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 44 of 68.
“If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will deal with article 4 directions. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is time to stop posing for photos and posturing with fine words in the motions at their conference. Lib Dem MPs are clearly confused, so let me make it clear to them: today, they are deciding whether to empower local authorities to take control of their high streets, as they said they would at their conference, and to back their councillors, the members of their party and their Chief Whip, or to vote along with the gambling industry. They have made their claims, so they should stand up for them today. I turn to the words of the Minister, who commented on our choice of topic for the Opposition day debate. She claimed that my position contradicted the need for research.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and technology should be used to protect people against problem gambling. That is something else that we have consistently raised.”
“I repeat: today’s motion is not about stakes and prizes. It is about empowering local authorities, which have called for powers to deal with a wide range of issues that go beyond gambling. It is about economic regeneration; it is about economic vitality and diversity in town centres; it is about the concern about the effect that the clustering of betting shops has on the character of town centres. I will deal with the research, and I will come on to it very soon if hon. Members are patient.”
“This is an obvious disincentive to the widespread use of Article 4 directions by local planning authorities, which undermines the effectiveness of this measure. Article 4 directions can also only be used across a whole use class—meaning they cannot even be used when a bank becomes a betting shop.””
“Sir Robin Wales, responding to the Minister’s comments yesterday, said: “Current legislation leaves councils effectively powerless in their ability to tackle the clustering of betting outlets, which causes immeasurable harm to local communities and the high street. The only planning power available to councils (an Article 4 direction) is unwieldy and slow, and some betting shops don’t even require planning permission to open.” In 2004, Sir Merrick Cockell described article 4 directions as “unwieldy and bureaucratic”. The Local Government Association’s view of article 4 powers in the same year was equally negative: “Article 4 directions are costly and complex to use. Local authorities need to give notice of the restrictions coming into effect for a year to avoid being at risk of paying compensation.”
“Again in her comments on today’s debate, the shadow Minister— [ Interruption .] I am sorry, the Minister—I am getting ahead of myself and am about 18 months too early—said: “Councils already have planning powers to tackle the proliferation of betting shops, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems and we have already acted to ensure the industry puts in place the types of player protection measures that Labour are now, at long last, calling for.” If that is the case, why do councils such as Newham have to go to court to try to stop more betting shops opening in their area? Why are so many local councils passing motions calling for more powers?”
“I will come on to the issue of stakes and prizes, but it is complex and it will take a great deal of time to explain. The motion calls for extra licensing powers and a change in the law. I accept that it would be difficult to introduce retrospective legislation to go back and take licences for those machines away from betting shops, but that is what is included in the motion. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is calling for, he can vote with us. Perhaps the most damning fact is the Government’s claim that councils have powers to stop the clustering of betting shops.”
“Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), set out on Second Reading of the Gambling Act 2005 that the impact of the machines would be reviewed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) made it clear in 2009 that he would do just that. It is no good going back to 2005, because the world has moved on. Online gambling has grown from nothing into a £2 billion-a-year industry. The Government rejected our proposals to regulate that, so we will take no lessons from them.”
“If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, because many Members wish to speak. [ Interruption. ] I know that what I have to say is upsetting for Government Members, but I am afraid that they will have to hear it all. The Minister will no doubt say in her response that that is all Labour’s fault. In fact, she has already said just that: “Any concerns about fixed odds betting machines should be laid firmly at Labour’s door. In 2000, these machines did not exist—by the time of the last general election there were over 30,000.” FOBTs appeared in betting shops in 2001. In 2005 we limited them to four per shop. The Secretary of State at the time, my right hon.”
“To act without evidence is inappropriate and extraordinarily cynical, even by Labour’s standards.” The Government are deluding themselves if they think that all the answers will come from the current study. In December, NatCen published a scoping report that states: “Across the category B estate in Great Britain, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the level and type of data collected.” That will seriously undermine the ability of the Responsible Gambling Trust to give us the information we need to make informed decisions when the research is completed next autumn. As the Minister well knows, the report will come out six months away from a general election, yet it will be inconclusive because the data are not robust enough to allow us to make informed decisions on FOBTs.”
“Absolutely. There are eminent people in the Responsible Gambling Trust and I endorse what my hon. Friend says, but I do have something to say about the research. The concerns about FOBTs and the impact that betting shops have on our communities are not just about gambling. We will wait for proper research, but the Minister needs to understand that saying that we will wait for the research and then doing nothing to gather the information that we need to make informed decisions is just not good enough. After all, this Government scrapped the gambling prevalence survey. Let me quote again from her press release: “This Government is undertaking the biggest ever study into the effect of these machines and have made clear that we will not hesitate to take action if the evidence points in that direction.”
“It is time to put local people before the vested interests of the powerful betting industry. We should put our trust in local democracy.”
“No. We are saying that we would place betting shops in their own category so that local councils would have to receive a planning application if someone wanted to open a new betting shop. Today’s vote is not about stakes and prizes; it is about putting power back in the hands of local communities and the councillors who represent them. Taking decisions in the face of opposition from the betting industry will be tough for local councillors, particularly when it comes to removing existing machines. I happen to believe passionately in local democracy; I spent 12 years as a locally elected councillor. I believe that well-informed local councillors are capable of making important decisions that benefit their communities, and that, too often, we here in Westminster have tied the hands of locally elected representatives.”
“T4. The Association of Colleges has said that young people from disadvantaged areas and black and minority ethnic groups will be hardest hit by the cut of 17.5% in the funding for 18-year-olds. That is borne out by the assessment that has been carried out by my local college, Greenwich community college. Why have the Government not issued an impact assessment on this proposal, given the severe impact that it will have on disadvantaged groups?”
“In the early hours of Christmas eve, 35 homes in Westhorne avenue in my constituency suffered an avoidable flood when a grill in the Quaggy river became completely blocked. It was only a few hundred yards away from a multi-million pound flood alleviation scheme, but, sadly, the water did not reach there because the Environment Agency had failed to ensure that the grill was kept clear. This has left my constituents in a difficult situation. What they need now is for the Environment Agency to ’fess up and accept its responsibility for the incident so that they can start to make their claims. Will the Secretary of State contact the Environment Agency on my behalf?”
“On that site, there is now a health industrial estate. It will be an incubator for private health care. There will be elective surgery there under Gravesham health care for a short period, but it will go out to tender. We all know where it will go. It will go out to the private sector. There is a site for hire at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup. All sorts of services will come in and compete with NHS services.”
“It would have been easy for me to man the barricades, defend my local services, say that the reconfiguration was horrible and be a populist local MP. However, I took the view that we needed leadership and cross-party agreement to make the changes that were needed to improve services. Sadly, when this Government came in, they threw out the whole APOH reconfiguration. After saying in their manifesto that there would be no “forced closure” of A and E and maternity services, the Conservatives came in and said to Lewisham hospital, “Close your A and E and maternity services.” The Conservatives had said that they would stop the closure of Queen Mary’s hospital, Sidcup. People could have been knocked over in the rush of Tories who wanted to join the campaign to save Queen Mary’s. What happened when they got into power? They closed Queen Mary’s.”
“The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) has just said that there is a perfect storm coming and has appealed for a cross-party approach to deal with the issues in the national health service. I absolutely agree with him about that. Before the last general election, that is exactly what we had in south-east London. We had a consultation over a couple of years on the “A picture of health” programme, which involved the closure of an A and E. The point is that that was a clinically led consultation. Doctors came to us politicians and said that, if we reconfigured services in a certain way, they could treat patients better and save more lives. I took the view before the general election that the sensible approach was to support those clinicians.”
“The Government were challenged in the court and defeated. The Government are now moving the goalposts. Having said before the last general election that there would be no top-down reconfiguration and that they would not enforce closures if the local community did not agree with them, they are taking powers to impose closures on local communities. In the minute that I have left, I want to say to the Minister that there has been a series of broken promises. It is fitting that a Liberal Democrat is summing up a debate on broken promises on the NHS.”
“However, one of the first things that they did was to do away with the 24-hour promise of a visit to the GP. They then introduced 111, which had algorithms and questions that all ended with the advice, “Go to your A and E.” There are now 850 fewer surgeries opening at evenings and weekends, and a quarter of walk-in centres have closed. Talk about reinventing the wheel—the Government are now saying that those are the sorts of things that we need to do. The crisis in A and E is of the Government’s making. It is their decisions that have created the situation. To return to south-east London, the Secretary of State appointed the trust special administrator to oversee the merger of Lewisham and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. The local authority took on that decision because the powers that the Government took were not within their remit.”
“There is example after example of broken promises. The Conservatives accused people of planning to close hospitals when there was no plan to do so, and then came in and did it themselves. We have a curious situation. The Secretary of State has been saying, “Crisis? What crisis?” Today, he read out a quote saying that the crisis is behind us. That is a little confusing. Of course, the crisis that he was talking about was a summer crisis. He did not mention that. He presided over a summer crisis. That is pretty unique. I do not think that even Virginia Bottomley achieved a summer crisis, but I could be wrong. The crisis is of the Government’s own making. The Secretary of State talked about the need for services away from the hospital to protect A and E from being overwhelmed.”
“It is true. Where were any of the things that are happening to our NHS in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto? None of them was in their manifesto. They never put them before the electorate. We want no return to the closure of Lewisham A and E. The closure of Queen Mary’s, Sidcup has had the knock-on effect of overwhelming the other A and Es in south-east London. That is clear for all to see. Those A and Es are under serious pressure. It is clear that there is no slack in the system to pick up the additional burden from that closure. We must have a guarantee from the Government that they will not impose the closure of another A and E on the people of south-east London. I would like to hear that from the Minister when he sums up.”
“The 2009 Parry report on sports betting recommended strengthening the law on cheating, as defined in the Gambling Act 2005. Jacques Rogge has described cheating in gambling as being “as dangerous as doping for the credibility of sport.” The Secretary of State called a summit this week, presumably to explain to sports governing bodies why the Government alone have failed to meet the recommendations of the Parry report. She rejected all our amendments to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill on match-fixing. Following the recent allegations in football, will she now reconsider her position?”
“The Active People survey figures that were published as we walked into the Chamber this morning show that they were down on last year. When the last set of figures was published, the Government blamed the weather. Will they do so again today? The time for excuses has passed. Even more damning, the figures for 16 to 25-year-olds are down by 51,000. There was no better golden legacy left to this Government than the one in sport. Just what will the Government do about this terrible situation?”
“Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs liabilities table published in May shows that the number of people earning more than £1 million jumped from 13,000 in January to 18,000 after the Budget. Their combined income rose from £27 billion to more than £47 billion. Is that why April was the only month in which earnings rose above inflation?”
“People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” I can think of no greater tribute for us as Members of Parliament than to bear those words in mind when we make decisions, not just on international issues confronting us but in our communities and our society, and by having the courage of our experience that tells us what is the right thing to do on behalf of our community, taking forward Nelson Mandela’s legacy and the example that he gave to us all.”
“The integrity and intellect he applied to his politics gave the leaders of the white minority population of that country the confidence that this was a man to lead their country through that process of reconciliation. When we talk about the apartheid regime, we often overlook the fact that Nelson Mandela became an icon for people who were challenging racism. He met the family of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and he said that “the threat of fascism and racism is threatening the whole world”. We should not forget those words. The day after Nelson Mandela died, we put a message from him in the window of our Eltham constituency office: “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion.”
“When he was confronted with a Government who refused to budge, he knew that each concession he might give in those negotiations was another injustice for the people he grew up with and knew so well. The thing about him that touched my community and all of us so much was that having been through all that, having joined the freedom struggle in his country, and having suffered the indignity and injustice of 27 years of incarceration just for having the temerity to ask for freedom, when he was freed he put his country first above any personal consideration of retribution. He realised that only through peace and reconciliation could he prevent his country from being destroyed for generations on the back of the hatred and recrimination that would follow if he were to allow things to descend into any kind of internal conflict.”
“When we read about Nelson Mandela’s childhood, however, and listen to interviews about when he was growing up, we hear that he grew up in a country that did not put any value on educating its black population. He relied on charities and religious organisations with missionaries who set up, built and furnished schools to provide him with a start in his education. He then left his community and went to Johannesburg, where he witnessed some of the worst poverty he had ever seen in his life. I like to think that somebody who comes from such a humble background is armed with something that other people do not have when it comes to challenging authority and making a real change on behalf of the people they represent.”
“I do not feel that I have anything unique to add to the debate, but as a Member of Parliament who has been offered the opportunity to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela, I do not want to miss out on the chance to put my views on the record. I want also to reflect the outpouring of grief and celebration of this man’s life that I have witnessed in my constituency. Whether at religious ceremonies, in schools or community groups or at sports events, people have taken time to reflect and the community has come together to recognise the passing of this extraordinary man. When we look back through history, we see that it is littered with people who are considered to be outstanding individuals. All too often, their start in life has given them a leg up or an opportunity that others do not get.”
“It is worth considering the history, because the Government’s thinking has been inconsistent for some time.”
“Modesty forbids me from commending the report published by the Smith Institute, which the Chair mentioned, because I edited it and wrote the foreword. A number of eminent people wrote essays in the report on how we should structure the future of school and community sport to try to put right what has clearly gone horribly wrong. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), and there is broad consensus that school sport partnerships worked, that wider benefits come from people being involved in sport, and that there is a need for a long-term, coherent plan to take us forward on sports. That consensus is evident in the report and in the comments made today.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alan. I congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent investigation into school sport. The report is important. It is very sad that we are having this debate. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), set out the case powerfully, and I pay tribute to him for his comments. There was a great festival of sport in 2012. After winning the bid in 2005, we talked a great deal about the need to build a legacy by using the opportunity to inspire a generation. Sadly, the foundation on which we should have been inspiring that generation—the structure through which we delivered school sport—was taken away. I commend the Select Committee on what it has done.”
“I might actually sympathise with that last one, because the Youth Sport Trust was heavy on data collection, but that does not justify the Government taking away all its funding and that of school sport partnerships in the way that they did. Everyone has said that the partnerships were a foundation on which we could have built. If things were wrong, we could have altered or reformed them to make them more effective.”
“I am also announcing that the Department is lifting, immediately, the many requirements of the previous Government's PE and Sport Strategy, so giving schools the clarity and freedom to concentrate on competitive school sport.” He continued with a list: “I am removing the need for schools to: Plan and implement their part of a ‘five hour offer’”— so the five-hour offer was off the agenda— “Collect information about every pupil for an annual survey;”— so we had no idea what was going on in schools— “Deliver a range of new Government sport initiatives each year;”— if we are trying to get uniformity of delivery across schools, why would one want that?—and “Report termly to the Youth Sport Trust on various performance indicators”.”
“In 2010, money was taken away from the school sport partnerships with no consultation and no planning whatever. We have heard what Jonathan Edwards thought about that, and at the time many others were highly critical of what the Secretary of State for Education did without considering the consequences or putting anything else in place. That is a key point. The Secretary of State wrote to Baroness Campbell of Loughborough: “I can confirm therefore that the Department will not continue to provide ring-fenced funding for school sport partnerships.”
“The current Government built on the school games introduced by the previous Government, which is an excellent example of what can be achieved for sport in our schools, and I support what they have achieved, but as has been pointed out, the funding has a limited time scale, which makes me question whether it will exist in the long term. A consistent criticism—of both the previous and current Governments, I grant—is that what we need is some form of long-term planning. If the Government are to produce figures for participation in competitive sport, surely it follows that they should provide statistics on non-competitive sport, too, so that parents may have a clear idea of exactly what they can expect from physical and recreational activity provided to their children at school.”
“The Conservative party’s “Sport in schools” policy briefing note stated that schools would be “free to enter as many or as few sports as they want, and there would be preliminary city and county heats, perhaps using the School Sport Partnerships infrastructure”. Again, we see what the party went on to do. The Conservative policy also states: “We will also publish data about schools’ sports facilities and their provision of competitive sporting opportunities”. In opposition, the Conservative party committed to introducing competitive sport in schools and went on and did it.”
“In fact, the success of school sport partnerships led in that year to steps being taken to introduce a target of three hours of PE a week, and the five-hour commitment meant that almost 55% of children were doing at least three hours of PE a week and were moving towards the five-hour commitment. We set very challenging, but achievable, targets as a measure of our ambition. We wanted to get 2 million more people active and, by 2012, we wanted 60% of children to do five hours of PE a week during curriculum time and after school. Before the election, the then shadow Sports Minister said on Radio 5 Live that he thought it would be wrong to dismantle school sport partnerships after 13 years of work, and that his party would build on the partnerships.”
“There is no doubt that Building Schools for the Future improved facilities in our schools; we could have used it to build a framework for delivering excellent sport provision, both competitive and non-competitive, in our schools. There was inconsistency between what the Government said before the election, and what they did after it. It is also worth setting out what the school sport partnerships achieved, because in 2002 the PE and school sport survey highlighted that only one child in four was doing two hours of PE a week. Under the school sport partnerships, by 2007-08, the figure had increased to 90%.”
“This experience is likely to govern their approach to sport for the rest of their lives.” The document goes on to address the contribution of school sport partnerships. On the same page, the document states that the Conservative party would: “Re-examine Building Schools for the Future to see how sports provision can be enhanced.” I mention that document because the sad thing is that as soon as the Government came into office, both Building Schools for the Future, which, as the document recognises, improved school facilities, and the funding for school sport partnerships were taken away. That announcement was made in October 2010, and it was almost the kiss of death for two key elements of delivering sport in our schools.”
“I am reluctant to differ with the hon. Gentleman, but school sport partnerships were in place for some time and had a major effect on participation in sport. I would accept his point if we had moved smoothly from one system to the other, but that is not what happened. Prior to the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who is now Health Secretary, and the then shadow Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), produced a document, “Extending Opportunities: A Conservative policy paper on sport.” Two things were mentioned in relation to school sports. First: “The school environment provides the majority of children with their first experiences of sport.”
“In fact, we said that where people were motivated, and wanted to excel and to participate in competitive sport, they should be able to do so. School sport partnerships were successful at increasing participation in competitive sport.”
“When the Government announced the school games, which I welcome, it was an excuse to cover up the loss of school sport partnerships. That was an attack on people who value increasing participation. In a blog on the “ConservativeHome” website in 2011, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, said that the Government were “banishing once and for all the left-wing orthodoxy that promotes ‘prizes for all’ and derides competition”. That is a classic example of accusing one’s opponent of being in favour of something and then abolishing it. The previous Government introduced school games and certainly were not at all opposed to competitive sport.”
“The emphasis on primary schools has been welcomed, and I echo that to some degree, and will return to the subject. The funding is ring-fenced, which is another U-turn, because we have been told that ring-fencing was out of favour under this Government, and that schools should use money as they wish. How will the Government monitor the scheme? We welcome the specialist PE training of 120 primary teachers, but it is a drop in the ocean across 17,000 primary schools. There are also questions about Ofsted’s capability. Can we be sure that Ofsted personnel are properly trained and equipped to evaluate what is going on? The issue is not just the two hours, but what happens during those two hours. We want to ensure that school sport is evaluated in the right way.”
“Schools are no longer required to provide a specified amount of playing field space; they merely have to provide suitable outdoor space. It also beggars belief that free schools can open up with absolutely no sport provision whatever. That cannot be right and is not consistent with the actions of a Government who value school sport and consider it deserving of higher priority in the curriculum. In August 2012, the Government abolished the two-hour target; without any means of monitoring what is going on, it is difficult to judge what the implications have been. The announcement of the £150 million scheme was welcome, but as I pointed out to the Chair of the Education Committee, it came after the dismantling of the structures put in place for school sport.”
“The Secretary of State was forced to come back to Parliament to make another announcement, in which he reinstated £65 million—£32.5 million a year for two years—for PE teacher release, whereby teachers would be released for a day a week to co-ordinate sports in their area. Through a series of freedom of information requests, I found out that that funding was resulting in 60% less time being spent organising school sport than was spent by school sport co-ordinators under school sport partnerships. Despite attempts to back-fill the hole, the damage had been done. There was a significant reduction in the amount of time being spent organising sport outside the classroom. In addition—it really is a sorry pattern—the Government have watered down protections for school playing fields in the national planning framework.”
“The Government have said that the scheme will be externally evaluated, and I would like to hear how that will be done, and what will be looked at. This point goes back to the intervention from the Chair of the Education Committee. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement, and the decision to take money away from school sport partnerships on a whim, there was a hue and cry from people involved in sport and school sport in particular. If you check Hansard , Sir Alan, you will find that I was one of those angry people. I am sure that a sense of how shocked and angry I was at the sudden announcement just leaps out of the page.”
“I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk across Government about a long-term plan for sport and recreational activity in our schools and communities, so that we can give people the consistency and therefore the confidence to plan ahead for the sorts of sports that they are delivering in their communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.”
“When they go to secondary school, they can then make informed choices about the sports and physical activities that they might want to get involved in. I agree with points made earlier: this is not only about competition. It has to be about getting people active and instilling that habit in them for a lifetime. We need long-term planning. I have been all over the country, talking to people involved at all levels of sport, including PE teachers and co-ordinators, and they want long-term planning from Government. They also want politicians to co-operate with one another.”