UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • John Major – 1985 Speech on Fuel Poverty

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Major, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in the House of Commons on 16 December 1985.

    I listened with interest to the hon. Members for Ceredigion and ​ Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand and share many of the concerns which they have expressed and congratulate them on the way in which they have expressed them.

    The issues raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North ranged wide and covered both fuel policy and the alleviation of poverty. He spread the net even wider by referring to draught proofing, housing and a variety of allied matters. I propose to refer briefly to energy prices, although strictly speaking they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I propose to devote most of my remarks to the help given to the less well-off through the social security system, but I shall attempt to touch upon the specific issues raised by the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and for Gordon.

    Both hon. Members mentioned the projects that have been undertaken by various neighbourhood energy action groups. There is not a great deal that I can say about them this evening, save that I recognise the good work that has been done by the groups. Decisions have yet to be taken on how they will be funded in future. That is a matter that we are considering. I hope that it will be understood that I can go no further than that this evening.

    The hon. Member for Gordon referred to some of the absurdities of the exceptionally severe weather payments and the disapproval last year which that method of making payments received in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will know that the chief adjudicating officer issued fresh guidance about the payments only recently. We are considering the guidance and the future of that form of assistance with heating bills. The hon. Gentleman will know that last year the payments amounted to only £1·7 million, while administrative costs were £1 million. I mention those figures, not to denigrate the help that was given, but to put them in the context of the £400 million worth of heating addition payments to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North illustrated the extent to which the cost of fuel is relevant to those on low incomes. I accept that view. It is an important view, and I accept what he had to say on that score. Fuel is clearly a basic necessity, especially for the elderly and the sick. I recognise the concern that is felt by many on low incomes when it comes to paying for fuel. I shall come to what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under our new proposals to try to alleviate that concern.

    Reluctant though I am to do so, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North about the term “fuel poverty”. It is a phrase which is often used these days, and upon examination it is a rather curious concept. The general idea of poverty itself is far from straightforward. We can recognise it, but it is not always easy to define it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the standard rate of supplementary benefit for adults has more than doubled in real terms since 1948 and that this benefit is the primary means of alleviating poverty, and has been so under successive Governments for some years. Yet the hon. Gentleman talks of fuel poverty. We do not hear a great deal about clothes poverty, or food poverty, but fuel poverty appears in a rather curious fashion to have developed a life of its own. Fuel, like clothes, food and all the other necessities for rich or poor alike is paid for out of people’s normal income.

    I recognise that individual need for expenditure on fuel can vary, but that is true of other necessities. I do not wish to make too much of what may seem to be a matter of semantics, but it is often misleading to talk about fuel poverty as if it were some special breed of poverty that necessarily requires different measures from those that are generally used to support the less well-off. An effective attack on poverty, which we all wish to see, comes in many guises—for example, benefit rates, control of price increases, economic stability and economic growth. Energy prices are a part of that tapestry, but only a part.

    Although the general financial framework within which the gas and electricity industries operate is agreed with the Government, price increases remain a matter for the industries themselves. The Government do not set prices and do not have the power to so. Tariffs must reflect the industries’ costs and provide a proper return on the substantial capital resources that they employ.

    They are not a means of indirect taxation. I call in evidence to support my proposition the relatively low level of price rises in recent years, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North acknowledged. They have been below the rate of inflation in the past two years and charges have therefore fallen in real terms. After allowing for inflation, the price of gas to the home is roughly what it was in 1970.

    The hon. Member for Gordon addressed himself to standing charges. I know that these charges have been a cause of deep concern to many for many years, especially to the elderly. The charges reflect the necessary cost of keeping a supply available to the consumer in his own home for 24 hours a day. They cover the maintenance of the connection, meter reading, accounting, billing and emergency services. The costs arise no matter how much or how little gas or electricity is consumed by the individual householder.

    The abolition of standing charges, although self-evidently attractive in some ways, is not an easy option. It would cost the gas and electricity industries more than £1·1 billion a year in lost revenue. Abolition for pensioners alone—if we could determine which pensioners should have abolition, whether it should affect people living on their own and all the other details that must be decided—would cost about £300 million. That lost revenue would have to be recovered by substantial increases in unit prices, which would penalise many of those who, through age, sickness, infirmity or some other reason, need more heat, even though they may be among the least well off.

    That raises the question, which may have flashed through the mind of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, whether there should be special tariffs or free allowances for people on low incomes. That has been considered in the past, but successive Governments have concluded that it would be an expensive, ill-directed and probably ineffective means of helping those most in need. In 1976, the Labour Government announced that they had reviewed possible help through concessionary or restricted tariffs or free allowances of gas and electricity. Their conclusion—I quote from the report’s foreword which was written by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—was that these did not offer

    “a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills”.

    I am sure that the right hon. Member was right, and I suspect that the Liberal party thought so too, because, as far as I am aware, it expressed no contrary view at the time. Successive Governments have therefore taken the view that help is best given through the social security system. That help is considerable.

    More than £40 billion is spent on social security—about a third of all Government spending. We have kept the major benefit rates ahead of the rise in prices during the lifetime of the Government and, because of the increases in benefit last month in line with inflation, we increased our spending by a further £2 billion a year. The main help for the less well off with their day-to-day living expenses, including fuel costs, is through the standard weekly rates of supplementary benefit. Those rates increased by 6 per cent. in real terms between November 1978 and November 1984 and were increased again last month in line with inflation. They have doubled in real terms since 1948, and I think that every hon. Member welcomes that.

    On top of those benefit rates, we provide extra weekly help for those with special needs. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned people with special needs—the elderly, the very young, the sick and the disabled. Each is entitled to heating additions. Last year we spent more than £400 million on those heating additions, which is £140 million more in real terms than any previous Government have spent at any time. Since 1979, we have extended the help available. In November 1979 we introduced a basic rate of heating addition for pensioner householders over 75. Over the years, we have extended the age range so that this now takes in pensioner householder over 65. We have introduced a similar addition for the under-fives. Last November, we introduced a new higher rate of heating addition, worth well over £200 a year—a considerable sum—payable automatically to householders over 85. We have also assisted disabled people. Since 1980, we have paid a higher rate of heating addition automatically to severely disabled people people on supplementary benefit who receive attendance or mobility allowance or its equivalent. Last month, we introduced a further measure—automatic entitlement to a basic rate heating addition for sick and disabled householder claimants on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. As a result of these changes, we estimate that 60 per cent. of all people on supplementary benefit and 90 per cent. of supplementary benefit pensioners now receive a heating addition. That is a dramatic improvement on the position before 1979 and represents a considerable attack on what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to as “fuel poverty”.

    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the White Paper proposals. I should like to explain why we felt it right to move forward and reform these arrangements, as announced in the White Paper which was published today. The answer is that heating additions are merely a means of giving more help to certain groups of claimants who may have extra heating needs. The additions are better, in our view, than tariff adjustments and certainly better than nothing, but they are not the only, or necessarily the best, form of assistance.

    Heating additions are a rather curious mixture. Many are paid automatically on grounds such as age, but others involve detailed questioning on matters such as the claimant’s health. There is a complex array of rates, rules ​ and regulations. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North did not feel that the White Paper would be an improvement on the present rather muddled situation. He asked me whether I was conscious of the need to modify policy to match reality. That is what we believe the White Paper is doing. I hope that, upon reflection, it will be shown that we are right, although I acknowledge that it is a controversial issue at present. In the White Paper we are proposing an income support scheme to replace the current weekly supplementary benefit. Income support will continue to provide set allowances for normal living expenses, including fuel costs. There will also be premium payments for families, pensioners, sick and disabled people and lone parents to help with the extra expenses that those groups tend to have—including extra heating costs. That will mean a system that is simpler than the present one. It will be easier for the public and staff to understand. It will cut out much of the intrusive questioning that now takes place—I think that everyone will welcome that—and it will also effectively direct extra help to groups of people who are likely to face extra expenses.

    As I said in the House only a couple of weeks ago, the fact that we shall not call the premiums “heating additions” does not mean that they do not exist, that the cash is not in the claimant’s pocket and that it cannot be used towards fuel costs. We believe that income support will, in future, be a better means of delivering that help and we intend that the money spent on heating additions will be included in the resources available for the new scheme. Nor are we alone in that view. The Social Security Advisory ​ Committee commented similarly on the Green Paper in June. The committee welcomed the idea of premium payments in income support for different groups. Moreover, the Select Committee on Social Services said that it

    “broadly accepted the principle of premiums reflecting the additional needs of individual client groups”.

    Therefore, I think that a substantial amount has been done, is being done and will continue to be done to meet the needs of people who face difficulties with fuel poverty through poor or low incomes. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will accept that we are sincere in our intention to help those people meet the difficulties that they face.

    I also hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of the approach that we set before the House in the White Paper today and that we shall seek to carry through in a Bill early in the new year. I am confident that when the House debates the Bill, it will take that view. I hope that it will carry the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues with it at that time.

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern that people should be able to afford adequate heating. We share that concern and we shall continue to offer substantial assistance to that end, but we shall do so in a way that we regard as simpler and more effective than the current system. We believe that our proposals will meet those criteria and I hope that in due course they will be endorsed by the House and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North who raised the subject.

  • Geraint Howells – 1985 Speech on Fuel Poverty

    Below is the text of the speech made by Geraint Howells, the then Liberal MP for Ceredigion and Pembroke North, in the House of Commons on 16 December 1985.

    When the unnaturally cold spell hit us in November, many thousands of householders up and down the country were alarmed, for they saw ahead of them yet another long, dreary winter following on a cold and wet summer, with the ever-rising fuel bills that this means. This thought is depressing enough for the moderately affluent among us, but for those on the poverty line, or beneath it, it spells disaster and, for many, the inevitable cutting off of supplies because of the lack of ability to pay.

    The Electricity Consumers Council recently issued disconnection figures up to 30 September of this year which show that the number of disconnections in England and Wales is now running at nearly 100,000 a year. The Liberal party commission on poverty in 1982 pointed out that one quarter of all local authority tenants are the victims of fuel poverty, while a further quarter are potential victims.

    Age Concern tells us that seven years ago it was estimated that 90 per cent. of elderly people were unable to heat their homes up to the required 70 deg F to keep themselves warm and healthy in the winter months, and there is very little evidence that the position is improving. The consequences of inadequate heating for the elderly are often illness and, in some cases, death. We are all familiar with the sad stories of old people shivering in their poorly heated houses, terrified of the financial consequences of turning up the heat. Fuel costs have risen steeply in the last decade, and although prices have levelled off somewhat during the last two or three years the overall rise in the cost of fuel and light in real terms during the decade was 37·4 per cent., far outstripping other items in the household budget.

    The people who have suffered most from the increase in fuel costs are inevitably the poor. They tend to live in bad housing, with inadequate insulation, often with the additional problems of dampness and condensation. They are seldom able to choose the kind of heating that they want and often end up with expensive and inefficient heating systems. This leads to a ridiculous situation, where those who can afford it least have to pay the most to keep themselves moderately warm. It is no wonder, therefore, that this leads to a failure to pay bills and to consequent misery.

    We believe, as do the charities, that the White Paper that was published today will do little to help. Indeed, we feel that the difficulties will be even greater, both for the low paid who cannot heat their homes and for those charities that are involved in insulating several thousand homes in Britain.

    The abolition of additional payments, including heating allowances for supplementary benefit claimants, will have serious consequences. The replacement of supplementary benefit by a system of income support containing a theoretical heating component may sound reasonable, but in practice it will lead to some very unpleasant choices for many households where budgets are strained to the limit. It could well be a stark choice between eating and keeping warm, with disastrous results for vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly.

    I am also extremely alarmed that all other heating benefits to households, with special problems—those with young children or with ill, disabled or elderly people—will be abolished merely as an administrative convenience. It is also obvious that the abolition of single payments will jeopardise the future of insulation projects run by charities such as Neighbourhood Energy Action. In fact, the “Right to Fuel” campaign has said that DHSS single payments account for 80 per cent. of all insulation work carried out by the NEA.

    Since 1981, this excellent group has carried out 120,000 jobs and has helped the elderly and disadvantaged to get the benefit of home insulation. At the same time, it has created about 2,500 jobs under the Government’s community programme. Furthermore, it has opened up a new and thriving market for insulation projects. Will that work now be put at risk?

    I believe that the present Administration, in their unseemly scramble to save money wherever they can at any cost, are in danger of reinforcing their public image as an uncaring, unsympathetic Government who are so intent on introducing tax cuts before the next election that they are careless of the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.

    The White Paper represents a lost opportunity. It should have made an attempt to tackle the problem of fuel poverty, and it should have recognised the crucial role that single payments play in keeping the poor warm. The Government should take positive steps to make resources available for a special fund, as recommended by the Neighbourhood Energy Action movement, to provide a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to the insulation needs of the poor.

    On a wider scale, greater efforts should be made to improve the housing stock and to ensure that building improvements and renovations are not subject to a crippling tax. Age Concern, a leading charity in the care of the elderly, has made many useful recommendations that the Government could well take on board and which would prove beneficial to all impoverished sections of society. It recommends that there should be mandatory payments for special circumstances, such as higher fuel bills in exceptionally severe weather. There should also be payments for draught proofing materials and insulation, repairs to heating appliances and so on.

    I also believe that there should be a uniform and humane policy throughout Britain on disconnection procedures and repayment facilities, and that special payments should be made for reconnection. Fuel bills should be paid when disconnection may cause serious risk.

    Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government are conscious of the need to modify their policies to fit the realities of life? After all, even the poorest among us are entitled to the basic requirements, including adequate heating. It is wrong that so many in this affluent society must face a miserable existence, and in this season of good will I hope that it will be possible for the Government to show just the smallest glimmer of compassion.

  • Harvey Proctor – 1985 Speech on St Andrew’s Hospital, Billericay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harvey Proctor, the then Conservative MP for Billericay, in the House of Commons on 13 December 1985.

    This is the first occasion upon which I have sought to raise a matter on the Adjournment of the House. I do so now because of its importance and significance to my constituents. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health replied on 3 December to the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). Both debates have their origin in the decision of the Basildon and Thurrock health authority to reorganise health services in its district. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply on 3 December, the health authority’s proposed changes form a wide-ranging package of proposals and are largely interdependent, one upon the other.

    The proposals are contained in a document from the health authority that is entitled

    “Consultative document for the reorganisation of hospital services, particularly involving the maternity, gynaecology, paediatric, regional plastic surgery/burns and some geriatric services and thereby the closure of in-patient facilities at St. Andrew’s hospital Billericay and changes to Orsett and Basildon hospitals.”

    The previous Adjournment debate revolved around the proposal that, for clinical reasons, inpatient maternity services should be centralised on one site, namely Orsett hospital in my constituency. That decision has met with the approval of my constituents in the Thurrock part of my constituency, but understandably it has met with the disapproval of my constituents who live further away from Orsett hospital —in Laindon, Wickford and Billericay.
    However, I wish to concentrate today on the proposal of the health authority, contained in its option 5, to close St. Andrew’s hospital in Billericay and transfer the regional specialty units of plastic surgery and burns to Basildon hospital. It is this proposal that has met with universal condemnation not only from my constituents in Billericay but from across Essex and the country.
    Several of my colleagues have generously given their support to opposing these proposals. My right hon. Friend will have seen the terms of early-day motion 99. It has been signed by eight other right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who I am glad to see has joined our debate and who, with the agreement of the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will say a few words in support.

    I have received over 600 personal, individual letters opposing the proposals. That is an enormous mailbag on any one subject. I have received nine petitions, including one from the Federation of Essex Women’s Institutes that is signed by 4,200 people. More than 20 separate organisations have registered their opposition with me. The consultants’ staff committee for the district is also opposed to the recommendations. On Monday I shall help to deliver a petition to the health authority that contains over 80,000 signatures. In total, that represents locally the strongest, unified body of opinion placed before me since first becoming a Member of Parliament in 1979. To that body of opinion I wish to add my support and hence this Adjournment debate.

    I have had three separate meetings with county councillor Mrs. Joan Martin and Mr. Richard Taylor, the ​ chairman and the administrator of the health authority. I thank them for their courtesy and frankness. I plan to meet them again after the consultation ends on 21 December —on 13 January. I urge all my constituents who have not already done so to let the health authority know their feelings before the 21 December deadline.

    Let me try to explain briefly to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health why we all feel so strongly, although I appreciate that he will not be able to comment in any detail. St. Andrew’s hospital is old. The oldest part of the site dates back to 1840 and some accommodation is contained in temporary huts erected during the second world war. But it is a well loved local hospital with a deservedly high reputation and, with the plastic surgery and burns unit, a reputation far beyond the bounds of my constituency. However, most of the buildings on the site are in good condition, with the exception of the emergency medical services wards, and a considerable amount of money has been spent on the site and the hospital in recent years.

    The hospital is well sited geographically. It is convenient. A recent survey shows that if the services are transferred to Basildon, 57 per cent. of current patients would experience an increase in return travelling time of an extra one hour and 26 minutes every time they visited the hospital. Basildon would be only marginally faster for only 23 per cent. of current patients.

    Inevitably, a move will risk the break up of the team of specialists in various disciplines so important to the super specialities which operate at St. Andrew’s. The team includes not just the consultants and surgeons but the physiotherapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists and nurses, all of whom have pooled their expertise. A move will inevitably loosen up that team for no good purpose.

    On 3 December my right hon. Friend said that we have to achieve a proper balanced judgment which will ensure

    “efficient use of resources to the benefit of everyone concerned.”

    However, a central plank of the current proposals is the move of a purpose-built burns unit which was opened only three years ago. It is the ideal burns unit format, separate and isolated from other services. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend was wrong on 3 December when he inferred that burns patients would be rehoused

    “in modern buildings more suitable for the practice of modem medicine.” —[Official Report, 3 December 1985; Vol. 81, c. 279–-80.]

    Option 5 of the health authority report clearly envisages that the burns unit will be placed in existing ward accommodation vacated by the maternity unit. That is completely unacceptable. Cross-infection would be much more difficult to prevent and it would be a wholly backward step.

    My right hon. Friend knows well the problems of recruitment for the NHS. Yet the Billericay site, I am pleased and not at all surprised to say, is the easiest site in the district for which to recruit. I am told that Basildon is not good and that the difficulties at Orsett are appalling. That is a fact which must weigh heavily with my right hon. Friend.

    Remarkably, option 5 did not take into account another hospital in Billericay, the Mayflower. The 75 long-stay geriatric beds there in an old building must sensibly be considered as must the question of whether the 35 acute ​ geriatric beds at St. Andrew’s hospital should not be placed at an acute hospital as best medical experience advises.

    All the consultants at St. Andrew’s hospital have supported an alternative proposal involving the closure of the Mayflower hospital for long-stay geriatric patients, as envisaged in the district strategic plan for 1983–93, the transfer of those beds to a redeveloped St. Andrew’s and the switch of the acute geriatric beds to Basildon hospital, where there is no geriatric provision. The alternative has been submitted to the district health authority for consideration and I believe it to be a well-argued document.

    If the proposals go through unamended, there will be a threat to voluntary endeavour. Building the burns unit cost £1·2 million, of which £400,000 was raised by the spectacularly successful burns unit appeal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point for all that he did to get the burns unit established and for his help with that spectacular appeal.

    Is that endeavour to be wasted? Not only will those who gave their time, effort and money feel hurt, offended and angry, but the goodwill that was generated will disappear. People in Billericay and Essex generally will never again respond to help the NHS and I, for one, would not blame them.

    I have said outside the House, and I should repeat for the record, that we are not talking about cuts, although our political opponents will muddy the waters by suggesting that we are. In fact, we are talking about how sensibly to spend increased sums of money on the Health Service locally. We must remember that there is no limit to the amount of money that could be spent. The level is an arbitrary one and a matter of political judgment. Locally, we must get the best deal in the best interests of the patients. They must come first.

    As a Government, nationally we have done well. We have 58,000 more nurses and midwives, over 5,000 more hospital doctors and dentists, 3,000 more family doctors and over 13,000 more radiologists, laboratory technicians and other professional staff than were in place in 1978. They are all caring for patients. Government spending on health services has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms. This year, the NHS will receive over double the amount provided by the Labour Government in 1978–79.

    We must ensure that the money spent locally by our health authority is well spent. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will realise that I mean no disrespect when I say that I hope that these local matters do not come to him for his decision. I hope that cold logic and rational argument will win the day with the health authority. However, the Minister now knows the strength of feeling on the issue; that feeling will not abate until St. Andrew’s hospital and the burns unit are saved.

  • John Cartwright – 1985 Speech on St Nicholas Hospital, Plumstead

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Cartwright, the then SDP MP for Woolwich, in the House of Commons on 12 December 1985.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the intended closure of St. Nicholas hospital. I am also grateful for the visible support of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). I hope that he will have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the course of the debate. If he does, he may speak not only for himself but for his hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). I appreciate and value the support that the hon. Members have given in the campaign on behalf of St. Nicholas hospital. Their support has demonstrated that this is an all-party campaign, and underlines the fact that the hospital serves not only my constituency but neighbouring areas.

    This is the third occasion on which I have raised the question of the future of St. Nicholas hospital on the Adjournment. That illustrates the long-standing campaign waged against it by Health Service officials and the sheer determination of local people to keep it open.

    It is worth putting the current problems into perspective. The first formal attack on St. Nicholas came as long ago as 1971 from the former south east regional hospital board. Its plan died with the board’s demise in 1974, but the vendetta against St. Nicholas continued. The new Greenwich and Bexley area health authority issued a formal consultation document in November 1976 proposing the removal of all acute services from St. Nicholas. Despite massive public opposition, the closure of all beds at the hospital was confirmed by the authority in July 1977. The problem then landed on the desk of the Secretary of State the present Lord Ennals. To his credit, he received several deputations, consulted widely and visited Plumstead to see for himself, not just the hospital but the area it serves. As a result he declared in December 1977:

    “I do not believe it can be right to close the hospital and I am unwilling to do so.”

    He justified that decision by producing what is arguably the most quoted statement about the hospital in its long and distinguished history. He said:

    “St. Nicholas is a valued hospital, well situated to service a community whose population is growing. It is in Plumstead where social conditions are poor and there are many old people living in bad housing. It is also central for Thamesmead, a locality of industrial development.”

    In May 1978 after further detailed discussions and some deliberation, the Secretary of State announced his final decision. He endorsed the plan put forward by the South East Thames regional health authority. It was intended to turn St. Nicholas from a district general hospital into a community hospital. The blueprint for the transformation was clear and detailed. In its new role, the hospital was to provide, in the words of the then Secretary of State,

    “out-patient and minor casuality facilities; theatre and supporting services for minor surgery with about 20 beds; 20 to 25 general practitioner medical beds; and the present 41 geriatric beds with perhaps the addition of some further geriatric beds. Consideration should also be given to the establishment of a psycho-geriatric day centre.”

    I admit that I was disappointed and somewhat cynical about that outcome. To me, trusting St. Nicholas to the ​ tender mercies of those Health Service mandarins who had always wanted to close it was about as sensible as trusting Little Red Riding Hood to the wolf.

    Lord Ennals did his best to reassure me. In a personal letter dated 10 July 1978, he wrote:

    “I really do not think it right to contend that the change of use of St. Nicholas hospital means its eventual closure. I told the health authorities that I am not willing to agree to closure and I know that they will make every effort to develop practicable arrangements which will enable the hospital to continue. I cannot believe that the inevitable transitional problems cannot be solved and I am sure that St. Nicholas can become a viable community hospital which will complement the District General Hospitals in the Area and give valuable service to the people of Plumstead and Thamesmead.”

    Unfortunately, my pessimistic forecast turned out to be more accurate than Lord Ennals’ optimistic predictions. It was only four years after his decision that the health authority once again recommended total closure of the hospital. In the meantime, it had never allowed the hospital even to try to carry out the tasks that the Secretary of State had mapped out for it. It starved it of resources, refused to let it provide the range of services included in the 1978 decision, and, far from developing the hospital, pursued a policy of systematically removing one after another of the vital elements of the 1978 package.

    First came the closure of a minor surgery department. Then the number of general practitioner beds was cut. A continued rundown of out-patient facilities culminated in the transfer of two ear, nose and throat clinics to the Brook hospital. Then came the abrupt closure of the “walking wounded” accident department. In none of those cases was there any public consultation. The closures were regarded as temporary, and not therefore subject to the formal procedures. In act, they were widely seen for what they were—a deliberate campaign by the Greenwich health authority to run down St. Nicholas by back-door cuts and thus to achieve the total closure that it had been denied in 1978.

    In 1982 people in the authority finally took their courage in both hands and once again started the formal procedure to shut down the hospital. Then they became embroiled in a complex argument with the Bexley health authority over the division of the financial spoils expected to result from closure. That arose because between 60 and 66 Bexley patients are being cared for in geriatric beds in Greenwich hospitals. Bexley wants to provide for them in its own area, but it cannot do so until it gets its hands on a substantial slice of cash from Greenwich. The Bexley plan was to provide extra geriatric beds at Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup and to create 26 new beds at Erith and district hospital, originally by 1988–89. However, we now hear that the Erith scheme is being put back, apparently as far into the future as 1993–94. Bexley is therefore left with a maximum of 34 geriatric beds at Queen Mary’s in Sidcup in which to accommodate some 60 to 66 patients now in Greenwich.
    Most people would regard that as too much of a tight squeeze, but Bexley health authority officials apparently believe that it is possible because what they charmingly call their throughput is considerably higher than that of Greenwich. That seems a somewhat insensitive approach to the care of the elderly and a rather doubtful proposition. It also totally ignores the fact that many of those elderly folk come from Erith, Belvedere and Welling in the ​ northern part of the borough, an area which is far better served by the nearby St. Nicholas hospital than by one in faraway Sidcup. In fact, I understand that some elderly people discharged from Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup find their way into private nursing homes, and as a result are even further away from their homes and relatives than in Sidcup.

    The Bexley patients are vital to the future of St. Nicholas hospital. If beds cannot be found for the old folk who are now cared for in the Brook and Memorial hospitals in Greenwich, the space that is needed will not be released to accommodate the Greenwich patients who now occupy St. Nicholas hospital beds.

    The negotiations between the two district health authorities have been a long and drawn out affair. As long ago as 17 December 1984 the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), in his role as a Department of Health and Social Security Minister, wrote to me and said:

    “I am concerned that there should not be any further delay in making the decision on the future of St. Nicholas. It is important that Greenwich and Bexley health authorities agree between themselves at an early date on the amount of revenue to be transferred for geriatric services currently provided to Bexley residents from St. Nicholas. I will ensure that South East Thames Regional Health Authority is ready to arbitrate between the two authorities if agreement is not reached soon.”

    I understand that the negotiations are still not complete. The Minister gave that assurance over a year ago. Nobody can accuse the authorities concerned of intemperate haste.

    May I offer what I hope will be a sensible and helpful suggestion to the Minister. Given that the Erith provision will not be available until 1993–94, is it not possible to provide funds to enable the Bexley health authority to take over beds in St. Nicholas? There is plenty of accommodation in St. Nicholas. Could not some of the beds there be allocated to Bexley to provide for those old folk who will otherwise have to be accommodated at Queen Mary’s hospital?

    I very much welcome the action that the Minister has taken so far. He has not rubber stamped the closure decision; he has asked serious questions about the future of patient care if St. Nicholas is closed. It is not just geriatric patients who will be affected. In its comments upon the closure proposal, the Greenwich and Bexley family practitioner committee questioned the sense of spending considerable capital sums upon providing extra outpatient and paramedical facilities in other hospitals if St. Nicholas was closed, particularly if this would involve patients in long and difficult journeys. The family practitioner committee supported at the very least the retention of full outpatient and diagnostic services at St. Nicholas.

    It is also worth recalling that 54 local general practitioners who had used the general practitioner beds at St. Nicholas oppose both the closure and the resulting transfer of those beds to Greenwich district hospital. Their comment was revealing. They said that there was a crying need for beds for the elderly, whose primary need was care rather than high technology medicine or surgery. St. Nicholas could play that complementary, supportive role, with great benefit to the two district general hospitals. Many of the routine, minor accident cases could be dealt with at St. Nicholas instead of lengthening the queues at the Brook or the Greenwich district hospitals. The pressure on beds at the two big general hospitals could be eased if none acute cases and care were available at St. Nicholas.

    My constituents are incensed by the fact that St. Nicholas is not being allowed to fill this role. They want to know what on earth the point is of lengthy and detailed public consultation if a health authority can then ignore its results as blatantly as the Greenwich health authority has done in this case. St. Nicholas is ideally sited to serve not just my constituents in Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Thamesmead but many more people in the neighbouring areas of Belvedere, Welling and Erith. It is ridiculous that these potential patients and their families should be forced to undertake costly and difficult journeys to Sidcup, just because of the bureaucracy of health service boundaries.
    We are not asking for the hospital to be retained in its present form. We understand that the nature of the site makes it extremely expensive to run, but it should be possible to use some of the buildings and some of the land to provide the basic essentials that are needed by a viable and effective community hospital. That would release a substantial area of land to help with the funding of the necessary capital expenditure.

    None of the factors that led Lord Ennals to rule against the closure in 1978 has been removed. The population is still growing, particularly in Thamesmead. There are still large numbers of elderly people. There are still substantial areas of old housing. And growing unemployment has done absolutely nothing to improve the social deprivation in the area. If anything, the case for St. Nicholas is stronger today than it was in 1978.

    I applaud the Minister for the action that he has taken so far. I urge him to follow the example of his distinguished predecessor and come and see for himself. He will find that the case for St. Nicholas rests not on loyalty to a much loved local institution, powerful though that is, but on the sheer hard fact of the need for health care in the area that St. Nicholas has served for so long and that it should be able to serve in the future.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2019 Speech on NHS Procurement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Independent MP for Bury South, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    I requested this debate this afternoon not only to put right a wrong that has been done to a long-established business in my constituency, but to highlight wider issues about Government procurement policy, particularly in relation to the national health service. The Government rightly talk about delivering a Brexit that supports UK businesses, jobs and our standard of living. However, this sorry story illustrates how, even before Brexit, we are unable to create a level playing field for our companies, let alone back them up. In this case, the EU cannot be blamed for a lack of transparency or fair competition, or for the exclusion of a UK company from an NHS preferred supplier list.

    Under NHS ProCure22, the Department of Health and Social Care appointed Kier as a tier 1 provider to decide who should be the preferred providers for floor covering in NHS facilities. In May 2018, without any competitive tendering or other transparent process, it was announced that three overseas companies would be on the preferred supplier list—two French companies, Tarkett and Gerflor, and a Swiss company, Forbo. James Halstead, a UK plc from my constituency with a 50-year track record of supplying NHS institutions was not on the list or even given the opportunity to tender or participate in dialogue with Kier.

    Halstead is highly successful global business that we are proud of in Radcliffe, with a global turnover of £250 million and a UK turnover of £83 million. The NHS currently accounts for approximately 15% of that UK turnover. A significant proportion of that is now at risk, and there is the also potential reputational damage of being excluded from the list for unstated reasons. Many NHS organisations are understandably asking Halstead why it is not on the list. That would be bad enough in any circumstances, but things have been made worse by the recent track record of the three overseas companies.

    In October 2017, the three companies were found guilty of price fixing over a 23-year period in France, and the French competition authority fined them a total of £302 million. They were found to have discussed minimum prices, price increases, sales policy and other sensitive information, such as their trading volumes. The French regulators discovered that the companies had also exchanged confidential, recent and detailed information on their sales volumes and commercial forecasts. That information was exchanged through the SFEC, a sectoral trade union in France, which was in charge of collecting the information and sharing it with manufacturers. It is surprising—some would stay staggering —that seven months later these same companies were given a monopoly as preferred suppliers for the NHS. In addition, it is worth noting that Tarkett pays no UK taxes whatsoever. To be clear, it is not breaking any laws in doing so, but that does not mean that there are no ethical and fairness issues.

    I have several questions for the Minister, and if he is unable to answer them today, I would be grateful if he would write to me in detail. What criteria did Kier use ​to draw up the preferred supplier list? In the absence of competitive tendering, what process did it use? Why were Halstead and other suppliers not included on the list or given the opportunity to put their case? What consideration was given to the probity of the three overseas companies in view of the sanctions imposed on them in France?

    Will the Minister assure me—this is incredibly important—that Kier will be instructed to add Halstead, and any other appropriate company, to the list as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister initiate a review of all such NHS contractor lists with a view to identifying how many are drawn up without a competitive tendering or transparent process? Finally, will the Minister issue an instruction in due course that NHS staff and third parties, such as tier 1 providers, appointed on the NHS’s behalf to commission goods and services should have a duty to be proactive in encouraging UK companies to apply or bid, depending on the relevant process?

    I believe that this case has wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement policy than simply the effects on the business in my constituency. I want to make it clear that this is not about saying that, in an unlawful manner, the NHS or the Government should favour UK companies over foreign companies. That is not the case whatsoever, so officials should not try to deflect us away from the substantive issues here. The issue is that a UK company with a good track record, a history of financial probity, and quality goods and services should be on this list. It has never been sanctioned by any regulatory authority. In contrast, these three overseas companies were significantly sanctioned, less than a year before the NHS’s decision, for price fixing—basically operating a cartel in France—over a 23-year period.

    Clearly this is not a matter of direct ministerial responsibility and, having been a Health Minister, I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for individual procurement and tendering decisions, but Ministers are responsible for policy and oversight in this area. There has either been incompetence by those charged with these responsibilities or, frankly, something stinks in Kier’s decision-making process in this case.

    I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister responded to my substantive points, considered the wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement and put right, as a matter of urgency, the wrong done to Halstead plc in my constituency.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2019 Speech on Funding and Maintenance of Local Roads

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP for Nottingham South, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the 10th report of the Transport Committee, “Local roads funding and maintenance: filling the gap”, which we published on Monday. The successful preparation of all our reports depends on the hard work of the Committee’s Clerks and staff, the diligence of the Members who make up our Committee—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) in the Chamber—and the generosity of our witnesses, who give up their time to prepare for and take part in our sessions.

    I particularly thank Paula Claytonsmith, Lynne Stinson, Lynne Wait and Anne Shaw for ensuring that we heard expert female voices in a male-dominated sector. I am sorry that the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), cannot be here today, but he has conveyed his sincere apologies, and I am sure he will pay close attention to Hansard tomorrow.

    There is a plague of potholes blighting our local roads and pavements. This is not a new phenomenon, but one that successive Governments and councils across the land have failed to tackle. The consequences of this failure are all around us—we see them every day. I want to talk about the impacts of poor road and pavement conditions, why Government and local authority actions to date have been ineffectual and our report’s recommendations for tackling the problem.

    On my journey to work, here in Westminster and out and about in my constituency, I see many examples of cracked and crumbling roads. Just today, a constituent emailed me about Green Lane in Clifton. Last week, Westminster City Council filled a pothole just around the corner from the Department for Transport that I had ridden into on my way home—I confess that it caused me to use some very unparliamentary language.

    Our witnesses told us about the serious impacts that potholes have on the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and other road users. For example, poor pavements can strand older, frail and vulnerable people in their homes. Living Streets has found that nearly a third of adults over 65 felt reluctant to leave the house on foot due to the volume of cracks and uneven surfaces on surrounding streets, and almost two thirds of older people were ​worried about the state of street surfaces. Nearly half said that well-maintained pavements would make them more likely to go for a walk. Poorly maintained roads create real risks for vulnerable road users. DFT data shows that the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured due to defective road surfaces more than tripled between 2005 and 2017.

    Local authorities must compensate motorists for damage to vehicles resulting from poor road conditions, and the cost of doing so has risen dramatically in recent years. Kwik Fit has estimated that the damage caused to vehicles from potholes in 2017 cost £915 million to repair, an increase of more than a third on the repair bill in 2016. Based on its share of Britain’s car insurance market, the AA has estimated that 3,500 claims had been made for pothole damage in 2017. The cost of this compensation ultimately falls on taxpayers, and it diverts money away from funding vital public services.

    One of the most frustrating things about poor road conditions—this came through very clearly in our evidence—is the lack of any consistent reporting tool that drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and other road users can use to report problem potholes. Some councils have their own online tools, and there are nationwide sites such as FixMyStreet, but there is a lack of transparency around the whole reporting process, little clarity about what will be done and no guarantee that people will get a reply. Mark Morrell—“Mr Pothole”—for years a doughty campaigner against the pothole scourge, made a powerful case to us to fix this.

    Why, year after year, do these problems persist? Why have successive Governments and local councils not done anything about them? In truth, they have tried, but their efforts have been inconsistent, and as a result the outcomes have been sub-optimal. They are constrained by three key things: funding, information and collaboration.

    The key issue is funding. For decades, councils have complained that they do not have the funding to undertake a preventive—and, ultimately, cheaper and more effective—approach to maintaining their local roads and pavements. Successive Governments have responded to this by providing short-term, stop-start capital pots, such as the pothole action fund. Any extra funding is of course welcome, but the wrong funding in the wrong place at the wrong time means that councils simply mitigate the most obvious damage. It does not encourage the more effective, proactive maintenance that is the key to the long-term renewal of our local roads, as we heard from council after council.

    The second issue is that councils sometimes do not have a full picture of the state of their road networks. If they do not know what they are dealing with, how can they plan and price maintenance properly? This lack of knowledge can be improved by innovating in data collection methods. There has been good work in this area in recent years, and there is a real desire on the part of Government and industry to work together to find solutions.

    We heard about a similar willingness to innovate in the third area—good practice and collaboration. There is a real opportunity for initiatives such as the use of recycled plastic, self-repairing technology, graphene and even drones to bring down the cost of road repairs. We heard about the innovation and good practice going on across the country, but it was not always easy for this to be shared beyond individual councils and regions.​

    Our report makes a series of detailed recommendations to the Government to tackle these problems, and I want to highlight four of them. First and foremost, funding: there is not enough of it, and what there is is not allocated efficiently or effectively. Local government revenue funding has fallen by about 25% since 2010. The allocation within it for local roads is not ring-fenced, and it is often used by councils to plug gaps in other budgets. Capital funding, through the pothole action fund and other pots, is sporadic and time-limited.

    To tackle this problem we recommend a front-loaded, long-term funding settlement for local councils in England. The DFT should champion it, and the Treasury should seriously consider it as part of the forthcoming spending review. This would enable local authorities to address the historical road maintenance backlog and plan confidently for the future. The settlement should not only include capital pots managed by the DFT, but roll up into a five-year settlement the revenue support elements of roads funding administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This critical funding reform must not be an excuse for a budget cut.

    Secondly, innovation is essential if the efficiency and effectiveness of local road maintenance is to continue to improve, which it must in the face of limited funding. It is right that the Government stimulate and encourage innovation, but the value for money of any investment is properly repaid only when new technologies, ideas and ways of working are scaled up and made available to all. In the light of this, we have recommended that the DFT work across government to collate all innovation funding for local roads in one place, establish as far as possible common rules for bidding and properly assess the benefits of innovation initiatives.

    Thirdly, local authorities will be able to make better use of available funds for road maintenance only if they can target such funding well, and this requires good data. The DFT needs to be clear about whether the data it receives from local authorities on road conditions is consistent and allows valid comparisons to be made. It needs to be clear what it does with such data, how it is analysed and what action is taken on the back of the conclusions it draws. The DFT should also make it easier for the public to report road condition concerns and access local authority road condition data. We recommend that it does this by running an innovation competition to develop a platform the public can use to make online reports about road conditions directly to their council and to access real-time local road condition data.

    Fourthly, making the best use of the available funding requires the sharing and adoption of good practice in road maintenance. This is a key role for central Government. The DFT should commit to monitoring and reviewing the current approach and reporting within two years on its effects and impacts. Local councils and industry are developing good practice in highway survey and maintenance. However, from the evidence we have received, it is not always clear that this is being widely shared. Regional highway alliances should be sharing good practice and benchmarking it against one another. The DFT could do more to facilitate this—for example, by providing a virtual good practice toolkit and repository, so that councils across England can find examples of good practice.

    In conclusion, local roads are the arteries of prosperous and vibrant villages, towns and cities. They are critical to the movement of goods, as well as helping people to ​get around. The consequences of a deteriorating local road network are significant. It undermines local economic performance and results in direct costs to taxpayers. The safety of other road users is seriously compromised. This plague of potholes is a major headache for everyone. It is time for the Government to be bold, to take up our recommendations and to give councils the funding and the wider system of support that they need if they are to deliver for our constituents the roads and pavements they deserve.

  • Sajid Javid – 2019 Statement on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2019.

    The Government deeply regret what has happened to some members of the Windrush generation and when I became Home Secretary I made clear that responding to this was a priority. The compensation scheme I launched in April is a key part of this response.

    The compensation scheme has been open to receive claims since April 2019 and the Home Office is now in a position to start making payments.

    Specific legislation to give direct financial authority for payments made under the scheme will be brought forward to Parliament when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, it is lawful for the Home Office to make payments for compensation scheme claims, without specific legislative authority for this new expenditure. As Home Secretary I am able to consider other factors, including the sound policy objectives behind the scheme and the importance of righting the wrongs suffered by the Windrush generation.

    I have therefore written to the permanent secretary today formally directing him, as accounting officer for the Home Office, to implement the compensation scheme for the Windrush generation and to ensure that compensation payments can be made pending the passage of the legislation. The exchange of letters relating to this direction can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/correspondence-on-the-work-of-the-home-office-windrush. This direction has been issued on the basis of regularity.

    I am committed to providing members of the Windrush generation with assurance that they will be appropriately and promptly compensated where it is shown that they have been disadvantaged by historical Government policy. A direction to proceed is therefore optimal to ensure the Government are acting in the best interests of affected members of the Windrush generation.

  • Dan Carden – 2019 Speech on the Counter-Daesh Update

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Carden, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. However, while the update is welcome, may I point out ​that it is only the second statement to be made in the House in the 365 days since 4 July last year, although the Government promised quarterly reports to keep the House updated?

    We welcome the destruction of Daesh’s final enclaves in Syria. We know that Daesh is a threat to us all and that it must be defeated wherever it emerges. Just today, news reports have revealed the uncovering of another mass grave in Raqqa; 200 corpses have been found, and it is feared that more will follow. The dead, thought to be victims of Daesh, include bodies found in orange jumpsuits, the kind typically worn by their hostages.

    Let me pay tribute to the UK forces who have put their lives on the line and show gratitude—as the Secretary of State did—to the Kurdish forces who have taken such huge risks in leading the fight against Daesh. Will the Secretary of State now reassure the House that the Kurdish community will not be abandoned or left vulnerable to attacks by Syria or Turkey? He mentions Yazidis, Christians, Shi’as and Sunnis in his statement, so will he tell us what he is doing to support the protection of all communities in the region?

    There is also the question of the ongoing role of our forces. The 2015 motion that set down the terms for our engagement in Syria to eradicate Daesh’s safe haven in Syria and Iraq was worded in such a way as to avoid an ongoing military conflict in the region. Will the Secretary of State now set out the purpose of our forces, given that their original purpose of defeating Daesh’s safe haven has been achieved? Does he believe that the original mandate has now expired and that therefore a renewed mandate for military action—and clarity on the role of special forces—is required for continued UK engagement in the region?

    Let me say a few words about the ongoing conflict in Syria. There remain serious concerns for civilians in Idlib. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that there are safe corridors for civilians to leave, given that the United Nations has warned that up to 700,000 people could flee Idlib as refugees? Given that dozens of health facilities have been damaged and destroyed in recent months and more than half a million civilians have been unable to access vital medical care, what steps are the Government taking to encourage parties to the conflict to adhere to international humanitarian law and protect civilians?

    Last month, I was lucky enough to meet members of a delegation from the Syrian Women’s Political Movement. They spoke about their experiences of being denied their rights to employment, education and medical care and facing sexual and gender-based violence and exploitation. They called for increased women’s representation in peace negotiations and decision-making positions. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to respond to their calls?

    As for Iraq, does the Secretary of State share the growing international concern about the arbitrary, draconian and legally unsound way in which the Iraqi authorities are conducting trials of alleged jihadist collaborators and the resentment caused among the Sunni community in the country?

    What discussions are taking place about the huge number of detained suspected Daesh fighters? More than 55,000 suspected fighters and their families have been detained in Syria and Iraq. Most of them are citizens of those ​two countries, but overall they come from at least 50 countries. More than 11,000 relatives are being held at the al-Hol camp in north-eastern Syria. Michelle Bachelet, the UN human rights chief, has said that the relatives of suspected fighters should be taken back to their countries of origin. Does the Secretary of State agree with her call?

    Let me finally raise the issue of Daesh’s ongoing influence beyond the physical battlefield. The Secretary of State has spoken today about Daesh’s physical territory, but its influence online is an ongoing threat and deeply worrying. What are the Government doing to work with our allies to ensure that action is taken by social media companies so that Daesh cannot find new safe havens online to spread its hatred?

  • Rory Stewart – 2019 Statement on the Counter-Daesh Update

    Rory Stewart

    Below is the text of the statement made by Rory Stewart, the Secretary of State for International Development, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the campaign against Daesh, which recently controlled a third of Iraq and Syria—an area the size of the UK—but which has now lost its final piece of territory in Baghuz, Syria. Its sudden rise and fall—morally troubling, profoundly threatening and almost unprecedented—carries deep lessons and warnings for Britain and indeed the nations of the world.

    As recently as 2003, the borders of Syria and Iraq were stable. Secular Arab nationalism appeared to have triumphed over the older forces of tribe and religion. Different religious communities—Yazidi, Shabak, Kakai, Christian, Shi’a and Sunni— continued to live alongside one another as they had for more than a millennium. Iraqis and Syrians had better incomes, education, health systems and infrastructure than most citizens of the developing world.

    By 2014, all this had changed, partly because of the Iraq war, partly because of the Arab Spring in Syria, but in great part because of the astonishing rise of Daesh. Just three years after the withdrawal of the coalition in 2011, a movement initially founded by a tattooed, drug-taking video store assistant from Jordan had, following his death, captured Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul and Palmyra, torn off a third of the territory of Syria and Iraq and created an independent Islamic state of eight million people. It was a state with endemic poverty and struggling public services defined not just by suicide bombs but by a vicious campaign against religious minorities. Well-established borders between nations were obliterated. A few hundred men routed three divisions of the Iraqi army. Secular nationalism was swept aside by a bizarre religious ideology.

    No one in 2005, and very few in 2010, would have predicted the success of that movement. There were, of course, many reasons to fear an insurgency in north-east Syria or Iraq. People felt little loyalty to the lamentable Governments in Damascus and Baghdad, with their anti-Sunni discrimination, corruption and poor provision of services, but there was initially very little reason to believe that people would support Daesh rather than other insurgency groups.

    Indeed, Daesh’s imposition of early medieval social codes and horrifying videos of slaughter of fellow Arabs seemed to most Iraqis and Syrians profoundly irrational, culturally inappropriate and deeply unappealing. Its military tactics seemed almost insane. It deliberately picked fights not only with the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, but with Jabhat al-Nusra, the Free Syrian Army, Shi’a communities as a whole, the Iranian Quds Force and the Kurds, who initially tried to stay out of the fight. It finished 2014 by mounting a suicidal attack on Kobane in Syria in the face of over 600 US air strikes, losing many thousands of fighters and gaining almost no ground.

    All of this, which should have been Daesh’s undoing, seemed at times simply to encourage tens of thousands of foreign fighters to join it, and they came not only from very poor countries but from some of the wealthiest countries in the world—from the social democracies of Scandinavia as much as from monarchies, military states, ​authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies. Part of its success was notoriously connected to social media. It was the first terrorist movement that really flourished on short, often home-made, video clips, on Twitter rants and on Facebook posts from the frontline. It grew far more quickly, and survived far longer, than any diplomat, politician or expert analyst predicted.

    The options that seemed available to defeat this kind of movement in 2008 were no longer available in 2016. Eight years earlier—or, in our case, six years earlier—there had been a full-spectrum international counter-insurgency campaign that relied on overwhelming force, huge investments in economic development, 100,000 coalition troops, eight years of coalition training packages and almost $100 billion a year of US expenditure. But that approach ultimately failed to create stability in Iraq and there was no appetite to repeat it in 2016. The US and its allies did not want to deploy troops on the ground in Syria and very few near the frontlines in Iraq, and no one was advocating nation building in the middle of another war.

    Instead, the counter-attack on Daesh in Mosul was led by the Iraqi Government. Initially, this did not seem very promising. The Government appeared to lack the capacity and will to restore even the most basic services to communities in Fallujah or Ramadi. They were backed by unreliable Sunni tribal leaders and by Iranian-supported Shi’a popular mobilisation forces, which alienated and terrified the local populations. Kurdish Iraqi forces also seemed unwilling to fight Daesh in Mosul. The coalition provided training to Iraqi forces but on a much smaller scale than during the surge. Daesh had laid mines throughout the urban areas and was fighting for every inch of ground.

    It is remarkable, therefore, that Daesh was ultimately defeated. This was largely due, on the Syrian side of the border, to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and, on the Iraqi side, to the counter-terrorism force, which at times was enduring casualty rates of almost 40% of its combatants. Iraqi forces regrouped and retook Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul by early 2017, while the forces in Syria had retaken Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor by 2018.

    Whereas during the surge the UK and its allies had been intimately involved in trying to reshape the Iraqi Government and security on the ground, our recent involvement has been less extensive. Rather than on nation building, since 2014 it has focused on £350 million of humanitarian aid in Iraq to provide healthcare, food and shelter. We have provided almost £1 billion to Syria over the last four years, including £40 million in aid to north-east Syria in 2018, which is going towards mine clearance, the immunisation of children, clean water, food and shelter.

    This assistance continues. In Syria alone, there are 1.65 million people in need, while over half a million have been forced to flee their homes. Unexploded munitions and mines remain a major issue. In Iraq, 4 million people are returning home having been forced out. Nevertheless, this aid is on a much smaller scale than that which was provided by civilian officials from 2003 to 2011, our embassy and associated staff are much smaller, there are no longer coalition civilian outposts in every province, and the coalition and indeed the Iraqi ​Government are a long way from being able to take on the task of reconstructing the shattered remains of Mosul.

    What lessons can we draw? First, the hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops committed by the coalition in Iraq from 2003, and more intensely from 2008, were not sufficient to create a stable civil service, a flourishing and sustainable economy, strong institutions, security, or any of the ingredients of a well- functioning state. This suggests that even the best-resourced foreign intervention may not be able to reconstruct a nation in the context of an insurgency. Secondly, local forces with a light foreign support may be able to achieve far more than people anticipate. Paradoxically, the Iraqi operations may have been effective not despite the lack of support from the west, but because of the lack of support. Operating with much less foreign assistance may have given the Iraqi and Syrian forces far more legitimacy, flexibility, control and sense of responsibility.

    Thirdly, the sudden rise and sudden fall of Daesh illustrate the extreme fragility of many contemporary societies. The entire political-economic context was and remains so fluid and so open to exploitation, with so little deep institutional loyalty or resistance, that it was terrifyingly easy for an insurgency group to establish themselves on both sides of the border. They may have lost their territory for now, but the underlying conditions remain and could allow insurgents to establish themselves again. Even without holding territory, Daesh remains a significant terrorist threat.

    Finally, in a context so inherently unpredictable and unexpected, Britain and its allies need to stand in a state of grace, preparing for the unexpected. We need to keep a close eye on countries that may seem temporarily at peace, continue to invest in the development of countries that may seem no longer to need development and continue to deepen our knowledge of countries that may not seem to be a priority today, while retaining our linguistic expertise and, above all, nurturing our relationships with people in those countries and with potential coalition partners such as the US and France and, in a different context, Germany.

    Whether in north-east Nigeria, in Somalia or Libya, in Afghanistan or Mali, the key to our response will never be the amount of money that we invest or the number of troops that we deploy. It will be the depth of our understanding and the care and subtlety with which we respond: our ability to deploy development, defence, intelligence and economic levers, diplomacy and a dozen other tools, rapidly and precisely, not overruling other Governments, but supporting them in the right way at the right time with prudence and economy.

    That is why I must close this Daesh statement with deep respect for the courage of our military forces, the skill of our diplomats and the generosity of our development programmes, but above all with deep respect for the people of Syria and Iraq who were in the heart of this fight, who gave their lives, who led this response and who provide us with an example of how we can act as partners with energy, but above all with humility. I commend my statement to the House.

  • Norman Lamb – 2019 Speech on Whistleblowing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls for a fundamental review of whistleblowing regulation to provide proper protection for a broader range of people.

    I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for his support in making the application to the Backbench Business Committee and all the other MPs who supported the application. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, the Chair of which is sitting in front of me, for enabling this incredibly important debate to take place. I want to start by telling four brief stories to illustrate why facilitating whistleblowing is so important.

    I was the Minister in the then Department of Health who initiated the review led by James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, of the horror of what happened at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. In his report from June last year, the very first chapter deals with the nurses who tried to speak up in 1991 about what was happening in that hospital. However, the report refers to the silencing of those nurses’ concerns and to a patronising attitude towards them, although they were trying to do the right thing. The consequence of not listening to those nurses is the extraordinary and horrifying conclusion of the report, which is that over 450 older people died following the inappropriate prescribing of opioids. These old people had gone in for rehabilitation but came out dead.

    In this context, we can often be talking about life and death situations, so enabling and empowering people to speak up can literally save lives. That, at its most clear and stark, is why this matter is so important. The horrific scandal at Gosport hospital could have been stopped if those nurses have been listened to, but they were not, and that is an outrage in itself.

    Scrolling forward to 2013, Dr Chris Day, a brave junior doctor working in a south London hospital, raised safety concerns about night staffing levels in an intensive care unit. It is in all our interests that brave people should speak out about safety concerns in any part of our health service, but perhaps particularly in intensive care units.

    What happened to Dr Day, because he spoke out, is wholly unacceptable. He suffered a significant detriment. His whole career has been pushed off track, and his young family have been massively affected. Junior doctors in that unit were put in the invidious position of being responsible for far too many people compared with national standards, so he pursued a claim against both the trust and Health Education England. The NHS spent £700,000 of public money on defending the claim and, in large part, on attempting to deny protection to junior doctors who blow the whistle against Health Education England. Lawyers, disgustingly, were enriched.

    Late last year, the tribunal that eventually heard Dr Day’s case ended early after he was threatened with a claim for substantial costs. He and his wife could not face the prospect of losing their young family’s home, so he caved in. That is surely scandalous treatment of a junior doctor. He was defeated by superior firepower. ​We have the grotesque spectacle of the NHS, of all organisations, deploying expensive QCs to defeat a junior doctor who raised serious and legitimate patient safety issues.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work on Dr Chris Day’s case to get the answers we deserve on how he has been treated. Many whistleblowers face an inequality of arms at tribunals. They have often lost their job by that point, and they face a very difficult situation, with highly paid QCs running rings around them, which is often the result of employers trying to find loopholes in the law to avoid liability.

    Norman Lamb

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support in pursuing the Dr Day case, and I completely agree with the points he makes.

    Sir Robert Francis, in his 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report, spoke about how NHS whistleblowers who had given evidence to him overwhelmingly experienced negative outcomes, and he talked of a hostile culture of fear, blame, isolation, reprisals and victimisation—in our NHS, for goodness’ sake.

    Those stories continue. The impact on individuals can be devastating and profound. They can be ostracised, abused and disadvantaged in their career, with dire consequences for their mental health. One nurse who tried to expose wrongdoing said, “I would never put myself in that position again. I would rather leave.” What a damning indictment of how we treat people in our treasured and cherished public service.

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

    The right hon. Gentleman and I have both worked on the general issue of whistleblowing. I pay tribute to his leadership on the matter, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The right hon. Gentleman is making some very good points, and we know two things. First, we know there is strong concern across the country about how whistleblowers are being treated. We see it in the west midlands, and he is articulating the point. Secondly, we know whistleblowers help to ensure proper accountability and transparency. In my view, the work that he and others are doing on whistleblowing has not received anything like the amplification it requires.

    Norman Lamb

    I totally agree with the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, and he makes them well. I will come on to discuss them in a moment.

    Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) rose—

    Norman Lamb

    I will give way briefly, but I am nervous about the Deputy Speaker and overstaying my welcome.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)

    Let me just reassure you on that. I hope I do not make anybody nervous.

    Dr Johnson

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he is being most generous with his time. He said that the doctor was feeling under pressure from the overwhelming firepower and the potential to incur ​the NHS’s substantial costs. What support did his union, perhaps the British Medical Association or defence unions such as the Medical Defence Union or Medical Protection Society, offer him on legal costs?

    Norman Lamb

    Shockingly, the BMA abandoned him, and that is a story in itself, which needs exploring further. Not just in the NHS but across the economy, people are often literally on their own, faced by expensive lawyers. I speak as a former employment lawyer and I know what happens in employment tribunals. They were intended as a layman’s court, but they are anything but that these days.

    The third story I want to mention is that of my constituent Mark Wright, a successful financial planner at RBS. Things started to go wrong after he raised concerns about unacceptable practices in the bank—this was before the crash. On 17 September 2008, immediately after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, an intranet statement was put up in RBS saying that the group was “well capitalised”. That was clearly an attempt to reassure staff, including staff shareholders, customers and investors that the bank was secure. Of course when the bank crashed, those staff shareholders lost a fortune, and many, including my constituent, believe that they were badly misled by that intranet statement.

    Mr Wright’s mental health was destroyed as a result of trying to challenge the bank, as was his career. He made a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority, which reported his name back to the bank, for goodness’ sake. The FCA was later criticised by the Complaints Commissioner. I pursued his complaint with the FCA and it denied knowledge of the intranet statement repeatedly to me, yet an internal FCA email has emerged, after a subject access request to the Complaints Commissioner. It was dated 14 March 2014 and it said

    “the intranet notice that Mr Wright refers to was online between 17 September 2008 and January 2009… as staff used it to take reassurance that all was well which would tend to support Mr Wright’s allegations”.

    That was an email within the FCA, yet we were never informed of that email or of that finding in that explosive document.

    Clearly, the FCA has a copy of that intranet statement, yet it will not or cannot disclose it to us. The FCA says that the law does not allow it to do so. RBS, which is part state-owned, will not disclose it, yet clearly it is in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I believe I was misled by Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, who told me, in effect, that Mark Wright’s allegations offered nothing that was not already in the public domain and he referred to an intranet statement by Fred Goodwin, which he said had been

    “in the public domain for nearly 10 years”.

    Yet the intranet statement has not ever been in the public domain. The Treasury Committee, which had looked into this, had never received a copy of it. So I was misled, and we have a regulator that is too close to the banks; that failed to protect Mr Wright’s disclosure or his identity; that, crucially appeared to fail to take the allegations about the misconduct of that bank seriously; and that cannot or will not put a crucial statement into the public domain. Let us just think about the damage caused by bankers in the run-up to ​the crash. Had we empowered people like Mark Wright to do the right thing, rather than destroyed them and ignored them, we might just have prevented the disgusting behaviour and greed of bankers, and we might now have seen some of those responsible for destroying our economy behind bars. As it happens, they have got away with it.

    The fourth and final story is of foster carers throughout the country who are frightened to raise concerns about any behaviour from the council that they deal with. Of course, the council refers children into their care, so if a foster carer is concerned about the behaviour of a social worker and expresses concerns, that council can just stop the flow of children to them, and so their income stream—their ability to earn a living—disappears. This has a chilling effect on the willingness of any foster carer to speak out about child protection concerns, because they fear losing their livelihood.

    Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)

    Does that not highlight how, whether in finance, the NHS or anywhere else, this happens in situations with a power differential and a hierarchy? Someone has power over someone else and can make them lose their job or lose what they love doing, so there is a constant threat.

    Norman Lamb

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need effective legislation to redress that imbalance of power.

    All the cases I have outlined highlight the value and importance of enabling people to expose wrongdoing. Effective protection for brave people who decide to speak out is first of all vital for that individual—they should be celebrated, not denigrated—but it also benefits us all if we give them protection. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said earlier, this is actually an issue of good governance. It is about keeping organisations honest; protecting businesses from fraud, crime and other wrongdoing; and maintaining the highest possible standards. Good protection for those who speak out acts as a deterrent against bad behaviour; closed, secret cultures, which cover up wrongdoing and destroy those who try to speak up, deliver poor public services or cheat customers in the private sector, particularly in financial services, or lead to the toleration of bullying, sexual harassment and so on. So often, non-disclosure agreements are the final step that keeps the wrongdoing secret, slamming shut the door on proper scrutiny. Things need to change.

    The question is: does the current law work? Palpably, from the examples I have given, it is clear that it does not. First, it leaves out key groups—not only foster carers—that simply are not covered by the legislation. It leaves out job applicants, volunteers and priests. Just think about the abuse of children by so many priests over the past few decades. Had priests been given the protection to speak out, perhaps we would have prevented some of that dreadful abuse. The legislation leaves out non-executive directors and trustees. It leaves out relatives and friends of the whistleblower when they are victimised because of what the whistleblower has done. It leaves out someone who is victimised by being presumed to be a whistleblower—if a company thinks that someone has spoken out, even if they have not, and does something like dismissing them, that person has no rights under the legislation because they are not actually the whistleblower. That is a ludicrous situation.​

    Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and am sorry that I was not here at the start of the debate. Some time ago—I think when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Department of Health—I was the co-author of a review of the NHS hospitals complaints system. One reason why we were not more forceful on the point he is making was that we thought legislation was in the pipeline, or that there was an attempt to put things right for potential whistleblowers.

    I am still concerned. In my own local authority area, Rhondda Cynon Taf, the Cwm Taf health authority has just been heavily criticised for maternity deaths. One of the people involved got in touch with me anonymously. I did not know what to do with the letter—I did not want to pass it to the authorities—so I passed it to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was at that time completing a report on the Cwm Taf health authority. It is still a major problem and people are afraid. Even when they think there is greater understanding and leeway, people are afraid. We have to put that right.

    Norman Lamb

    I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. Sir Robert Francis, who did the report in 2015, recommended the introduction of “freedom to speak up champions” in the NHS, and that has happened. However, this is an administrative process within trusts that, I am afraid, simply has not worked—that is the brutal lesson that we have to learn.

    For those who are covered by the legislation, the law does nothing to enable a concerned person to speak up in the first place. For example, the law is silent on standards expected from employers, and it offers only inadequate protection after the event—after the person has been destroyed by a cruel organisation. The individual who then tries to pursue their rights under the legislation is too often faced by highly paid lawyers and is pressured into non-disclosure agreements, which, as I indicated, can result in wrongdoing never being exposed. Indeed, we know that the terms of some non-disclosure agreements are unlawful because they seek to shut up the individual and to stop them speaking out, even when a crime is involved.

    Only a tiny percentage of cases that are pursued to the tribunal actually end up with a decision of the tribunal. To succeed, someone must show that the reason—or, if there is more than one reason, that the principal reason—for a dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure. They therefore open themselves up to false claims that other reasons existed. If the tribunal decides that there were other reasons, either the person’s claim is dismissed or their compensation is reduced.

    There is no full definition of the range of disclosures that are covered by the legislation, so the protection is completely uncertain. Disclosure has to be to a prescribed person, but what happens if someone does not know who to report their concerns to? They could easily find themselves entirely unprotected—for trying to do the right thing.

    Mr Mitchell

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Norman Lamb

    I am conscious that I am trying the patience of the Deputy Speaker, and I need to get to the conclusion of my remarks.​

    The brilliant organisation Protect highlights the fact that a number of laws, such as in the utility sector, make it an offence to disclose certain information and include no public interest defence exceptions for whistleblowing. Even if there is awful wrongdoing, the person is prevented from speaking out, because they would commit a criminal offence. That surely has to change.

    The brutal truth is that brave people who do society a service by exposing wrongdoing are not adequately protected, and many have no protection at all. After Gosport, I met the Prime Minister and made the case for reform. I explained to her that these are life or death situations in many cases. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister at all since then, and that was last summer. It is time for a fundamental review by the Government and for new legislation. Such a review needs to listen to all the interested parties—to the all-party group on whistleblowing, to Protect and to Compassion in Care, which has set out proposals as part of what it calls Edna’s law. All must be involved, and we must look at international best practice.

    The all-party group has a report due out soon. It follows a comprehensive survey, which included getting the views of very many people who have tried to whistleblow, and it will offer vital evidence to the Government. It will propose an office for the whistleblower, which could be of extremely powerful value in supporting people and would be a centre of excellence, providing guidelines to employers, monitoring activities and providing support, advice and training to members of the public, public institutions, private sector bodies and so on. It is a very important proposal.

    I want a commitment from the Minister to undertake a thorough review, because it is long overdue. I also want a commitment to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU, it will at least meet the standards of the proposed new EU directive and preferably go much further. The UK was a pioneer, but the legislation is flawed and inadequate. New legislation to deliver high standards of governance in the public and private sectors is long overdue. We need safe space for brave people to do the right thing; effective mechanisms to hold people to account for wrongdoing that is uncovered, including potential criminal sanctions; and effective compensation and support for those who suffer as a result of speaking out.