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 61 of 68.
“I take my right hon. Friend’s point about the issue not even being before the UN Security Council and the difficulties that can be created by calling for legal action to be taken against people before an agreement is reached. However, there is a precedent for taking individual action. For instance, the British Government took action on Bosnia before there was international agreement. I heard what Lord Malloch-Brown said about taking action against individuals who support the regime around Robert Mugabe to prevent them from moving and about freezing their assets. Is there any possibility of the Government taking action of that kind, to send those people around Robert Mugabe the strong message that after the situation is over, they will still face action?”
“Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the review will not result in a lottery system in the NHS, whereby people who can afford to pay can buy better treatment than people who cannot afford to do so? Most hon. Members on both sides of the House would be concerned if that inequality were introduced into the NHS, because it could become the thin end of the wedge for things such as top-up payments for other treatments. Will he assure us that the review will not open up that avenue?”
“In my constituency, we are about to rebuild a new local hospital which will be a 24/7, GP-led urgent care centre with 40 respite beds and diagnostic services that are to be brought right into the heart of our community in Eltham. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has proposed that any vested interests in the local health economy could scupper that in the face of widespread local support for the scheme. That is not bringing the service back to local people; it is taking it away from them and putting it in the hands of vested interests.”
“My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there was some coverage about the topical debate on knife crime last week. By their very nature, topical debates are important to our constituents, but the debates have a problem, because, often, not many Members can participate in them, hence the coverage that last week’s debate generated. Will she consider reviewing how we arrange topical debates so that more Members can participate and so that the media cannot distort what goes on in the House by suggesting that Members on both sides of the House are not in tune with what goes on in their constituencies, or do not share their constituents’ concerns?”
“My right hon. Friend will be aware of the contribution that traffic congestion makes to emissions and climate change. May I draw her attention to the fact that we face a problem in south-east London at the Blackwall tunnel every day, and that a three-bridge scheme proposes to deal with it? I understand that the Mayor of London is not going to build the Thames Gateway bridge. Some of us have been saying that the Silvertown link should be prioritised, and this situation gives the opportunity for that to take place. Will she examine the matter and discuss it with the Mayor of London? Will she also take the opportunity to bring the Docklands Light Railway to North Greenwich, as it could then be moved on to Eltham, thus reducing the traffic congestion on this major arterial route?”
“Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), the fact is that liberalisation has meant that many companies can cherry-pick the most lucrative parts of the mail system. That is creating the problem for Royal Mail. Since in order to survive businesses rely on Royal Mail’s ability to deliver the last mile, it is essential that they be forced to pay towards maintaining that universal service. Otherwise, it will fall on the public purse to maintain the service so that we can supply mail across the country, and even to areas such as Orkney and Shetland.”
“Many publicly funded regeneration projects are taking place across the country. In London alone, we have Crossrail, the Thames Gateway, 2012, and the Kidbrooke regeneration in my part of London. Many companies are making a great deal of money out of that investment of public funds, but they need people with vocational skills in engineering, construction and so on. May I urge my hon. Friend to enter into discussions with the companies involved in those projects with a view to supporting not only higher education but further education courses?”
“My right hon. Friend’s statement on assistance for people buying houses through shared equity schemes and for people to enter the housing market is welcome. However, I stress to him that even with that assistance, house buying is out of the question for many of my constituents in London. If we are to provide affordable housing for young families who are trying to set up their own homes to bring up their children, we will need more affordable rented accommodation. Will he bear that in mind?”
“May I commend my right hon. Friend’s decision to move services into the local community? I want to draw his attention to a consultation that I held about my local primary care trust’s proposal to open a cottage hospital in Eltham, to which the response rate was more than 10 per cent. More than 1,400 people responded, virtually 100 per cent. of whom were in favour of having a cottage hospital in the middle of our community, bringing services into the heart of Eltham. I commend the Secretary of State’s approach, and I commend my PCT’s proposal to him.”
“Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment, in response to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), on Barnet council’s website, which says that there has been a 17.5 per cent. reduction in crime between 2005 and 2008? That is a Conservative authority.”
“We are grateful to Councillor Greg Smith of Hammersmith and Fulham council, who welcomed the safer neighbourhoods teams rolled out by Ken Livingstone. He said: “More Bobbies in Fulham Broadway and Shepherds Bush Green are resulting in more arrests and less crime, with no evidence of any displacement to neighbouring wards. We have seen some staggering results, for example, in Shepherds Bush, robbery is down by a colossal 46 per cent and in Fulham Broadway, total crime is down by 10 per cent, with burglary down 27 per cent.”—”
“Crime has fallen in each of the past five years. It has fallen by an average of 5.5 per cent. in the past three years, despite what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said in his opening remarks. Those are the irrefutable facts about policing in London. We can bandy figures around, but a trawl around the websites of Conservative local authorities in London makes interesting reading. They are not consistent with anything that we have heard from the Opposition today. Barnet council says that it has seen a 17.5 per cent. reduction in crime between 2005 and 2008. Croydon council boasts that the borough has experienced a 5.2 per cent. decrease in recorded violent crime. Enfield council states that offences have “fallen by nearly 10 per cent. between 2003-04 and 2006-07”.”
“Member for Hornchurch that we could add “in Hansard ”, could we not? Hillingdon says on its website— [ Interruption. ] I am quoting your colleagues in support of my argument.”
“I am coming to the hon. Lady. Harrow council carried out a crime survey and found that 71 per cent. of residents surveyed felt safe. The council said that “residents’ fear of crime, and perceptions of anti social behaviour, have shown significant improvement year on year for the last three years.” Havering council—the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) might want to use this when he sums up—states: “Although Havering is an extremely safe place to live, the fear of crime is higher than the probability of being a victim of such a crime. We are committed to tackling fear of crime through educating the public about the facts and ensuring they are not overtly frightened by stories that might appear in the newspapers and on television or the radio.” I say to the hon.”
“Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am using the colleagues of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) to highlight the fact that they do not agree with the arguments being put from the Conservative Bencher. Hillingdon council boasts that “crime figures are at a 5-year low. Personal robbery is at its lowest for 3 years, vehicle crime is at its lowest for 5 years and assaults are at their lowest for 5 years.””
“By helping to make people feel safer in their community, Safer Neighbourhoods Teams will provide reassurance to help bridge this gap.” Clearly, Wandsworth council regrets the fact that Conservative members of the Greater London authority consistently voted against the Mayor’s budgets that introduced the safer neighbourhoods teams.”
“Kensington and Chelsea council says that burglaries have been “slashed”, and that “Kensington and Chelsea residents are less likely to be a victim of burglary today than at any other time this century.” I come to Redbridge council—is anyone from Redbridge? The council welcomes the reduction in street crime by a third and attributes that to the safer transport teams, which are part-funded by the Mayor of London. Wandsworth council says: “Despite recorded crime falling in the UK and burglary at its lowest for decades in London, research shows that a third of people believe crime has risen ‘a lot’.”
“I am slightly confused, as I used the words of the Conservative-run Wandsworth council—“despite recorded crime falling”. What is erroneous about that? Is the hon. Lady saying that the information on the council’s website is erroneous? Does Wandsworth council want to mislead people about crime falling in the area? Is it wrong for it to claim that the incidence of burglary is at its lowest for decades? The council states that research shows that a third of people believe that crime has risen, and that is consistent with the point made by the hon. Lady, but it also says that the safer neighbourhoods teams will provide reassurance. Where is the consistency in the Opposition approach to these matters?”
“When this Labour Government came to office in 1997, the police training college at Hendon was empty. Police officers could not be recruited because they were not being paid enough. The first thing that this Government had to do was sort out police pay. As soon as we made the money available to employ officers, police numbers started to rise. Police numbers in London have increased consistently under this Labour Government, and crime has fallen in response. Since 2002-03, almost every type of recorded crime has fallen, in line with the extra police numbers funded by this Labour Government and our Labour Mayor.”
“There we are: crime in London is falling even as we speak. We need to put the figures in context, and to do that we have to recall that there once was a Conservative Government. That is not easy to do, but we must not forget the lessons that we learned at the time. Under the Conservatives, police numbers in London peaked at 28,455, but then, on 1 September 1994, the Government implemented the Sheehy report, and police pay was cut. When I was first a Member of Parliament, two police officers who worked in Camden borough visited me in my surgery. One was earning £4,600 a year less than the other because he had been employed after the Sheehy report was implemented. What impact did Sheehy have? By March 1995—six months after it was adopted—police numbers in London had fallen by 1,800.”
“That means that we lose the intelligence and the knowledge of local areas that we need, which are vital to safer neighbourhood teams.”
“I sometimes wonder where the Conservatives come from. If they ever talked to police officers in the community or knew anything about the safer neighbourhood teams, they might join me in complaining about the loss of our community support officers. The fact is that they are applying to become police officers. If we are to have any consistency in safer neighbourhood teams, we cannot use them as a training ground for police officers. Intelligence about and knowledge of a local area cannot be built up in a few months, and if someone moves on rapidly they never get that intelligence and we never get the full effect of safer neighbourhood teams. My complaint is not about police numbers but about the churn in police community support officers. Many go on to become police officers, because we are recruiting more and more.”
“Absolutely. The Mayor has to be commended for the resolute approach he has taken to delivering what people in London have told all of us, of whatever political persuasion, is their priority: community safety and more police on the streets. The Mayor has delivered that and had the political guts to stand up and say that if we are to have it, we must pay for it. He has put it in the precept, and people can see where the money has gone.”
“I do not really see that as a major issue. The fact is that people would rather have police officers than PCSOs. We all understand that, but when people begin to understand the role of community support officers, they value them equally. PCSO numbers have grown rapidly in London, and people are getting used to them. Borough commanders should have some flexibility, but they should also be accountable to local communities. Communities should know what they are entitled to get, and having a model of safer neighbourhood teams helps. There are safer neighbourhood teams of different sizes in my constituency, due to the action of my local police commander. However, a minimum number should be set so that people understand what they are entitled to.”
“When there is an incident the police will have no record of who has been stopped. If somebody wants to check why they were stopped and make a formal complaint there will be no formal record of what has taken place. It does not make sense. It does not add up. The Conservatives say that they want to get rid of bureaucracy and to make the police more effective, but they would take away a tool that is essential for the operational efficiency of the police. They claim that they want to make the police more accountable, but they would take away the form that allows an individual to check why they were stopped and what intelligence was gathered about them.”
“They sent downstairs to have the form brought up and we went through it. I said, “Wouldn’t you want to get rid of this form?” He said, “No, absolutely no way. This form provides us with a lot of intelligence. If we stop someone, take a brief description of them and later on find that a crime was committed by someone who fits their description, we have a record that we can follow up.” That approach has led to the clearing up of a lot of crime in local communities. The idea that the forms are a waste of time and resources is completely bogus. It is not accurate at all. The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives would spend money on hand-held scanners, so will the police stop people in the street, scan them with no explanation, keep no record of who has been stopped and why and let them go on their merry way?”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who illustrates the fact that there is more to recruiting police officers, and to the cost of doing so, than just paying for them. The infrastructure has to be put in place to get qualified police officers. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is not in the Chamber, because if he were he could intervene on me and clarify exactly what he was on about. He said that he wanted to get rid of stop-and-account forms. I hope that I did not hear my hon. Friend the Minister incorrectly, because I would find it extraordinary if we were to get rid of the forms completely. I went to see my borough commander and local inspector to talk about the forms and how we could get our safer neighbourhood teams and police officers out on the street, rather than having to spend too much time on bureaucracy.”
“If he attends a parade at Hendon police training college, will he expect the qualified police officers who are turning out to celebrate him, their having been called “flag-waving picaninnies”? Would he expect any black police officers to smile at him— [Interruption.]”
“That is okay, but I cannot see £1 million for tackling those crimes in Greenwich in the Conservative mayoral candidate’s budget for London—I cannot see it anywhere. Again, there is inconsistency and local opportunism from the Conservatives. My final point is about leadership. We have talked about stop and search and the confidence of ethnic minority communities. It is essential for police operations that the police have the confidence of all sections of our community. If the Mayor is to be the chair of the Metropolitan police authority, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) tells us, he will be at the forefront, encouraging people from all sections of the community, including ethnic minority communities, to join the police force.”
“My local authority will invest £1 million in setting up a taskforce to tackle the problem in partnership with the local police, but local Conservative councillors oppose the plan even though it is a priority for the whole community. If we ask people what concerns them most about crime in their community we realise that it is not necessarily fear of being a victim of crime; they are actually concerned about young people. We are attempting to deal with the problem. Young people have been murdered in Greenwich and the council is responding, but the Conservative response to that attempt to work in partnership with the police is to oppose the £1 million investment and say that the Mayor should pay for the taskforce.”
“I agree absolutely. People from all sections of our communities need confidence in their police force. Stop and search was one of the things that undermined not only the relationship between police and local communities but police efficiency. To go back to it would be a retrograde step. As the Member of Parliament for Eltham, I paid close attention to the issues brought out by the Macpherson report. One of the factors that came out loud and clear from members of ethnic minority communities was that they wanted better and more police accountability. Woe betide anybody who wants to go back on that in the future. My local authority wants to deal with the rise in crime among young people, which is clearly a problem. Young people are the victims of crime committed by young people and everyone is rightly concerned about that.”
“Out of generosity, we should start a campaign to get back the money spent on his education, as it was clearly wasted. That is clearly the biggest crime to debate tonight. This debate is taking place because the Conservatives’ campaign has faltered, and we have proved why it has done so in this debate on crime in London.”
“Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no denying that the remarks that I quoted were written down. They are on record for anyone who wants to read them. The fact is, Mr. Mayor—[Hon. Members: “Mr. Deputy Speaker.”]—Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the debate is taking place because the Conservative campaign for London Mayor has faltered, and the Conservatives are desperate to try to score some political points. Their candidate is fraying at the edges. In every public debate, he humiliates himself. The man has had an Eton and Oxbridge education but cannot add up; there is a £440,000 hole in his budget. He wants to pay for extra police community support officers, but the money is not there. There is a £140 million hole in his transport budget.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I draw to his attention some of my concerns about the number of young people from state schools going to Oxford or Cambridge? I hear reports from pupils who go to open events at those universities that the impression given to them is that they will not be given any preferential treatment just because they come from a state school. That might be the right thing to say, but the way it is said can put people off applying and working towards the goal that they may have set themselves of going to those universities. What can my right hon. Friend do to deal with that issue, to address the fact that the number of state school pupils going to those universities has stalled, and to encourage pupils to reach their full potential?”
“I am slightly confused by the position of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) because Tory assembly member Richard Barnes has openly said of police in London: “I don’t think so much money should be spent on them”. Conservatives have called PCSOs “plastic policemen” in the past, so where has this sudden support for PCSOs come from? Since the Mayor was elected, there have been 850 extra police officers on London’s transport system—”
“On the issue of the conversion of the Conservatives to supporting PCSOs, does my right hon. Friend recall the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the last Conservative party conference, in which he attacked two PCSOs from Wigan because they did not dive in, accusing them of standing and watching as a young man drowned?”
“On the subject of CCTV cameras, when we had a problem with vandalism on the buses—something the hon. Member for Henley has made a great deal of—one of the things the bus drivers demanded and got from the Mayor of London was CCTV on the buses. I dare say if the hon. Gentleman does not consider CCTV cameras important, he does not consider them important for dealing with antisocial behaviour on buses either.”
“When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) talked about crime figures, he took 1998 as his starting point. The point that the Mayor would make, which the statistics bear out, is that crime rates are in line with police numbers. As police numbers have grown and the Government and the Mayor have invested in extra police, crime has come down. The hon. Gentleman should remember that.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came to the Chamber for business questions two weeks ago and asked for today’s debate, and the Leader of the House said that she would take up the issue, yet due to the shortage of time I was not able to contribute, so I feel slightly aggrieved, too. If time limits could be considered, I would support the idea.”
“The Government have been getting it in the neck from both local government and the private sector, which may suggest to some that perhaps they are on the right track. Does the Minister agree that the Bill’s success will be tested in how the bus companies and local authorities come together to solve the problems that exist in providing services to communities that are not well served by bus companies? The real test of the Bill’s success when it is enacted will come when local authorities and the bus companies start seriously to talk together about improving services.”
“I do not doubt that the hon. Lady values buses, but unfortunately her hon. Friends do not. She could fit into a London taxi the Conservative MPs present for this debate; she would not need a bus. [ Interruption. ] I declare my interests. The hon. Lady said that bus deregulation had worked outside London. If that is so, why has overall bus ridership outside London fallen rather than risen?”
“My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that we used to have an annual debate on the Floor of the House about the budget for the Metropolitan police. Given the national importance of the Metropolitan police, will she consider arranging an urgent debate on the Floor of the House, particularly in the light of the threats made to its budget by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) in the mayoral election campaign? Perhaps he will actually turn up for that debate in relation to London.”
“May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to a situation that my constituent found himself in? He was returned to prison while on a home curfew tag. He found a job that required him to leave home 15 minutes before his curfew ended in the morning, and as a result he was returned to prison. Surely the administration of the system should be able to cope with a request for an alteration to curfew hours in cases where somebody is actually trying to rehabilitate themselves. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter, and perhaps make the system more flexible to meet people’s needs?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the time, his party time was in favour of a wholesale, unbridled privatisation of London Underground, similar to the privatisation of the railways? Does he still advocate that?”
“Their mayoral candidate already has a hole of £100 million in his budget, so Londoners know what to expect should they elect him.”
“A little later, in 2000, their mayoral candidate, Steve Norris, was cited in The Times on 29 January: “Steven Norris, the Tory candidate for London mayor, is to support Labour proposals for a public-private partnership for the London Underground.” The article went on to say: “Campaign aides yesterday made clear that the plans had been drawn up with the backing of William Hague”— some echoes there of what happened to the Liberal party last week. Only a few months later, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) reverted to Conservative old ways and said: “We want fully to privatise the underground”. —[ Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c.107.] Londoners are clearly not protected by Conservative proposals. Conservatives would seek to use the private sector in the PPP in future.”
“We take a strong position on the failures of the part of the PPP that Metronet was involved with, but the Committee is far from saying that PPP is a bad idea. Many of us in this House come from local government, where public-private partnerships are commonplace. It would be a foolish position to take to say that we were flatly opposed to PPP. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) is unfortunately no longer in his place. I used to share my office with the previous Member for that constituency when it was a Labour seat, and I have to say that he made a lot more sense. At the 1997 general election, the Conservatives’ manifesto stated unequivocally that they would introduce proposals to privatise the London Underground.”
“I start by saying how much I regret the fact that the Chair of our Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is unable to be here. I wish her all the best, and I hope that she makes a swift recovery and returns to her duties in the House as soon as possible. It is inevitable in a debate on the failure of Metronet that everyone will repeat the arguments of 10 years ago, when people were raising questions about the public-private partnership, and they have jumped to the conclusion that the entire PPP has failed. I say to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that if he reads the conclusions of the report, he will find that paragraphs 21 to 24 all refer to severe failures of Metronet and its internal structures, but they do not condemn PPP.”
“Metronet has let Londoners down and we must not put another Metronet in place to repeat that exercise.”
“We finished up with 50 delayed station upgrades and no risk transfer from the public to the private sector. In the short time available, I want to emphasise to the Government that there are lessons to be learned, as everybody has said. We must not repeat the mistakes that we made in the run-up to PPP 10 years ago. The London underground needs stability and time to plan ahead. We cannot enter into another enforced PPP, whereby a private sector partner is levered in to take over the contracts that London Underground currently runs. The administrators have attempted to introduce the private sector and they have failed. Indeed, they said that pursuing that would be a waste of public money. We need London Underground to retain the management of Metronet’s contracts and a period of stability for the benefit of Londoners.”