labour on these proposals in the Commons debate last Monday, and very effectively tore them apart.

It's been good to see that some of the country's biggest employers have given a very lukewarm response to the proposals, just as it's good to see that some major private sector employers have followed the example of Labour local councils in introducing the 'Living Wage' for their workers.

So Labour in power does make a difference - introducing a legal minimum wage when we were first in power after 1997, backing the living wage now - and standing up for workers' rights.

Crucial choices for rail links to Edinburgh

I recently attended the annual Edinburgh Festivals Forum, which gave an opportunity for a cross-section of Edinburgh organisations to discuss the current and future plans and outlook for Edinburgh's festivals. The discussion was useful, and amongst other things highlighted again (1) that it is Edinburgh residents who make up the biggest part of the audience for the festivals - we enjoy our festivals!; and (2) the importance of good transport links to Edinburgh, not just internationally but from the rest of the UK, to cater for visitors to Edinburgh.

That's why I've actively taken up in Parliament and outside issues concerning Edinburgh's external transport links. I've taken up issues about the future of the airlinks to Edinburgh related to the British Airways takeover of BMI (see here); high speed rail links to the South (see here); the future of the East Coast Main Line rail services (see here); and the future of the Scottish rail franchise (see here).

The most recent development in this field has been the decision by the Transport Department to award the contract for the West Coast Main Line rail services to First, replacing the current operator Virgin. There's been a lot of concern raised about this - First are offering a number of attractive service improvements, but they are also increasing the payback to the government, and questions are being asked about whether this can be done without leading to fare increases for passengers, and cutbacks in staff.

Time will tell who is right. Questions like these highlight, however, the defects in the current system of franchises and a mainly privatised railway. If the new franchise does go ahead, what I will be doing as an MP representing a city served by the route is campaigning to make sure Edinburgh gets the best deal from the new franchise. That  means keeping and if possible improving the frequency and speed of the existing Edinburgh-West Midlands services, making sure fares don't rocket, and good connections with local bus and train services, to make just a few suggestions. And staff working for the existing West Coast line need to have short and long term job security. I'd be interested in hearing from constituents what they think are the important issues for them for the future of these routes and I'll be happy to raise them with First, and the Transport Department.

Bob McLean - a sad loss

The sad death of Bob McLean which was announced this weekend has rightly brought forth many tributes to his life and work.

Bob was a lifelong political activist, in Scottish Labour, in the campaign for the Scottish Parliament, and in much more besides. I knew and worked with him in many of these aspects of his life, which have already been referred to in many tributes and obituaries.

However, I also came to know well and work closely with Bob in another part of his life, his work for Edinburgh City Council. Shortly after I became Chair of the then District Council Recreation and Leisure Committee in 1984, Bob was appointed to a new team recruited to promote the many activities of that department in a more outgoing and dynamic way. Bob took to that job like a duck to water, helping to organise and publicise programmes with an infectious enthusiasm and zeal. Whether it was ancient Chinese artefacts like the Emperor's Warriors, classical music concerts, modern popular art like the Thunderbirds, social history like the People's Story, summer holiday children's programmes, or tea dances in the Assembly Rooms, Bob would be using all his talents to encourage people to enjoy and learn.

In the best sense of the concept, Bob displayed a passion to make art and culture accessible and popular, without undermining its quality and integrity. That passion showed his commitment to democracy just as much as his commitment to radical socialism.

House of Lords reform

I've had a lot of constituents contacting me to ask for my views on House of Lords reform, so I thought I'd post this blog to set out my views in a bit of detail.

First and foremost, the House of Lords should be elected. The principle that those who make the laws with which the people are meant to comply should be elected by the people seems to me to be overriding. For that reason, I would prefer to see a House of Lords which is fully, that is 100%, elected.

Moreover, I am not keen on the idea that those elected should be so for one 15 year single term. It's easy enough for Parliamentarians to lose touch with the people who elected them after 15 months let alone 15 years. In addition, an important part of accountability for elected politicians is the knowledge that your tenure is dependent on the continuing support of the voters. I would prefer to see 5 year terms, just like the maximum for MPs. I realise that there could be a practical problem if the House of Commons is dissolved during its term for a period shorter than 5 years, but I don't see why of the Lords, or whatever the new Second Chamber is called, would have to have an early election as well. This could be linked to a term limit, so that members of the Second Chamber would have a limit on how many times they could stand for reelection - but a limit there should be.

There is also no need for a reformed House of Lords to have the numbers currently being suggested. The previous suggestion for 300 is high enough, if anything it is on the high side. The figure of 450 now proposed by the government is excessive, in my view.

Finally, there should be no reserved places for bishops. Many of the bishops who attend the Lords do offer an independent and critical voice, which has challenged over-mighty governments of all parties. Nevertheless, that challenge should ideally come from those whose independence and criticism is derived from a popular mandate. There is of course the additional objection that giving a privileged place to leaders of one faith group is of course discriminatory to other faith groups, and of course to those of no faith.

There are two issues concerning procedure which are also important. Firstly, relating to Parliamentary procedure - should there be a limit on debate, as the government will be proposing in a 'programme motion'? It is normal for important constitutional changes not to be subject to an overall time limit, so that MPs are not restricted in the time they can spend debating and asking questions. Whilst I realise there will be some who may try to use the lack of a limit as an opportunity to delay the Bill through lengthy speeches, the principle of not limiting debate on such important constitutional matters is one which I think should be maintained. It should be remembered that even without an overall time limit, the House of Commons rules still allow MPs to vote to curtail a lengthy speech, and/or to bring a particular debate to a close.

Secondly, there is the issue of whether the final proposals should be submitted to a referendum. Labour's position at the last election was that this should happen, and I think that the now well-established principle that major changes in the constitution should be submitted to the people for endorsement is one that should apply here also. Approval in a referendum would also be an encouragement to ensuring that the changes, if so approved, would then be implemented speedily.

In setting out my position on some of the key issues, I recognise however that there is always the danger that in seeking the best outcome there is a risk of no progress at all being achieved. For that reason, I would be prepared to accept some compromises (such as allowing a limited number of appointed members of the Lords, or Second Chamber), if that were necessary to reach a consensus or a majority to allow House of Lords reform to go ahead. I will therefore be voting in favour of the government's proposals on the 'in principle' Second Reading vote, and will then aim to see them amended during the detailed discussions which will follow, along the lines I've set out in this blog.

A vision for Leith Walk

I went along tonight to a meeting on "A Vision for Leith Walk", organised by local groups Greener Leith and Leith Open Space. More than 50 people to talk about their visions - big and small - for Leith Walk and the surrounding areas.

Leith Walk is a fascinating street - it's one of those streets where there will be a shop selling anything you could possibly want. It's had some hard times recently - the disruption caused by the preparations for the tram, which is not, for some time at least, going to be going anywhere near Leith. And on top of that the effects of the economic downturn. And yet there are only a handful of empty shops, even though I know many traders are struggling.

The full report of tonight's meeting will be published on-line by the organisers soon, and I'll include links when they area available. Tonight's meeting will be the first in a process, and I was pleased to see that all the local Labour councillors (and my MSP colleague Malcolm Chisholm) were there along with Labour's new Transport and Environment spokesperson, Lesley Hinds, who said she was keen to work to take the ideas forward.

However, I hope that we will now begin to see the type of action that Leith Walk residents, traders, and visitors have been calling for for many years. A 'vision' which is ambitious for the future, but at the same time tackle some of the urgent more simple issues. Cleaner and more pleasant streets and pavements, tidying up the mess caused by bins and litter, better cycle routes, more information from and for the local community about what is actually going on and is available in the area, an audit of existing community provision and community need. These shouldn't be too hard to start tackling now, and if the community, public bodies, and business can work together to do that, we'll be in a good position to work at and implement a longer term vision as well.

Supporting the Choose Charity Shops campaign

At the weekend, I visited the DEBRA charity shop in Raeburn Place, Stockbridge, in the heart of my constituency. The local DEBRA group had invited me to visit the shop, to back the UK wide Choose Charity Shops campaign, coordinated by the Charity Retail Association. Here's a link to the main DEBRA site here http://www.debra.org.uk/ (their Stockbridge shop is at 15 Raeburn Place).

DEBRA provides practical support and funds research into EB (Epidermolysis Bullosa). EB is name of a group of genetic disorders causing blistering and shearing of the skin from even the gentlest friction, often from simple day to day activities. DEBRA provides practical support and funds research into EB (Epidermolysis Bullosa),

The Charity Retail Association has said that charity shop popularity is at an all time high. Charity Shops raise over £200 million every year for a wide range of charitable causes and they also reduce the UK’s carbon emissions by 3.7 million tonnes every year through reusing items. They also support 17, 000 jobs and 180, 000 volunteering opportunities. Charity shops thrive on donations of unwanted items from members of the public, so that's why nearly 6, 000 charity shops in the UK came together in this campaign to ask members of the public to make a donation to a charity shop in their area and to continue donating to charity shops for the coming year.

I was glad to able to donate some items to the Edinburgh DEBRA shop, and hope that they, along with the other charity shops in Stockbridge and elsewhere in my constituency, continue to be supported by local residents and visitors alike.

What should be in the Queen's Speech (but almost certainly won't be!)

Five Labour Priorities for the Queen’s Speech:


• A Fair Deal on Tax. Alongside implementing Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth, Labour’s Finance Bill would reverse tax cuts for people earning over £150,000 a year. We would use that money to help pensioners on fixed incomes hit by the “granny tax” and we would restore cuts in tax credits which have hit families.

• A Fair Deal on Energy. Labour’s Energy Bill would break up the dominance of the Big Six power companies and require them by law to offer 4 million elderly people the lowest rate available.

• A Fair Deal on Transport. Labour’s Transport Bill would stop train operators raising fares by more than one per cent above inflation, stop them exploiting commuters with unadvertised rates and give local authorities more control over bus firms.

• A Fair Deal for Consumers. Labour’s Consumer Bill would give new powers to the Financial Conduct Authority and Competition and Markets Authority to stop rip-off surcharges by banks, low-cost airlines and pension firms.

• A Fair Deal on Jobs. Labour’s Jobs Bill would ensure some of the money raised from a tax on bank bonuses is used to provide real jobs, with real wages and responsibilities, to more than 100,000 young people aged 18-24.