The Case for Hospital Chaplaincy Services

The Welsh Liberal Democrats voted to withdraw NHS funding from hospital chaplaincy services this weekend at its Autumn Conference. Instead it wants to see chaplaincy services funded by a charitable trust. In reality, especially in Wales, this will mean the effective end of this service within our hospitals. This is in the context of the 2010/11 ONS Integrated Household Survey which shows that 66.1% of the population of Wales identify themselves as Christian with a further 3.4% identifying themselves as followers of other faiths (predominantly Muslim). This represents not only a potential defeat for the NHS Chaplaincy Service in Wales but a sad defeat for Liberalism in Wales.

For those of you not familiar with the background to all of this, hospital chaplains funded from the Health Service budget have been an integral part of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. This was a recognition that the NHS was there to provide for people's physical, mental and spiritual health needs. It recognised what in today's language we would call an holistic approach to health care. The role of chaplains is to provide both a pastoral service and to act as a conduit into the appropriate religious or faith communities. Originally, the service was Christian but more recently it has become a multi-cultural and multi-faith based service to reflect the modern society that Britain has become. So, there are Anglican, Roman Catholic and Free Church priests and ministers and also rabbis and immams. The service is continuing to evolve. I know from personal experience and from the many positive comments I hear in my role as a local councillor that the service is valued highly by those who've used it. This also includes those of no religious faith who value the pastoral role played by the service especially those who are very ill or terminally ill. Modern health care professionals are under great pressure and often simply do not have time to spend with patients. Chaplains are there to provide emotional care as well as spiritual care - many people need to talk through a wide range of life issues. It's often at times of ill health, stress and worry that people desperately need a pastoral service, especially if they have no family close-by to where they are being treated or no family at all.

And what does all of this cost? Well, in England the estimated amount is £29m and in Wales £1.3m. This is against a current total NHS budget of £104.3billion. So, good value for money on any objective measure. So, why are some people seeking to effectively abolish a valuable and valued service? The answer is a long running campaign by the National Secular Society, which amongst other objectives, seeks to challenge what it regards as "the disproportionate influence of religion on governments and in public life". It also seeks to counterbalance what it sees as "the more destructive religious impulses that can threaten human rights worldwide." In other words it is anti-religious and anti-faith. Abolishing NHS funded chaplaincy services is one of its current key campaigns and it has campaigned particularly hard in Wales to achieve this objective.

So far so good. In a free society the National Secular Society is perfectly entitled to promote its views and campaign accordingly and, as Liberals, we would defend its right to do so. However, let's not forget that secularism is a belief system in the same way that Christianity or Islam is a belief system. A liberal society is one in which the state is both neutral as to belief systems but which also actively enables its citizens to enjoy and exercise the rights and freedoms of a liberal society (as long as the exercise of those rights and freedoms does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens - a key principle from John Stuart Mill). From the time of the 'New Liberals' at the start of the 20th Century the modern Liberal/Liberal Democrat Party has largely accepted the philosophy of social liberalism. We have accepted that rights and freedoms are meaningless unless people have the practical means to exercise those rights and freedoms. The way we have made a reality of this principle is by funding public services from general taxation. As a result, public services expanded throughout the 20th Century and many of us are fighting to preserve those public services in the current economic climate. Hospital chaplaincy services are one of those public services. They enable those (a majority of the population) who identify with a faith community to be able to exercise their right and freedom to have a service that addresses their pastoral and spiritual needs and that helps to make a reality of their rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The National Secular Society and others of a similar view would argue that no-one is taking away anyone's rights. The argument is that if faith groups want to provide chaplaincy services then they should pay for them. They should not be treated as a public service. They argue that some of the faith groups have plenty of money (not true incidentally in Wales where the Anglican Church was disestablished as long ago as 1920). But this isn't about the faith groups, this is about the ability of the individual citizen in a liberal society to exercise their right and freedom to receive faith-based services in an NHS hospital (which they pay for through national insurance and general taxation). That's why chaplaincy services should be a public service. Very few, if any, Liberals would argue that Britain should be an exclusively Christian country - we have diversity as a core value. By the same token we should not argue for it to become an exclusively secular country. We should be here to uphold and make a reality of every citizens's rights and freedoms - regardless of whether they hold to a faith based view of the world or a secular/athiest view of the world. For one, I find it profoundly disappointing that the Welsh Liberal Democrat Conference has failed to uphold this key Liberal principle.

Cameron's Reshuffle Will Make Little Difference

Cameron's reshuffle (or shuffle depending on your view) is a classic example of politics 'in the bubble' of Westminster and Whitehall. In the big wide world that the rest of us live in life carries on and people couldn't care less about some Cabinet Minister they've never heard of being replaced by a new Cabinet Minister (who they've never heard of). Is the Government lurching to the right? Who's Up? Who's down? Who cares?

What people do care about is whether they and members of their family can get and keep a job, whether they can pay their utility bills, whether they can afford this week's food prices. Small businesses worry about whether they can get a loan from the bank, whether they can afford the rent on their premises or whether they'll still be in business in three months time.

The one reshuffle we needed was to see George Osborne shuffled out of his job at the Treasury. His record of incompetence in presenting and delivering the Government's economic strategy has been woeful - even some Conservatives accept this, but clearly not David Cameron. The last budget was a shambles as all of us who were trying to fight local elections found out to our cost. His reception at last night's Paralympics medal ceremony summed it up - he is completely out-of-touch and understands little about the lives of ordinary people.

I supported and support the Coalition for one reason and one reason only - in 2010 the Country was in a huge economic mess and just walking away and leaving it to a weak minority Conservative Government or trying to keep an exhausted and discredited Labour Party in power were not sensible options. Liberal Democrats had to act responsibly and we did. Even the Labour Party leadership accept that the budget deficit has to be tackled and despite all the sound and fury, the policies of the Government and the Labour Opposition are not that far apart on the issue of the deficit.

However, we won't make progress on reducing the deficit if we don't get the economy growing again. Instead our deficit could actually increase. George Osborne looks like a startled rabbit with no real idea of which way to jump. As Liberal Democrats we came into this Coalition to tackle the Country's dire economic situation and we mustn't give up on that. That means applying even more pressure on George Osborne and the Conservatives to deliver a credible and deliverable plan for growth, as Vince Cable has been arguing for some time. Enough of the excuses, of blaming the Eurozone crisis - the Chancellor needs to take responsibility and act. If not, it's time to get more assertive within the Coalition - we can't afford any more aimless economic sleep-walking from the Tories.

Nick Clegg's Leadership

Yesterday's newspapers have been full of speculation about Nick Clegg's Leadership of the Liberal Democrats with some voices within the Party calling for him to go. To go down this route seems to me to be nothing short of suicide. Like many others within the Party, I attended the Special Conference of the Party in Birmingham which approved the Coalition overwhelmingly and I don't remember many hands raised in opposition. Even with the benefit of hindsight I don't think we had much choice other than to go down the route we did. 

It's unfortunate that the Conservatives (including David Cameron) showed bad faith in the way they handled the AV Referendum and it's also unfortunate there's a significant minority of Tory MPs and others in the Conservative Party constantly looking to undermine the Coalition at every turn. It doesn't help. But perhaps it's now teaching us the difficulties of running a coalition with people who fundamentally don't agree with coalition politics because they are happier to be 'tribal' politicians.

The answer is to have a clear strategy for dealing with the Tories, be much smarter at communicating our key messages and more assertive in the way we push our policy agenda. Changing the Leader is not the way forward. So, I don't agree with those calling for a change of Leader for the reasons set out by Stephen Tall. However, that doesn't mean that we don't need change - we do! So, I very much agree with those voices, like Adrain Sanders MP, who are calling for Nick Clegg to get better advice and support on strategy and campaigning especially from those with broad based experience of the Party and who are in touch with the real world outside 'the Bubble'.

European Problems Need European Solutions

Both the Eurozone and the wider European Union face huge challenges. The bailout for Greece may soon be followed by a bailout for Spain and then, the question is: who's next after Spain? Meanwhile, economic growth throughout the EU faces stagnation with all the consequences involved including large-scale unemployment and lack of business growth. It's hard to to argue that the response within the EU so far has been either adequate or strategic. Individual Member States are trying to battle through on their own whilst Germany and France struggle to come to terms with the scale of change that is required in respect of the future development of Europe. All of us in the EU need those changes to take place so that we can get back on the road to prosperity. In this thoughtful piece, Chair of the European Movement UK, Petros Fassoulas argues that now is the time for  European solutions to European problems.

We Need a Fairer Tax System

In an interview with The Guardian yesterday, Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, called for an emergency wealth tax so those who are best able to, should make a bigger contribution in shouldering the current economic pain. His comments have met with the usual knee-jerk reaction from a selection of both Conservative and Labour politicians. Conservatives such as Bernard Jenkin have dismissed it as "the politics of envy" whilst Labour politicians have questioned why Nick Clegg wants a wealth tax on the one hand but has supported a cut in the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%. Yet others have questioned why Nick Clegg has left it till now to make the case for a wealth tax.

Liberal Democrats are often taunted by their opponents saying: "What's the point of the Lib Dems - what do they stand for?...not a lot etc etc." Well, taxation is an area where we offer something different and have done for some considerable time. The Conservatives have consistently looked after those with entrenched wealth whilst pretending to look after ordinary people and small businesses. They are still at it - see The Telegraph. George Osborne's comments are disingenuous. Liberal Democrats do not advocate 'hitting the wealth creators'. Meanwhile Labour are the people who do hit the wealth creators by consistently having high income tax rates and high capital gains tax rates on entrepreneurs (who create and grow businesses and create new jobs).

Liberal Democrats and Liberals have long supported taxing wealth and not income generation. As far back as the second half of the 19th Century this has been a hallmark Liberal view, famously expressed by the Liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mill. His argument was that large amounts of unearned and inherited wealth had an overall negative effect on the economy and should be taxed in order to produce positive economic and social benefits for the wider community. What should not penalised by heavy taxation was work, investment and entrepreneurial risk taking.

It is truly unbelievable that Labour seemingly cannot understand the difference between taxing income generation and taxing wealth. As a Partner in a family business myself, I experienced at first hand an increasingly onerous taxation system developing for small business during the 13 years of Labour Government. Most small and medium sized businesses were at their wits end with the burden of keeping up with tax changes and increasing regulation. Meanwhile Gordon Brown abolished the 10% rate of income tax hitting hard pressed low paid workers and pensioners with savings. And what did Labour do about taxing wealth? Nothing.

So, good for you Nick in putting wealth taxes on the agenda. Even some of those who are certainly not natural Liberals have supported the idea including WPP Chief Executive Sir Martin Sorrell and the New Statesman. And for those critics who say it's bit late in the day for Nick Clegg to be raising a wealth tax. Well, it's fair point in one way but remember that this isn't a Liberal Democrat Government - it's a Coalition Government with a Conservative Chancellor. There is little doubt that wealth taxes would have been implemented by a majority Liberal Democrat Government.

It's about time, as a Country, that we had a debate about wealth taxes. If we want a fairer tax system, then we have to stop penalising those who create wealth. Instead we need to make sure that those with unearned or inherited wealth pay their proper share of the cost of running and maintaining a decent, civilised society -and, no, before the scare stories start in papers like the Daily Mail - we're not talking about taxing people who want to leave their home to their children. 

Given the scale of the financial and economic challenge we face, I don't think the issue will go away. Further cuts to welfare, on top of those already proposed, are unacceptable and we must avoid new taxes for the country's entrepreneurial wealth creators, So, in looking to raise tax revenues we will need to look at wealth taxes as well as, crucially, getting the economy growing again. Interestingly, even George Osborne appears willing to consider a wealth tax (a so-called mansion tax) - see Nick Robinson's comment. If we're really "all in this together" as David Cameron claims, then this Government needs to look at fairer taxes - now.

Review the West Coast Rail Franchise Decision

Ever since the news broke on 15th August that Virgin Rail had lost its bid to continue running the West Coast Mainline, there has been a high profile campaign to overturn the decision. This now includes an on-line petition which has currently been signed by over 150,000 people. You can see and also add your name to the Petition by clicking HERE. 

At one level this can be seen as just a fight between two commercial rivals. Sir Richard Branson of Virgin wants to retain the franchise and has said that Virgin would "almost definitely back out" of bidding for any further franchises. The new franchise holder will be First Group which has said it will  "offer substantial improvements in the quality and frequency of services".  First Group already operates a number of rail routes including Great Western and ScotRail. The Company, under the name First West Coast Limited, will take over the franchise from 9th December and is due to operate the service until 2026.

So, what's the problem? If First Group can offer the Government (and so the UK taxpayer) more money and provide a better service, isn't that a good thing? Well, yes - but only if First Group can actually deliver what it promises. Unfortunately, there is previous history with the failure of rail franchises - both GNER and National Express outbid Virgin for the East Coast Mainline but then both failed, leaving the Government to pick up the pieces.

Sir Richard Branson and also the rail unions are asking a legitimate question. Do First Group's figures stack-up? Will First Group have to cut costs by reducing service levels and cutting staff pay or working conditions? As a long time user of First Great Western services (where during the current Great Western franchise many rail users have experienced problems with the quality of service), I would certainly want to know about the robustness and enforceability of First Group's service quality commitments for the West Coast Mainline. First Group says it can deliver - but then so did GNER and National Express. The Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, says she will push on with the new franchise (see HERE) and that it represents "a good deal for taxpayers." 

It all raises a central question: Can tendering really produce good long-term results where the overriding criteria for judging bids is the price? I'm strongly of the view that the answer to this question is no and I would argue that the evidence supports this view. Whether it's GNER, National Express or G4S, poor pricing and/or poor delivery will end up costing us as taxpayers when the contract fails. Isn't it time to look at the model of not-for-profit trusts to run rail services? In this way we can run the services for public benefit without the problems we had with the nationalised industries.

In the meantime, we're stuck with franchise bidding and Justine Greening refusing to look at the issues again. That's why I agree with the calls being made to re-examine the evaluation of this franchise. And that's why I've signed-up to the on-line e-petition. I hope you'll sign up too.

Have We Become a Corporate State?

An interesting and thought provoking post on Liberal Democrat Voice. Click HERE.