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 63 of 68.
“Can she ensure that we cover core funding for voluntary organisations that are involved in youth work, because they often find that difficult? Will she undertake to meet me so that I can discuss all the other ideas that I have?”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the £25 million for deprived areas. However, can I caution her against being too structured in terms of how that money is spent? Some of the things in which we have invested in the past, such as Connexions, have not been attractive to young people because the approach has been too structured. Will she encourage local authorities to carry out audits of parks and open spaces to see where they can introduce facilities for young people where they might be able to participate in less structured sporting activities? There is a great deal of goodwill among parents and other people who want to do things for young people, so will she ensure that the adult population are engaged in these facilities as well as young people themselves?”
“May I inform my right hon. Friend that one of my local newspapers claims to have a leaked e-mail from a middle manager of the Queen Mary’s hospital trust that sets out plans to downgrade accident and emergency services, close maternity and paediatric services and make cuts of £60 million? Such headlines will make it very difficult for Lord Ara Darzi to enter into a meaningful dialogue with local people and consult on the shape of future local services. What is Lord Darzi doing to address those speculative headlines, which are making it very difficult to have a meaningful dialogue about the future of our services?”
“It works because it is in an environment where people feel confident and able to come forward and engage with what is going on, and by doing so they are able to assist in the education of their own children. Examples of that process were shown to my hon. Friend when he came to visit. We are able to target such communities, and I urge the Secretary of State, when he is considering future funding, to make it easier for schools to set up such adult learning centres.”
“I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. In doing so, I draw his attention to the work of primary schools in my constituency that have set up adult learning centres in the community. Parents in those schools have been able to add to qualifications, or gain them if they had none, leading to their gaining employment. We can really target and attack deprivation in the most deprived areas in our communities by using local centres such as primary schools. I commend that work to my right hon. Friend. Our colleague, my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, has visited a primary school in my constituency and seen for himself how the process is working.”
“I find a lot of good will out there, particularly among parents, many of whom would like to get involved in such activities if only the resources and the capacity were made available.”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the innovative way in which he has introduced consultation on future legislation. I would like to comment particularly on the unclaimed assets Bill. The Prime Minister will be aware of the great concern about antisocial behaviour in all our communities. Parents are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of facilities to divert young people from involvement in antisocial behaviour in the first place. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to use dormant money to improve youth services, and I would ask for two particular things. First, this money should be additional to the resources that councils currently make available. Secondly, councils should be encouraged to engage with the local community before the money is freed up. It is crucial to engage the local community.”
“My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the success of antisocial behaviour orders in assisting communities to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour. May I draw one aspect of the issue to his attention so that he is aware of it when he carries out the review? Police officers in my area are concerned that when somebody breaches an ASBO and they are taken back to the magistrates court, the matter is not treated severely enough, given that it is a severe breach of a court agreement. Will my hon. Friend take that into consideration when he carries out the review?”
“I am an inner-city Member of Parliament and the test will be whether we can engage with those sections of the community who do not have a great deal of influence over how decisions are made in their area. This Bill, and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, will be a step in the direction of empowering those people. I congratulate all those who have been involved in achieving the consensus. I wish the Bill every success.”
“Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), his Parliamentary Private Secretary, who helped to overcome some of the difficulties faced during the passage of the Bill. The test of the Bill, as it will be for the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, is whether it empowers those sections of the community that do not engage in our democratic processes and civic structures. We had long debates in Committee about the people who meet in front rooms in villages to try to influence what happens in their local community. The key is to ensure that all sections of the community are empowered and encouraged to engage. One of the ways to empower them is to provide information, which is key to their being able to make choices about how their local community should be improved.”
“It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who have been pursuing the Bill for some time, supported by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). They all deserve much congratulation. I join in the congratulation of my hon. Friend the Minister. Although the Bill was supported on both sides of the House, there were difficulties for him at times, especially when he looked behind him at some of the more independent-minded—and hirsute—Labour Members who had miraculously been selected to serve on the Committee, but he dealt with those situations with consummate skill. He was supported ably by my hon.”
“On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today in Prime Minister’s Question Time the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) referred to St. Mary’s hospital. I think that he meant Queen Mary’s hospital. He said that it might be closed. However, there are no plans—”
“Although it is important that people have dignity in the workplace and should be supported in mainstream employment, there is undoubtedly an element of the Remploy work force that cannot be employed in any other setting. Getting rid of these unique workplaces, where people can have dignity and be safely employed, will be a retrograde step. We will not be able to recreate them. We need to consider innovative ways to use Remploy factories in a new form, to meet all the needs of the work force for whom we are trying to provide a service.”
“May I stress to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the consultation must be genuine? I cannot imagine how the workers at my local factory must be feeling, having heard the recommendation that their workplace should close. My concern is that the recommendations are being made before Remploy has had the opportunity to prove that it can find places in mainstream workplaces for current Remploy employees. I think that that will be an extremely difficult task. May I suggest that there is a way forward that has not been put forward by Remploy or been considered in enough detail? It is that Remploy factories could provide a training base—a stepping stone—for people with disabilities who are trying to go back into mainstream work.”
“Friend give an assurance that, first, local communities will still be able to stop the great and the good imposing such schemes on them and, secondly, that in what she proposes today the environmental impact will be front and centre of any consideration?”
“I acknowledge that certain projects such as terminal 5 and Thameslink 2000 can get mired in process, but does my right hon. Friend accept that some schemes thought necessary and desirable by the great and the good can be the cause of much local concern? I am thinking particularly of the east London river crossing in my constituency and the local community uniting against the building of a six-lane motorway through Oxleas woods—a unique site of special scientific interest that would have been destroyed. Sometimes these good and necessary schemes are not in the public interest and certainly not in accordance with any environmental impact studies. Will my right hon.”
“Last Friday, Len Duvall, the Greater London authority member for Greenwich and Lewisham, and I met representatives of TFL to discuss this issue, and I can confirm the facts that my hon. Friend has just given and those given by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). Does my hon. Friend agree that the information from the police, particularly on recent incidents, is extremely compelling upon TFL? It had a lot of difficulty in sticking to the time scale that it set for holding a public consultation and informing people of this change. If a further accident had happened, there could have been some recourse to compensation from TFL, and some blame laid at its door for not taking heed of what the police had said.”
“My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the overcrowding on train services in the south-east. We recently had an Eltham to Victoria service cut by two carriages. Such a penny-pinching approach to the provision of services in south-east London is not good enough and will not deal with the congestion on our lines. When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of South Eastern Trains, will he impress upon them the fact that south-east London is not served by the London underground, train services are essential, and that it is important that we extend the length of our trains, not cut them?”
“Q4. When my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister, pensioners were the most likely section of society to be living in poverty. Today, they are the least likely, sharing in the economic prosperity under Labour. Will he contrast this Government’s achievements on behalf of pensioners with the attempts in the House of Lords and the Greater London authority to cut the availability of the freedom pass, which is enjoyed by thousands of London’s pensioners? If the Tories will cut the freedom pass for pensioners, what else does my right hon. Friend think they would cut?”
“We are trying to educate the public about how they can play their part in tackling climate change, but does my hon. Friend agree that schools have a very important role? They are educating the adults of the future, so what work is he doing with the Department for Education and Skills to encourage schools to participate more? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website has some useful information for schools.”
“If the Conservatives are facing up to the challenges of climate change, would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why certain Conservative authorities have cut recycling facilities? How many of the recently elected Conservative authorities does he anticipate will make similar cuts, and will he defend their record in future years, after they have made those cuts?”
“This petition of residents living in Chelsworth drive and Tuam road in my constituency highlights the growing problem of Japanese knotweed. Responsibility for clearing an infestation where it appears is clearly set out in statute, but that is not the case when the land is bona vacantia. No one has a legal duty to deal with the problem, despite the threat to neighbouring properties, creating a problem for people living in those properties. That problem has existed for those residents for many years. The petition declares: The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons enacts legislation or statutory instruments that will identify which authority or body is responsible for the clearance of Japanese Knotweed, and provide powers for the House of Commons to enforce such clearance when necessary. To lie upon the Table .”
“I cannot think of any other part of London where a major infrastructure project would be proposed—including a length of tunnel from Custom House to Plumstead, where it emerges before arriving at Abbey Wood—and a strategic and important town centre be bypassed and have no station. Common sense has prevailed today, and Woolwich is now to be included.”
“Similarly, the community came together and argued overwhelmingly that building the docklands light railway and bypassing Cutty Sark gardens next to the Cutty Sark clipper, one of the most popular destinations outside central London, was a serious error, and that a station should be included. On Crossrail, the community has again come together, made a forceful argument, and achieved the new instruction to the Select Committee. In Woolwich, which is not in my constituency, although it is in the borough in which my constituency lies, transport is a key issue, as it is for many communities across the capital. Woolwich, however, is a strategic hub for people in that part of London.”
“All sections of the community have made tremendous effort, not least the public, who always expressed their support for the scheme and appreciated the contribution that it would make to transport links in the area. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) —who also deserves congratulations on his efforts to argue for the station in his constituency—the score is 3-0 to us in terms of major infrastructure projects, although we do not want to rub it in. Initially, we were denied the opportunity of a station on the Jubilee line, but the then council, of which I was a member, argued forcefully to the Government of the day that it would be ridiculous to bypass that regeneration area—as it was then—next to what was to become the millennium dome, and not build a station.”
“I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport has always been a secret fan, too, of a Crossrail station at Woolwich. The achievement of a new instruction to the Select Committee is a credit to all sections of the community in Greenwich, including not just the elected Members of Parliament and councillors but businesses. The chairman of the chamber of commerce, Steve Nelson, a constituent of mine, urged members of the business community in Greenwich to recognise the importance of the issue and to put their weight behind the case for a station at Woolwich. We also cannot ignore the input of Berkeley Homes, and the vision that it showed in incorporating the scheme into its regeneration of the Royal Arsenal. Without that open-minded and creative thinking, we might not have achieved the new instruction to the Committee.”
“This afternoon is a time for congratulations, and I add my appreciation of the work done by the Select Committee, not least its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). From day one when he received the evidence, it has been clear to me that he appreciated the need for a station in Woolwich, its regeneration, the economic aspects, and its impact on the wider area in the borough of Greenwich, where my constituency is situated. It is a shame that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here to bask in the glory of having had the vision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, to see through the arguments against the station at Woolwich and appreciate its value in enhancing the Crossrail scheme overall.”
“As a Member of Parliament whose constituency is not entirely within the Thames Gateway area, I have had problems trying to get transport providers to recognise that the plans for such new developments must also consider secondary transport links to ensure that the wider community also benefits from the investment. If the wider community is to benefit fully from investment in the station at Woolwich, it will be essential, although significant links already exist, to improve bus links to Woolwich. It has been difficult, for example, to get Transport for London to recognise the need to improve the bus links from the south of Greenwich to North Greenwich underground station. That has been one of the flaws in the transport development in that part of south-east London—”
“Those are absolutely key points. In addition, in 2009, the docklands light railway will arrive, so Woolwich will become a major strategic hub, even for people living beyond the immediate area, for all the transport networks being developed in the eastern corridor and around the Thames Gateway area. With regard to major infrastructure developments such as the DLR, Crossrail and the Jubilee line, I hope that the Department for Transport will take on board that, while providing transport links for the regeneration area along the Thames corridor is important, that does not mean that the areas just outside, such as my constituency, do not have transport needs.”
“I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back on to the route in question. When we have such developments, however, we need to ensure that the benefits reach as wide a community as possible. For my community to benefit most, those bus links need to be considered. I very much welcome the instruction to the Select Committee and congratulate its members on the work that they have done so far. I commiserate with them on the fact that we will add to their work slightly with today’s instruction, but that is testimony to their recognition of the overwhelming argument in favour of introducing this important transport link in Woolwich. I look forward to that being included in the final Bill and being developed in the future for the benefit of the wider community in south-east London.”
“Families that have money reclaimed can be put in serious financial difficulty, and I ask the Chief Secretary to examine the way in which money is reclaimed from some families on low incomes. Notwithstanding that, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the success of the working tax credit system in not only taking families out of poverty but removing the block to moving from benefits to employment? Many of us remember the position that we inherited when we came into government—the Conservative party created it as a matter of policy and we have ended it.”
“May I add my words of appreciation to those of other hon. Members about the Government’s approach of attempting to avoid escalating confrontation? Our concerns must primarily be about the personnel who have been taken. All that the House can do at this time is offer its full support to the Government, and unite to provide maximum support for the Government’s endeavours. In addition, will my right hon. Friend say whether procedures have been reviewed to ensure that, as far as is practical, no ship can be isolated in such a way in future by any Iranian ship in the area?”
“I join the Secretary of State in sending condolences to the families and others affected by these tragic incidents. Will he join me in urging people to redouble their efforts to engage with young people in the community in order to divert them from such crime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what the Government have already achieved through youth offending teams, for example, his Department should work with the Department for Communities and Local Government and others to provide further resources to help local communities to come together and tackle this crime? We need to work with young people to stop them getting involved in the first place.”
“It is the duty of every Member of the House to scrutinise budgets and make sure that we get value for money, particularly with expensive schemes such as the Olympics. What the Opposition have shown, however, is that they know the cost of everything and the value of absolutely nothing. Over the past two generations, the affected part of east London has seen factories, docks and, south of the river, the Woolwich arsenal close. Is not two thirds of the budget announced by my right hon. Friend for infrastructure and regeneration? If what we have heard in the Chamber is the sort of publicity that the Olympics is going to get, it is important for the Olympic movement to make every community a part of the games, to overcome the penny-pinching and negativity of Opposition Members.”
“I am curious about the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He began by saying that central Government had failed to intervene in a difference of opinion between local people and a local authority and to make a decision. Now he seems to be arguing that central Government are imposing too much power locally. I am not sure what his position is on the relationship between central and local government.”
“It must respect the fact that the people who are closest to the local community, and who are more directly responsible to it for week in, week out and year in, year out decision making, are best placed to respond to local needs. Without turning the debate into too much of a political knockabout, I make the point that Conservative Front Benchers have argued that congestion charging and local road charging should be a matter for local government, but we know that Governments are under a great deal of pressure to address climate change. Should the country ever make the mistake of re-electing a Conservative Government—”
“The thrust of the Select Committee’s report focuses on how the relationship between local authorities and central Government should develop. The debate has highlighted the contradictions in people’s approaches to the issue. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) began his speech by suggesting that the Government were at fault because they did not intervene in a difference of opinion between a section of the community in Reading and the local authority over its decisions. He then complained that the Government are trying to impose policy from the centre. That demonstrates one of the difficulties with ensuring that the relationship between the Government and local government decision making reflects not only the policies of the Government, because they have an interest, but local needs.”
“I grant that it is desirable to put all transport infrastructure in place before development takes place, but if we were to postpone development until projects such as Crossrail were in place, we would be making a serious error and we would be perpetuating the suffering of a lot of people in the south-east who need that development. [ Interruption. ] Yes, they will also need the infrastructure.”
“The hon. Gentleman gave a rather curious answer. He seemed to suggest that we should hold up regeneration in the Thames Gateway area until such time as we have developed the transport infrastructure. I must point out that one of the most significant developments is going to be Crossrail. If we were to postpone development of the Thames Gateway area to wait for Crossrail, there would be significant suffering for people in that part of London. I suggest that he might want to reconsider the position that he adopted in his response to that intervention, because it certainly does not make any sense.”
“The authority looks at the broader picture. It quite rightly holds up the fact that it has been able to transfer a significant number of people from private cars to public transport and points to that success, but, at the same time, when local communities ask for minor alterations in bus services and extensions to local transport services, they find that their voices are drowned out in the wider context of the debate about London-wide transport issues. It is difficult for communities to get themselves heard. That is an example of what we are talking about in the relationship between local government and central Government. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), a Conservative Back Bencher asked whether infrastructure should be put in place before major developments such as the Thames Gateway.”
“I think that both hon. Gentlemen will be drawing their pensions long before that happens. I can imagine a future Prime Minister going around the Cabinet table and asking how each Department is contributing to tackling the important issue of climate change, and the Transport Secretary saying, “I am delivering nothing because local government will not play ball.” I really do not see that as a credible position, but, at the same time, there has to be some degree of local autonomy. That highlights the difficulty that we face in debating these matters. We have a democratically accountable transport authority for the whole of London and my area provides an example of some of the difficulties that communities face in getting a London-wide authority to pay attention to the minute detail of some of the transport issues at a local level.”
“If the hon. Gentleman considers what he is saying, he will realise that there is transport infrastructure in place already. What we are talking about is expanding that infrastructure. That is essential to the development of the Thames Gateway area, which will take place over the next two decades, but I suggest that if we were to postpone decisions and postpone putting in place some of that development until that infrastructure were in place, that would make no sense.”
“In the relationship between central and local government, we need clarification of the role that regeneration plays in the development of local government plans.”
“One of my concerns about some of the infrastructure development that has already taken place is how people in communities not immediately adjacent to new stations and train lines will access the transport hubs that are being developed in the second phase. In particular, how can we reach deprived communities that could benefit from the new transport schemes? How do we provide links that benefit the wider community, not just people who live close to major infrastructure projects, or have easy access to them? Such projects have an impact in localities where they can assist in tackling social exclusion and increase participation in the economy. Their value cannot be overstated. It is essential that we take a wider strategic approach to major transport programmes. Local transport plans are at the heart of delivering them.”
“If we are looking to local government as the driving force for regeneration in an area, regeneration must be an essential part of its transport infrastructure development. I urge the Government to clear up the confusion about the score attached to regeneration when local transport authorities are developing transport plans. I return to the example of the Crossrail station at Woolwich, as it will be essential for my community, which is south of Woolwich. The station is vital not only as part of the regeneration programme to meet the needs of the north Kent and Thames Gateway developments, but for the wider community.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend to a certain extent. She tempts me to debate the whole Crossrail issue, but I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, to consider the proposals for the Crossrail station at Woolwich. By comparison with any other station on the Crossrail line, we are putting in a large amount of private sector funding for the station at Woolwich to make its funding stack up. My last point is about regeneration. Local authorities that gave evidence to the Select Committee were clearly confused about whether regeneration as part of their local transport plan would score well in terms of the investment their proposals would attract from the Department for Transport.”
“Before the hon. Gentleman becomes too critical of our Front Benchers, I must pray in their aid the fact that the matter is before a Select Committee. The Government’s response to that Committee’s report will come in due course.”
“Is it not a principle of democracy that people present themselves for re-election? Is that not undermined in my hon. Friend’s proposals if people serve only one term?”
“I wonder how the public will exert influence—in the interests of open government and democracy—over how the selection process will operate with the party list system.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On his last point, does he think that Members of the House of Commons would be in a better position to vote on the future of the House of Lords if there had been a detailed debate about future reform of the House of Commons and the role of Back Benchers in scrutinising legislation?”