Clive Efford
MP for Eltham and Chislehurst · Labour · United Kingdom
“Thank you for allowing me to take part in this statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that I was not here at the beginning—I was carrying out my duties elsewhere in the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. What is she likely to do in my part of south-east London for technical and vocational places?”
“I rise to speak to amendment 97 in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service.”
“Labour’s 2024 plan to make work pay set out a welcome desire to bring more essential services back into public control—something that is welcomed by health workers across the country, because so far the “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”, as was promised, has felt more like a trickle when it comes to the NHS.”
“The explanatory notes for the Bill say that this new flexibility is necessary “where there may otherwise be a breakdown in provision of a health service.” Can we imagine a situation where the Secretary of State has concerns about a health service and that an approach to assist a local provider would be rebuffed?”
“There are ample powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and resolve breakdowns in the provision of a health service. On clause 10, we must balance what it adds in those situations against its potential misuse by an ideologically driven Government that are determined to privatise our NHS.”
“It was a pleasure to join my right hon. Friend at Greenwich council’s development of 435 council properties in my constituency for the launch of the social and affordable housing programme. Some 70,000 homes are planned, and that is welcome and overdue.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,378 lines we hold for Clive Efford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 68.
“I pay tribute to the Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct for their persistent campaigning to get recognition for the voice of fans. It is not about recreating areas where clubs can cram people into a standing area; this is about creating rail seating where someone will stand in the place of a seat. We can therefore designate areas where people who choose to stand can do so safely, and those who want to sit can do so without the interference of those who want to stand. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the current situation, where people stand in areas that are designed for seating, is safe.”
“They would not be as attractive as they are, so the fans are incredibly important to the future of football, and we need to listen to them. We are speaking particularly today about those fans who go to away games—the ones who make that extra commitment—because they are the ones who predominantly stand. I am a Millwall season ticket holder. I do not have to stand when we are at home games, but people in large sections of the ground do. When I go to an away game, I have to stand. If anyone wants to go to an away game who cannot, or does not want to, stand, they are discriminated against, because they have no choice. If they want to go to the game, they have to stand, so what about those fans? We need to create these designated areas.”
“Thank you, Ms McDonagh. I think this is the first time I have spoken in a debate with you in the Chair, so it is a pleasure to see you in your place. In this debate we must listen to fans, because the fans we are talking about are those who commit themselves passionately to their club. They give up their time, go to the matches and create the atmosphere in the grounds that makes football in the British Isles a brand that is popular across the globe. People are prepared to pay money to watch the English Football League, English football matches and British football clubs, because of the atmosphere created in the grounds by those fans. Imagine if those games were played in empty stadiums and then broadcast around the world.”
“I associate myself with the comments made earlier. The Minister is a passionate supporter of Tottenham and dedicated to football, and I know that she is passionate about it. I am sure that we all oppose those who have attacked her on social media. Does she agree that football clubs need to report where injuries are taking place within their grounds? If they are in locations where people are predominantly standing where they should be seated, that may give us a better idea of how those injuries are coming about. I suspect they are not be being recorded properly.”
“Only a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) held a meeting in the House with over 30 football supporters’ clubs, all of which unanimously called for the Government to listen to fans and introduce safe standing. Will the Government finally listen?”
“Fewer than 2% of people who have a problem with gambling receive help, yet this industry is worth £13.8 billion and only £10 million of it went into helping them. Is it not time for a levy?”
“The local authority does not have the resources to investigate in depth to get to the bottom of why someone has been evicted. If the words on the Bill’s pages are to have any meaning for some of the most vulnerable of our constituents, following through and making the resources available to enforce them is essential. I conclude by again congratulating my hon. Friend.”
“I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. We have been in the House together for 21 years and she has never failed to battle on behalf of tenants, including and people vulnerable to being exploited by ruthless landlords. I want to put on record my respect for her dogged determination over so many years. In doing so, I echo the comments of other hon. Members on enforcement and the need to ensure that what is in the Bill is followed through. Retaliatory evictions by ruthless landlords have been mentioned. That happened to a constituent of mine, which resulted in her being deemed by the local authority to have made herself intentionally homeless. That was a double whammy for that person.”
“There have been no trains to Cannon Street for a number of years, and no trains to Charing Cross as the work switched over on to another set of lines. My constituents were told all the time that, at the end of the process, the network would go back to the original train timetable, meaning that they would have Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Victoria as a choice of destinations.”
“I am sure that had nothing to do with the fact that the then trains Minister represented Wimbledon—I make no accusation in that regard whatsoever—but that reduced the capacity of the Thameslink trains going through central London. I will be contacting the National Audit Office to ask whether we are getting value for money out of the Thameslink train service, certainly in south-east London, as a consequence of such decisions on that scheme. Since 2009, my constituents have been suffering a great deal of disruption as a consequence of the excellent refurbishment of London Bridge. I pay tribute to everyone involved in that refurbishment, but my constituents have had to accept that their services have been cut to certain destinations in central London.”
“I wholeheartedly support the motion because somebody has to take responsibility for what is happening to my constituents who use the trains on a daily basis. This Government have history in terms of how they have treated my constituents. They interfered with the Thameslink project when they first got their hands on the Department for Transport, taking the Blackfriars Thameslink trains away from south-east London. They not only took the trains away, but wasted £50 million of public money in order to do so. As a consequence, they shortened the trains going through the centre of London to allow them to go on to the Wimbledon line.”
“However, the Secretary of State allows Govia, which currently runs the franchise, to rebid. He now says that the person at the top of Govia has resigned—Charles Horton has gone—but that the company is apparently good enough to continue running the service. That is unacceptable and someone must accept responsibility.”
“However, as the project is coming to an end and the services are starting to be reintroduced—except those that are going to be cut, of course, under the new franchise, which is a direct decision of the Secretary of State—the infrastructure around the new project is starting to crumble. On 5 April, there was a broken rail and people were stuck on a train for five hours. The merest incident of severe weather leaves people stranded on trains for hours—on freezing cold trains with no electricity. The franchise is run right at the cusp, meaning that whenever something goes wrong, it turns into a major incident involving a major delay. There are not enough drivers, there is not enough maintenance, and the infrastructure is crumbling around the new project at London Bridge.”
“Absolutely; someone has to take responsibility. When my constituents were told they had to suffer this disruption, they accepted that, because a major refurbishment was taking place, but they were told that things would improve when the services were restored. They are now told that they will have fewer central London destinations to choose from because, apparently, it is very difficult to cross trains over on the western side of Lewisham station. We are told that because that creates too much congestion, we have to have a service cut. That is despite the fact that we have just spent £9 billion on this project, with £1 billion of that for the refurbishment of London Bridge. My constituents are incredibly angry.”
“He was saying, “I don’t like the Labour party, so no matter how much it could improve the service for people who use the trains, we’re not going to let Labour take over the rail service.” So much for an open bidding process to run the best possible service!”
“I agree with my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State has to take responsibility. That is why I fully support the motion. The Secretary of State really exposed himself by putting his particularly dogmatic approach to the franchise system ahead of the interests of passengers in a letter that he wrote on 24 April 2013 to the present Foreign Secretary when he was Mayor of London. His letter actually predicted the fact that the Tories were toast and that Labour was going to win the mayoral election. He stated that he did not want to see the London overground services in “the clutches” of a Labour mayor. That had nothing to do with what was in the interests of my constituents or anyone else who used the trains. It was pure political dogma.”
“The buck stops with the Secretary of State, so I fully support the motion.”
“South-east London has been appallingly served by this Secretary of State. There has been a constant litany of letting us down, and the buck has to stop somewhere. He has never stood up to the franchise operators—the train operators—to ensure that we get value for money and the services we are entitled to in south-east London. For him, everything is fine as long as it is privatised. He has never made any attempt to take on the private enterprise that is profiteering at the expense of the people who rely on the trains. In south-east London we do not have direct access to the London underground, so anyone who wants to commute into London has to use the bus or the rail service. The rail service, as it has been run by this Government, has been appalling and it is getting worse.”
“That is absolutely right. This is the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has got caught when everything has come home to roost while he is still in position. Usually he moves on and someone else has to sort out his problems—for example, by allowing prisoners to have books. My constituents deserve a better service. Their services are being cut and they will have a reduced choice under the new franchise. They do not want Govia to be allowed to continue running the franchise, yet it has still been allowed to bid. They want longer trains, and I have lobbied many times in here to get extra carriages for the franchise but they have disappeared into the system. We still have eight-car trains turning up at peak times and there is not enough space for people to have a comfortable journey into town.”
“The discussions about any increase in funds for the NHS have been well publicised, but it is shocking that there is no extra money for social care. Was the Secretary of State aware that those discussions were taking place, and did he make any representations to increase funding for social care?”
“I urge them to take heed of that fact, and, when they are deliberating on the Bill, to ensure that any amendment that they send back to this House unites all its Members. We need to unite behind an amendment that will influence the Government, and ensure that they take the right approach in future negotiations.”
“It is now clear that “no deal” is the worst possible outcome for our country, and the vast majority of Members understand that. The Bill provides an opportunity for the House to stamp its authority on how the Government approach the future negotiations. I will be voting for amendment (a) to Lords amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and not for the Lords amendment itself, but I urge the Lords to read the report of this debate and note the range of views expressed by Members who have said that they will support amendment (a). They have also said that they will vote against the Lords amendment, that they will abstain—as I intend to do—or that they will vote for it, but they are aligned on the wording of my right hon. Friend’s amendment. I have one simple message for the Lords.”
“What does the Prime Minister think it says to our European neighbours when the Foreign Secretary advocates behaving like Donald Trump in the Brexit negotiations? Does it present a good face for Britain in our future dealings with the European Union?”
“Will the Government set up a fund, as requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), so that, where fire safety officers recommend retrofitting sprinklers, they will be fitted and paid for by the Government?”
“The Secretary of State has failed to say how many people can expect their PIP to be restored as a consequence of this appeal; she said that it will be the two people involved in the two cases mentioned. Will she undertake to come back and make a statement to this House when she has had a chance to research that and tell us which of our constituents can expect to have their PIP reinstated and how many are involved?”
“19. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on passenger safety of the terms of the new south-eastern rail franchise which require some travellers to change trains at Lewisham station.”
“Having been through all the upheaval of the London Bridge refurbishment, my constituents now face fewer choices of London destinations under the new franchise, which means they have to change at Lewisham. The additional development right on top of Lewisham station is going to cause a great deal of congestion there. Will the Minister carry out a safety assessment at Lewisham station to make sure that it is safe for passengers who change at the station in future?”
“It cannot be fair for our high street retailers to have to compete with online companies that offshore themselves for tax purposes and often use the most exploitative employment practices, such as minimum hours contracts. The Government have to act more urgently to deal with this problem. Does the Minister really think that if an employee loses their job at Marks & Spencer and goes to work for a company like Amazon, they will be given the same rate of pay?”
“Further to the earlier exchanges in Transport questions on disabled access to stations and safety at Lewisham station, I have been contacted by my constituent Caroline Walsh. She is a disabled person who uses a wheelchair, and she wants to invite the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), to join her on the peak-time journey that she will have to undertake once the new franchise comes in and she is forced to change at Lewisham. Can we have a debate in Government time on disabled access to our railway services?”
“My constituent was called back early for a PIP assessment, which made no reference to the fact that he has an inoperable brain tumour, which has led to his having intractable epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease. Can the Minister explain why he was recalled for an assessment?”
“When the Government came to the conclusion that they could not support the resolution, what efforts were made to try to bring together a resolution that everyone could support, so that there could be a fully independent inquiry?”
“The Government are currently consulting on a new franchise for South Eastern which will result in the removal of the Victoria service on the Bexleyheath line, apparently because it would be too confusing for service providers to have trains crossing over west of Lewisham. This weekend, however, a new timetable will come into force which says that they can only go to Victoria on a Sunday. It seems that the service is being run for the providers and not for the customers. May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in calling for a debate in Government time on rail franchising, so that we can expose the fact that the trains are being run for service providers rather than passengers?”
“I congratulate the Minister and all those Members who have fought consistently for this decision, but she, like me, will know that there is also B3 content on machines in betting shops, and reducing the stake to £2 on the B2 content means people can now lose money faster on the B3 content. What will she do to research that fact and to make sure that people do not just migrate to the B3 content and that the problem does not thereby continue?”
“The Secretary of State is making the same sort of noises as were made after the Lakanal House fire. A date of 25 July takes us beyond the recess, and means that we will not get a statement about the end of the consultation until September at the earliest, or possibly October. Will he bring forward the end of his consultation so that we can hold his feet to the fire and ensure that we deal with this in a timely manner? The least we can expect is a ban on combustible materials as a testament to the people who died in that fire.”
“The Secretary of State is the one who wrote the letter saying that he would not hand over suburban services to a Labour Mayor of London, but in today’s statement he has had to eat his words about the overground services in north-east London. In south-east London, my constituents face a worse service, with less choice of destinations as a result of the new franchise, so will he reconsider the position with regard to the Southeastern franchise and allow the Mayor of London to take it over and give a better service to my constituents?”
“The pupil premium has been in existence for seven years now, yet the percentage of pupils in grammar schools receiving free school meals is less than 2.5% on average. What evidence is there that grammar schools play any role in social mobility or have any intention of doing so?”
“The bank made the initial error when it forced my constituents to take a loan for one year, then two years, then no years—it simply failed to renew it—and then foreclosed on my constituents because it was overexposed in the property market. My constituents approached the FCA, but they do not know where their case now is. The FCA has to hold an inquiry into this matter. We have to get to the bottom of it on behalf of people who are just being bullied by the banks.”
“GRG claims that the account was never transferred to it and states that the SRM consulted GRG during the relevant period of 2008 to 2013. Therefore, GRG did not recognise my constituents, and they were not part of the review process. My constituents were never informed of any of this; it came to light because they complained and asked for documents to be disclosed by the ombudsman. GRG also convinced the ombudsman not to look at any documents going back further than 2013. NatWest is part of the RBS group, but it operates under a separate licence. How is it possible for two separate banking organisations to share customers’ information in this way? Is that a matter of concern to the FCA? Are NatWest and RBS GRG at fault for not keeping my constituents informed?”
“It was put on the market for £700,000, but because they were under pressure, they finally had to sell it for £585,000. They were never given the opportunity to live in that property and plan ahead with any confidence. My constituents finally went to the Financial Ombudsman and requested a disclosure of documents. They discovered that they were being dealt with by none other than the Royal Bank of Scotland Global Restructuring Group, despite having taken out the original loan with NatWest. GRG convinced the ombudsman not to investigate the case and to leave it to the GRG disputes resolution process. When my constituents asked how the involvement of GRG came about, they were told that it was due to the involvement of a specialist relationship manager.”
“However, the bank continued to pursue them, asking them to sell the property. My constituents made a further complaint, and on 19 January 2012 they received a response from the bank’s complaints department, which said that it was nothing to do with anything they had done, but that: “The bank needs to rebalance its exposure in the property area. We have twice as much property funding as any of our competitors and this needs to be managed down to more normal levels.” It was nothing to do with anything my constituents had done wrong; it was what the bank had done wrong, yet my constituents were forced to pay for it. While that was going on, the bank tried to close one of my constituents’ bank accounts, and from then on they were harried into selling the property.”
“One year later they were allowed to take out a two-year loan, again with more arrangement fees. They thought that was normal, because they did not understand that they should have had a regulated mortgage contract. This debate is about small and medium-sized enterprises, but my constituents were forced to become an SME, and they were treated appallingly by NatWest. They did not understand the system, and the bank took full advantage of that. They continued to pay the loan without any defaults. After the two-year loan period expired, the bank attempted to contact them, but that was cancelled due to the snow. They finally met up five months after the two-year loan had expired in 2011. In May 2011, the bank told my constituents that they were in default. That resulted in a complaint to the bank, which found in favour of my constituents.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate. My constituents were private tenants who had lived above a shop for many years and brought up their children. In 2007, they decided to buy the property when it came up for sale at auction. They were customers of NatWest, which agreed that they could have a mortgage for 10 years. They bought the property on 6 July 2007, and were contacted by the bank to pay valuation fees. The valuation should have informed the bank that my constituents needed a regulated mortgage, since they occupied more than 40% of the property. On 9 July, NatWest informed my constituents that they needed to open a joint bank account, take out a one-year business loan and pay £4,000 in fees for the privilege. That was due to the fact that the premises included a shop.”
“My constituents became involved in this not because they had an SME, but because they were trying to get a mortgage and were forced into this process. The mistake was made with the first loan that was given to them, but the ombudsman will not recognise that and look into it. What we need is more pressure on the ombudsman to listen to the consumer and not the banks.”
“G4S’s performance in how it delivers public contracts is woefully inadequate, and not only in the Prison Service. G4S runs the transport service for my local hospital. Last week, I had to go to rescue a 94-year-old relative from a discharge area full of patients who had been waiting over five hours for G4S to turn up, and this is a regular occurrence. I am a governor of a school where G4S consistently fails to deliver on the school maintenance contract. When are the Government going to get a grip and deal with G4S, because there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of this company?”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for winding up Government Members even further by giving way to me. If passed, this Humble Address is binding on the Government to publish all the documents relating to this matter and to provide those documents to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I understand that the Government have issued a three-line Whip to vote against the motion. Can she explain what possible reason they might have for doing so?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—and this is a genuine point of order. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) just asked for the publication of documents that go back before 2010. If you were willing to accept a manuscript amendment to the motion, would the Government then support the motion?”
“There is no question but that the commitment to get net migration down to the tens of thousands led to the “hostile environment” that affected the Windrush people. The Prime Minister recommitted the Government to that policy on 8 May during the previous general election. It seems inconceivable that she would make such a policy statement and then pay no attention to how that policy was delivered. I do not expect the Secretary of State to have the details now, but can he write to me, and put a copy in the Library, of all the occasions when that has been on the agenda when his Department has met the Prime Minister to discuss how to deliver reducing net migration to the tens of thousands?”
“Artificial intelligence is coming—we cannot stand in its way—but we must enhance it to the benefit of workers in this country. In that regard, however, the statement was woefully inadequate. The companies developing AI are looking to cut their bottom lines by cutting the number of people they employ: driverless vehicles, aeroplanes with no pilots—the list is becoming endless. What will the Government do to come up with a strategy not just for the UK—the way the Minister put it sounded esoteric—but for people and jobs? We need an AI strategy that will benefit workers in this country.”
“Mr Speaker, may I associate myself and my hon. Friends with your kind words to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and wish him all the best? When I arrived at my station this morning, they were handing out free copies of fiction: the Southeastern rail timetable. It is fiction because of not just the performance of Southeastern, but the poor infrastructure that we have to endure. We have spent £1 billion upgrading London Bridge, and it is a magnificent project, but unfortunately we have seen broken rails and the breakdown of signals last week and the week before, and there was another stranded train outside St Johns station on 5 April. This is not good enough: we need to upgrade the infrastructure around London Bridge, otherwise all the money will have been wasted.”
“May we have a debate to mark the 25th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence in Eltham? It was a seminal moment for race relations in our country, and it should be recognised in some way by the House. Such a debate would give us an opportunity to distance ourselves from the remarks made by Mr Mellish, the former detective, on last night’s documentary, in which he accused Stephen Lawrence’s mother of having a gimmick in not smiling. She was a bereaved mother who had lost her son in the most tragic circumstances, and she was let down by the Metropolitan police, which was found to be institutionally racist. Mr Mellish was a fine example of that last night, and we should be given the opportunity to distance ourselves from individuals such as him.”