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 4 of 68.
“I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Reoffending is costing us £22 billion a year, and 80% of offenders are reoffenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to bring that figure down? What is she intending to do to prevent people from reoffending at such high rates?”
“On Tuesday, those who are infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal protested in Whitehall and handed in letters to No. 10. They are angry that they have been excluded from overseeing the compensation process and that, as a consequence, the process is very slow. The Government promised a debate in Government time on the contaminated blood scandal. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are we likely to get that debate this side of the summer recess?”
“I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing this deal. Does he agree with me that the attitude displayed by the Conservatives betrays a fundamental dislike and mistrust of all things European, which makes them totally inadequate to accept any sort of deal whatever with the EU? Can he confirm that no matter where an international trade deal is done, whether through World Trade Organisation rules or with Europe, there is always an arbitration system?”
“I welcome this section of the Bill. My constituent, Sabina Nessa, was brutally murdered when she was on her way out to meet a friend. Her murderer refused to attend court and participate in his sentencing, and that caused a great deal of distress to her family. I therefore welcome the move not just to force these characters to turn up in court, but to apply sanctions when they do not comply; my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that.”
“Mr Lazzarini has said that children in Gaza are more likely to die of starvation than of an act of violence. What does my hon. Friend expect from this afternoon’s session at the UN? What specifically will be asked for that would move the situation on? Israel cannot be allowed to continue using food as a weapon of war.”
“I remind Members that they must bob if they want to speak in this debate. A lot of people want to speak, so if anyone intends to intervene, they should prepare their interventions carefully, because if an intervention is too long I will cut you off.”
“Order. Because you have all been so disciplined, and because one Member who had emailed about speaking in the debate is now not planning to do so, I can be a little more flexible with time, but not too much. You have roughly four minutes each from now on.”
“We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, which I would like to finish by 12.58 pm so that the mover of the motion has the opportunity to sum up the debate.”
“I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the armed forces personnel who took part in last night’s action. The fact that it is the UK that is supporting the USA in this action really does emphasise our close relationship. However, this morning’s newspapers suggest that our desire to do a trade deal with America has been pushed back to a second tranche of countries, or maybe even a third. Does he share my disappointment at that decision, and would he ask the Trump Administration to return to that issue and to consider our close relationship in defence and intelligence?”
“The right hon. Gentleman must have been upset when the previous Government appointed Richard Sharp as chairman of the BBC as he was not only a former donor to the Conservative party, but a member of a think-tank. Did he express similar views to his Government back then when they made that appointment?”
“Another major issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has mentioned, is that of clubs being separated from their grounds. That has happened to my local club, Charlton Athletic, and to many other clubs. It is difficult to see how the Bill could deal with that issue retrospectively, but it is one that we must not lose sight of. It may not be possible to solve it through this Bill, but it is something that we need to deal with urgently. The time has come for a football regulator, which cannot fail to recognise that the current situation is not sustainable and that it must usher in a fairer system. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in getting us to this point, and I look forward to playing my part in assisting the Bill’s passage through this House.”
“In the four years that this has been under discussion, no acceptable proposal has been put forward, so it is clear that football needs an adjudicator to end this impasse. Although it is reasonable to help clubs adjust to being in the championship, it is not acceptable to sustain a system that forces clubs to overspend in order to compete with clubs that are receiving parachute payments. Over the past seven seasons, two of the clubs promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. The top three places in the championship this season have gone to clubs in receipt of parachute payments, with two matches still to go. The 75:25 split will eradicate the need for parachute payments altogether, create a level playing field, and remove the incentive for non-parachute payment clubs to overstretch themselves financially.”
“The £300 million extra that the EFL was asking for pales into insignificance when compared with those sums of money, so a fairer distribution of revenues would not impact on the ability of the premier league to pay the highest salaries for players or the highest prices for player transfers. It will, however, make an enormous difference to the sustainability of the pyramid. Currently, the 20 premier league clubs and the five clubs in receipt of parachute payments get 92% of the distributable money, which is around £3 billion. The remaining 67 clubs of the EFL get a total of 8%, or £245 million. That distorts competition in the EFL and encourages clubs to overspend. The premier league clubs have to agree to change the distribution of TV revenues across the pyramid.”
“In 2020, the EFL proposed a 75:25 split of the combined TV revenues of both leagues, which at the time would have meant approximately £300 million of additional funding for the wider football pyramid. Instead, in the four years since the EFL first made that proposal, spending on transfers in the premier league has gone up by £850 million. In the 2022-23 season, the premier league spent £2.8 billion on player transfers; the other major European leagues spent around £750 million per league. Turning to wages, the premier league spent a combined sum of €4.6 billion on players’ salaries. Its nearest rival spent an aggregate sum of €2.5 billion—that is a gap of over €2 billion. Compared with the Bundesliga, the gap is nearly €2.5 billion, and for France and Italy, the gap is about €2.8 billion.”
“I declare my interest at the outset, as I volunteer as a trustee of Millwall Community Trust. This Bill has been a long time in the making, and there has been more than a little bit of scaremongering along the way about the implications of a regulator for the future of the premier league. The Bill does not pose an existential threat to the premier league, and no one who supports it wants to undermine the success of the premier league. The existential threat is to the football pyramid, should we fail to secure a fairer distribution of resources. The EFL estimates that its clubs will lose £450 million this season. That loss will have to be covered by the generosity of those clubs’ owners, and where that does not occur, we end up in situations like we had with Bury, Derby, Wigan and many others.”
“The criteria applied by Link are too strict, and banks are being able to walk away from their customers. In Eltham, we have had a salami-slicing process of banks gradually leaving the high street, but, because we have a building society, we cannot ask for a hub. Will the Minister undertake to review Link’s approach, because it is making it difficult for customers to carry out their banking business?”
“I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the reference to the discussions with Fujitsu. The Horizon software is still being used by the post office network, and I understand that the contract with Fujitsu is worth about £2.4 billion over its lifetime. We should not lose sight of the fact that Fujitsu was heavily involved in supporting the Post Office’s prosecution of innocent sub-postmasters. Can my hon. Friend say exactly how he will ensure that Fujitsu pays the appropriate amount of money to compensate for its role in this affair?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not gimmicks such as Rwanda but international co-operation that will fundamentally deal with the illegal gangs who are facilitating crossings? Is that not why we should welcome today’s summit, at which people are coming together to co-operate and to tackle those gangs?”
“Fires at electricity substations are not unheard of, and it seems that there may have been a considerable lack of preparedness at Heathrow. When the Secretary of State receives her reviews, will she look into what preparedness there was, and what scenarios those at Heathrow had envisaged for dealing with possible outages of this kind and getting their operations up and running again as quickly as possible?”
“I associate myself with all the words of condolence to the shadow Leader of the House, despite all the hours I have spent trying to find bits of Polly Pocket to placate my children. My right hon. Friend is aware that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority published its timetable last week for paying out compensation to the infected and the affected. Following that, Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, made it known that he intended to write a further report in response to the complaints he has received from the victims about the timetable for the compensation process and the adequacy of the Government’s response. Can she update us on the promised debate on infected blood on the Floor of this House?”
“I have heard many people make a moral case for the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but does she agree that over the last 20 years those with large amounts of wealth have done extremely well while average household incomes have stagnated and the standard of living for the overwhelming majority has gone down? So while we make a moral case for changes to the benefits system, should we not also be making the case for how we can tax wealth as opposed to income?”
“No other organisation would accept, as the English Football League does, an outside organisation like the Premier League providing resources that distort the competition. That is why we need a regulator. We have to stop that risk-taking. Another point that our legislation must address is the separation of clubs from their assets. The previous owner of Charlton Athletic, my local side, now owns the ground and the training ground. We have to find a mechanism that could bring them back to the clubs.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing this debate. I will focus on one area of the proposed legislation: the distribution of wealth around the game. It is not true that anyone wants to destroy the premier league or kill the golden goose. What people want is a fair distribution of resources. Over the past seven years, two of the clubs that have been promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. It is small wonder that that happens when the average club in receipt of parachute payments receives £49 million, while a non-parachute-payment club gets £5.4 million. That promotes risk-taking and distortion.”
“I expected a little more humility from Conservative Members, who left a legacy of chaos in our prisons and a huge court backlog. What we are dealing with, fundamentally, is the backlog that they left behind. My right hon. Friend has set out a process for dealing with this growing backlog, but ultimately the blame lies at the door of the Conservative party, which left the place in chaos. Should we not be hearing an apology from Conservative Members?”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the progress he has made in seven months, not least on the £11.8 billion he secured in the Budget; he deserves credit for that. It is regrettable that we lost a year from Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report in which he gave his final recommendations on compensation, stating that the Government had no reason to delay setting up the compensation process. I know my right hon. Friend is aware that there are still concerns about the tariff, particularly among those infected with hepatitis C and those who endured unethical testing. Does he agree that, while we must move ahead with all haste to get people the justice they deserve, IBCA must have flexibility in its decisions when dealing with those who feel that the tariff does not recognise the suffering they have endured?”
“Order. I remind Members to bob if you want to speak; you will only get called if you are standing. That allows us to plan ahead and make sure we get everyone in. Because there are so many of you who want to speak, we will have an informal time limit of five minutes.”
“Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I have to impose a limit of four minutes if I am going to get everybody in by half past.”
“Order. This is about fuel poverty in England and you are starting to talk about back home and your constituency. There are English MPs who want to get in on this debate, and we are running out of time, so draw your comments to a conclusion.”
“Before I call the Minister to respond, I remind the Member in charge that he will not have the opportunity to wind up the debate, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.”
“I must be careful here, Mr Speaker, because I think you were right to allow this urgent question. However, can my hon. Friend the Minister explain just exactly why we are here? It seems to be—”
“The shadow Home Secretary seems to have come here to ask questions about a document that is not Government policy and to stand there making indignant statements about issues that are not Government policy either. Does my hon. Friend not think that we should be taking a much more level-headed approach to this issue than that which has been displayed by the Conservative party?”
“I voted against the framework for Heathrow airport in 2018 because I was not satisfied that the legislation before us would deal with air quality, noise, climate change and surface access issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, we must satisfy ourselves in this House that those issues have been addressed, and that they cannot be set aside by developers once they have permission to go ahead?”
“What progress has been made on improving engagement with those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal? As the Paymaster General is aware, there has been a great deal of concern among those people and the organisations that represent them. May I urge him to sit down with his opposite number in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for getting aid to the organisations that support those people who are infected and affected, because they are desperately in need of the resources?”
“I have a 13-year-old constituent who suffers with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease that he was diagnosed with at age 11, which is very late, due to what is called a spontaneous mutation. None the less, the condition has progressed rapidly. There is medication—givinostat—that can delay the advancement of the illness. It is being made available free to the NHS, but the hospitals that want to use it on their patients need some financial assistance to roll it out as part of an early access programme. May we have a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care on the issue, so that we can make representations on behalf of our constituents who suffer with Duchenne?”
“I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, and congratulate her on the detail with which she is answering questions and on showing how much she is on top of her brief. Only on Friday, a constituent came to see me who had a new boiler fitted and insulation done under an ECO grant. The work had been subcontracted by the company that originally won the contract, and that something that exacerbates the problem. That company clearly was not up to the standard required to carry out the work, and lots of remedial work was required. How can we ensure that the people who win these contracts do not subcontract to companies that are not capable of carrying out the work, meaning that we end up with the situations the Minister has described?”
“My understanding is that these notices are issued at times of high demand, and that they are evidence of the system working in order to prevent power cuts or the system breaking down. I would have thought the Conservatives would have learned their lesson from the spike in international gas prices that caused the crisis in people’s fuel bills and led to a cost of living crisis, but they have learned nothing from that. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that this really underlines our policy of ensuring that we have a secure provision of renewable energy, which leaves us less open to spikes in prices on the international market?”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Future AI will be essential to the future of our public services, particularly in improving productivity. Can he say exactly what the Government will do to assist our public services to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers?”
“I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the doughty way in which she has fought this corner for many years. I remember how even back when I was the shadow sports Minister and this was my area, she was campaigning hard on it. This is very much legislation in favour of the fans. We have to remember that, in many cases, the artists realise that their own fans are being priced out of being able to go to their concerts by the practices of these online ticket touts, so legislation is well overdue if we want to make tickets affordable so that true fans can see their favourite bands and artists. I urge my hon. Friend to move ahead swiftly to bring it in.”
“When I raise concerns about GP appointments, GPs tell me that they have difficulty recruiting to posts in their practices. Too few newly qualified doctors choose general practice as their profession. What can we do to get those doctors in place, so that we can make diagnostics in the community work?”
“This is a very welcome announcement and I am sure the hospices are breathing a sigh of relief after the level of funding they endured for 14 years under the Tories. If we are to move palliative care out of hospitals and into care situations or people’s homes, the money needs to be passported to the hospice sector for it to play its part. Integrated care boards have been charged under the Health and Care Act 2022 to provide that funding. Will the money go through ICBs or will it be passported straight to the hospice sector?”
“Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time in the new year on the funding of political parties? I wonder what it means when a party talks about sovereignty and is then willing to sell itself entirely to a foreign-owned entity, while using slogans like “Take back control”. We have seen the controversy of the Conservative party’s fondness for taking a few bob from Putin’s oligarchs, and we have seen the recent scandals involving the Chinese trying to influence politics in this country. I think that we, as this Government, must make sure that we are saying that our politics is not up for sale, and I think we should have a debate about it in the House.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, and I urge him onwards. I rise to demonstrate my support for the stand we are taking in supporting Ukraine. My thoughts are with the people of Ukraine, who are entering their third Christmas in this conflict. Europe has learned the harsh lessons from dealing with dictators in the past. Does he agree that at a time when there is potential for change in America’s policy towards Ukraine, Europe needs to stand together, and to make sure that we do not allow Putin to succeed in any way, because the consequences of that for future generations could be damaging indeed?”
“I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the fact that he is putting more resources and manpower into processing people’s claims. But I wonder where the complexity of these claims is coming from. Are we asking for too much information from people in the first place? I watched the evidence of Sir Alan Bates at the Business and Trade Committee, and I have read some of the cases in the news. In one case, a person with breast cancer had their compensation reduced and I thought, hang on a minute, this may be going too far and is a bit churlish. Just how much information is being gone through in order to process these cases? I wonder if we may want to go back and look at that. I have spoken to the Minister about this, and I know that he wants to speed the process up as much as possible. Is it possible that we could streamline the process?”
“Order. I remind hon. Members who wish to speak to stand, so that I know you wish to speak. When a speech ends, you must stand. I note that there are a number of people who want to intervene. I am happy for that to take place, but interventions must be brief. I will not put a hard time limit on speeches, but five minutes is about the right length of time to get everybody in. If you could stick to that timescale, it would be very helpful.”
“Order. Mr Amos, you were not here at the opening; I must remind you that you should be here for the opening speech. However, as we have made good time, I will allow you to speak, because I appreciate how important the issues are to our constituents.”
“I understand that Sonia Kumar has agreed that another hon. Member can make a contribution. I will then go straight to the Minister. As is the convention with half-hour debates, there will be no opportunity for the mover to sum up at the end.”
“We have plenty of time for this debate. I remind Members to bob in their places if they intend to speak, so I have some idea of who will contribute.”
“We have 27 minutes remaining, but this is not an invitation to make a 27-minute speech. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) should take a few minutes to emphasise the key points that she wants to take away from the debate.”
“I am intervening on my right hon. Friend because I have to chair Westminster Hall in an hour, so I cannot take part in the debate. My constituent not only lost his career in the Royal Air Force but was subjected to abuse when he was arrested, including constant internal examinations. He was beaten, he was kicked and he was spat at. He was marched across the parade ground to his billet, where his personal belongings were gone through. He was humiliated. Was that sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence at the time? Was it sanctioned by senior officers, or were those individuals working on their own? They acted like sadistic animals towards my constituent. Something needs to be done to investigate that.”
“A National Audit Office report published in October highlights that special educational needs places in independent schools can cost two and a half times as much as in state schools. Does the Minister agree that if we are to ensure that children get the support they need in future, we will have to assist local authorities in expanding their number of special needs places?”