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 65 of 68.
“No explanation is given for the lateness, which often leads to enormous difficulties further down the line. Only last week, I was sitting on a train in Charing Cross when it was announced that it had been cancelled, so I had to get off. A large group of people had to get off the train and they stood around the platform trying to find out what was going on. When I asked, I was told that it was the Eltham train, so I got back on it. Lo and behold, it left and travelled to Eltham. That shows the chaos that is creeping back into the service on that bit of the network. Similarly, I was off to a meeting on Tuesday, and I arrived at London Bridge 15 minutes late on yet another train service. That is my experience just in the past month. It is nothing like the service that was available under the previous contractors last year or the year before.”
“That, not the structure, is the key reason why improvements, expansion and increased demand on our railway system have occurred. I cannot avoid mentioning the new integrated Kent franchise that came into being in April, which affects my own local rail service. I opposed the contract at the time as I felt that the new management taking over from Connex had successfully turned round the rail service and produced an improvement, particularly on the lines serving Dartford via Bexleyheath, so that people were loth to see it toyed around with. I can tell the Minister that not a single train that I have travelled on this month has been on time. Trains seem to linger for two or three minutes on the platform at the central terminal in Charing Cross. For no apparent reason, they do not leave on time.”
“Rail subsidy by the Government is running at roughly three times the rate that obtained under British Rail. It could be argued that if it had been known at the time of British Rail’s demise that it could look forward towards that level of growth in investment, the problems of declining numbers that resulted in privatisation could have been seen in a different light. The Committee received evidence from a number of people, showing that the benefits that we have seen and the growth of the rail industry over the last 10 years are not necessarily the result of the structure, but due more to the additional subsidies. Growth has come about through greater economic activity as opposed to the decline experienced in the 1990s.”
“I commend the Select Committee report to the Minister. It reaches a number of conclusions about the state of the rail industry, which should help to formulate Government policy, particularly regarding the franchising of rail services. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), a colleague on the Select Committee, said that the Minister is fortunate—particularly after such a relatively short time as Minister—in being able to announce good tidings about our rail system. The Government should be proud of putting significant investment into our rail system. However, the question has to be asked whether the improvements are the result of the current structure of the system or due to the Government’s efforts. There is also the question of whether other structures would allow us to achieve even more in future.”
“I urge the Minister to bring that scheme forward as urgently as possible and note that Network Rail has called for it to be funded as soon as possible. A number of challenges face our transport network, not least global warming. We await Sir Rod Eddington’s report, which I believe is to be published tomorrow, and he is likely to promote a pay-as-you-drive scheme to tackle road congestion. That is bound to have a significant effect on modal shift. If the Government are to meet that demand and at the same time meet their target to cut carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, our rail network will have to play a significant part in meeting that growth in demand.”
“On Tuesday, when I was at the launch of the Mayor’s strategy and the Transport for London document “Transport 2025”, we were given figures showing that by 2016 London’s population will grow to 8.1 million and that employment will be up at 5 million. That is up by more than 1 million jobs on the current level, which means that the demand for capacity on our existing transport network will be significant indeed. From my perspective in south-east London, I must add my voice to the call for the upgrade of the Thameslink line, particularly the pinch point at Borough market and London Bridge station, where we need two extra lines to facilitate Thameslink through that part of the network and on into south-east London.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for helping me with that. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) suggested that the proposed investment in Crossrail would be better spent on upgrading existing infrastructure. I am sure that the £10 million will have a significant impact on the existing rail system, but we have to bear it in mind that Crossrail will provide 40 per cent. of the growth in capacity that is needed in London over the next 15 to 20 years. We must also recall the fact that London’s population is likely to grow by the equivalent of that of a city the size of Leeds. No other region faces such population growth.”
“I know from talking to constituents who try to get on trains that do not even have standing space that they would rather get on such a train and be able to stand than not get on the train at all. A balance must be struck between the need to increase capacity and get people on to trains and the need to provide comfort for people on their journey into work.”
“I cannot make any reference to that line, but I commend the references in the Committee’s report to rural rail services and I am sure that the Minister heard what my hon. Friend said. Reference has been made to overcrowding on our rail services, particularly to people standing. I represent a constituency that is in an inner-London borough, but towards the outer ring of inner London. When travelling into central London, many of my constituents must stand on whatever type of train arrives at the stations in my constituency. Having been through the likely areas of growth in demand in our transport network in the foreseeable future, I think it is unlikely that anyone—whether Conservative or Liberal, or even Labour—will ever be able to supply a train service to central London that provides everyone with a seat.”
“That is what I am indicating. I am not suggesting, however, that someone travelling from Manchester to London should be required to stand. We are talking about commuter journeys. Many people stand as a matter of course on the London underground. Many people’s journeys are so short that they do not bother to sit down when seats are available. If the Conservatives and Liberals are suggesting that they will be able to provide everyone with a seat who wants one, they are misleading people. I am not suggesting for a minute that those on long train journeys should be expected to stand. On many journeys from my constituency in inner London, people have never been able to stand—they are frequently unable to gain access to trains because of limited standing room. That is a common feature of our transport network and has been for a long time.”
“From where will extra carriages on trains come to meet the growth in demand? The Opposition are misleading the public—and being disingenuous—in saying that there is a simple solution and that no capacity problem needs to be addressed. The Government have achieved a great deal, and even Opposition Members have had to recognise the Government’s significant achievements in improving our train network. The current franchising system, however, has not delivered for the general public. We need to listen more to what the travelling public are saying about our rail services, and design our services in a way that delivers for them, not for the people who operate the services.”
“There is a balance to be struck, and anyone who suggests that there is a magic formula that can solve that problem and at the same time meet increasing capacity demands is misleading people. That has no part in a mature debate about the future of our transport system. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made a similar comment to that made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) in an article in the Evening Standard on 2 October. In response to commuters complaining about South West Trains’ policy of reducing the number of seats in carriages, he said: “It is unacceptable that people are paying more for tickets but are less likely to get a seat.” What is the Conservatives’ policy to meet that extra demand? From where are the extra seats to come?”
“I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but we will have to scrutinise the Liberal Democrats’ budget proposals to see how they would pay for seats to go back into trains and for increased train length to provide the capacity lost as a result, and how they would meet the future growth in demand. I am not suggesting that people coming from the south coast into central London every day, for example, should be asked to stand. On some routes, however, people getting on at stations in and around London have virtually always had to stand. The inability to get more people standing on those trains has been a significant problem. On numerous occasions, I have witnessed people being unable physically to get on to a train because so many people are standing, and I have experienced it myself.”
“I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman is promoting a public-private partnership. He does not, therefore, support the position of his Front-Bench team that there should be a laissez-faire attitude and that the private sector should dictate.”
“Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. I pointed out in my speech that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) had indicated that he was against taking seats out of trains. Presumably if he was in power he would want to put them back. Is that micro-managing the industry or not?”
“Even at this time of record investment in the NHS, everyone involved in providing its services, including in my right hon. Friend’s Department, has to understand that resources are finite, so local services require careful planning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that introducing independent treatment centres in local health economies needs careful planning, as their effect could be to undermine health care trusts that are trying to recover their budgets and go into balance? Does she agree that where independent treatment centres may have such an impact, they need to be reviewed?”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the position that he has taken on Woolwich station; it has given us more time to examine the costs. I ask him when he is looking at those costs not to look at them only in the context of Woolwich station. Woolwich was taken out of the scheme largely because of the original value that was put on the cost of building the station. What we need to do is go back and examine the merits of the whole scheme, and look not only at Woolwich in isolation, but at reducing the costs across the whole of Crossrail which might allow Woolwich back into the scheme.”
“I want to express my gratitude, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His announcement leaves the door ajar for us to strengthen our case for a station at Woolwich. In addition, I want to pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee. They listened closely to the people who represented our case, and responded accordingly. However, my right hon. Friend told me earlier that the idea of a station at Woolwich was not included in the original Crossrail plans.”
“But if we look at the contribution in terms of gross domestic product of investing in such schemes in London, and the payback for investing in them, we find a justification for funding such schemes. According to a report published by the Mayor of London, London has had an increase in population of about that of a city the size of Leeds, and it predicts that in the next 16 years it will grow even more—by about the population of a city of the size of Nottingham. No other region in the country is predicted to have population growth on that scale. If in a capital city like London we fail to plan ahead for infrastructure in order to meet what we need for that level of growth, we will all suffer the consequences—not only the people in London.”
“Because we often measure such statistics on a ward-wide basis, such communities frequently do not show up. But I can tell the Secretary of State that I represent, in the south of the borough of Greenwich, some of the most deprived communities, and for them a Crossrail station at Woolwich is essential. As I have said, we have done a great deal of work to bring down the costs. The cost-benefit ratio for the station now stands at three to one. Most people now accept that it would benefit the scheme as a whole. Let me say something to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). I accept that people are concerned about funding for schemes in other parts of the country, and it might appear that London is sucking in more and more resources to fund schemes in the capital.”
“We want no more than that Woolwich be treated fairly compared with the other stations on the line. The removal of the plan for a station has never been explained, although it has been suggested that someone, somewhere decided that it was too expensive. We want Woolwich to receive the same treatment that other areas have been given, yet the decision amounted to extraordinarily unfair treatment for one of the most deprived communities in the country. How can the decision be justified? By any measure or index of poverty, Woolwich has some of the most deprived wards in Britain. That can sometimes be difficult to see in my constituency, where deprived communities stand cheek by jowl with some of the most expensive properties in the borough.”
“There have been many such arguments, but the plan to have a station at Woolwich was removed from the Crossrail project on grounds of excessive cost compared with other stations along the line. However, we have come a long way since then: the costs have been reduced significantly, and can be reduced still further. I urge the Government to look again at the proposal to have a station at Woolwich. Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), told us that the scheme would cost £270 million, but we are down to £186 million today. That shows that there is plenty of scope to do more. It has been suggested that we are looking for additional resources so that a station at Woolwich can be included in the Crossrail project, but that is not so.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but that Bill is still fairly recent in the entire history of the project. We took part in consultations about having a station at Woolwich for a very long time. The original cost of the station was put at more than £300 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has explained that those plans included freight, which meant that the tunnel gradient had to be reduced. The station was to be underground, and the cost of digging it out was excessive. It has also been argued that the cost-benefit ratio suffers because a station at Woolwich would be situated next to the river, which means that the investment would not realise a full 360-degree benefit.”
“There will be six miles of track on which there is no station. It makes absolutely no sense to build that tunnel under a place such as Woolwich, and not drop in a station to improve the transport network in that part of London. We surely cannot turn our back on an area such as Woolwich when we are talking about regeneration and investing in a scheme like Crossrail. The reasons for removing Woolwich from the Crossrail scheme have never been scrutinised, and in my opinion they cannot be justified. So I urge the Minister to continue to think about the need for a station at Woolwich. The moral case for the station has been made, and it is time that we accepted that it has to be included in the Bill.”
“I should point out the only reason that we got a station at North Greenwich: it was not because of the foresight of any Government; it was because local people, backed by local businesses and the local authority, fought tooth and nail to make the case for a station at North Greenwich. Now, no one—absolutely no one—would make a case against that station being included. We have had a similar experience with the Docklands Light Railway station at Cutty Sark. It is one of the busiest stations on that route. Again, it was not originally included. It was only through local representation that we finally got that station included. We are back yet again in the same situation in south-east London in respect of the Crossrail station at Woolwich. The track will pass under a major transport centre in south-east London.”
“I accept that point to a degree. But we should look at the overall contribution that that investment will make to GDP, and what the country gets back as a whole from that investment. That is the case that we need to make. We must all take that into consideration when we are talking about major infrastructure capital schemes in the country. Crossrail will provide 40 per cent. of the required growth in public transport capacity in the near future. However, I have made the following point in this House on many occasions, and I am not going to miss this opportunity to do so again. In this area of south-east London we are not served by the London underground, and we have not benefited directly from any of the major infrastructure projects of recent times, other than the inclusion of the Jubilee line station at North Greenwich.”
“We must bring about a change so that children get the support that they need at a much earlier stage.”
“Many such families are not equipped with the skills to take on officials in education or health authorities or the other agencies that provide services for young people. We must change that experience for the parents of children with special educational needs. My second point is about statements. I have read the Government’s response to the references to that subject in the Select Committee’s report. I sympathise with the Government’s position that they do not want to diminish the role of local authorities as the advocates of people with special educational needs, and their view that parents should have some comeback on the system and get redress when they do not agree with a decision. I accept that, but there are far too many parents with children who do not reach the statement stage or who wait far too long to reach it.”
“I know that several hon. Members have said that they will be brief, and I will try to do the same. I have three quick points to make. I commend the Committee on an excellent report. I also commend to the House the work of the Back Benchers who, in the past 20 minutes, have published a report on services for disabled children which supports many of the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee. There are three things that I would implore the Government to take on board from both reports. First and foremost, the experience of families with children with special educational needs in what has commonly become known as the system must be changed. Too often, those families experience bureaucracy and have to cope at home with a disabled child or a child with special educational needs, and then a whole load of other difficulties come up.”
“In short, future funding for special educational needs—I hope that this will be taken on board in the next comprehensive spending review and in subsequent ones—should deal with the hidden problem of children with special educational needs in classrooms and of children who are not given the proper statements that they need, or else we will continue to fail many children. If we are to deliver on our policy that “Every Child Matters”, we must start to make a difference in this area.”
“That places parents in a difficult position as they try to challenge a local authority that, for reasons of expediency, as all of us who have been involved in local government will understand, is trying to spread a thin budget widely. We can understand the pressures that those authorities are under and the decisions that they are trying to make, but we have to recognise that parents and children have rights. To secure those rights, they need some form of independent advocate away from the local authority to ensure that they get them.”
“My hon. Friend makes the point well. In an attempt to be brief, I shall not comment on it any further than to say that I support that view. In recommendation 34, the Select Committee has suggested a way forward. There is an opportunity for us to prevent statements from becoming a barrier to children getting the support that they need. My third point is that we need to empower parents. They need to have recourse to an independent body that can advocate on their behalf. Too often, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said, summing up the problem for many parents, local authorities assess, decide, finance and provide.”
“] The signatories are reasonable hon. Members because they are asking for more time to look into the merits of the arguments in favour of a station at Woolwich. Will the motions on the Order Paper next Tuesday allow for that?”
“[That this House notes the interim decision of the Crossrail Select Committee that there is an overwhelmingly strong case on both transport and regeneration grounds for a station at Woolwich, noting that the Woolwich station has a much better benefit/cost ratio than the Crossrail scheme as a whole, and noting the comments of the Select Committee Chairman that it is unprecedented for a Secretary of State to dismiss the view of a Hybrid Bill Select Committee and that in consequence the Select Committee has now suspended its sittings for a week to reflect on the implications; and calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to enter urgently into discussions with the Crossrail promoters, the London Borough of Greenwich and other interested parties to explore the options for delivering a Woolwich station in the most cost-effective manner, so enabling the Crossrail Bill to make further progress through its Committee Stage without further delay.”
“Further to my right hon. Friend’s answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), although the Leader of the House is not in control of the interpretation of the powers of the Select Committee, he is in control of what will be on Tuesday’s Order Paper. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 2835, which 50 hon. Members have signed to support the case for a station at Woolwich?”
“Although DPPOs may be a useful tool in town centres and areas where there is a major problem, I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the problem of small convenience stores, where young people under 18 get access to alcohol. Rather than the draconian measure of a DPPO, would not a better solution be to increase the on-the-spot fine when people are caught by the police or trading standards officers to approximately £1,000 or £2,000 if they admit guilt, and if not, to let them opt to go to a magistrates court, where they risk a higher fine under the new legislation?”
“I welcome the new measures under the licensing law. Will my hon. Friend review the level of fines for convenience stores that have alcohol licences and which are found guilty of selling alcohol to people under the age of 16? There is growing concern about the matter in my constituency. The minimum fine is too low. If it were raised to £2,000, so that a store could opt to go to a magistrates court and risk a higher fine, the measure would become more self-policing and we would be more effective in stopping young people gaining access to alcohol.”
“Any of us who have struggled with the CSA will welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that unless we can deal with people who can make a modicum of change in their financial arrangements—that is, if they are self-employed or if they have a sympathetic employer—the enforcement powers included in his statement will not be worth the paper they are written on? May I urge him to test his enforcement powers against some of those cases? If he would like a few case histories, I am prepared to provide some from my constituency. The CSA fell down most in that respect and we must get it right now.”
“Whether there will be a casino at the dome or not, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he is doing to bring about the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. I take the same view as the former Conservative mayoral candidate for London who, when asked on Radio 5 whether my right hon. Friend should have met with Anschutz, said that if he had not he would not have been doing his job properly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to bring about the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and the job opportunities for my constituents.”
“Q3. If my right hon. Friend has a space in his diary tomorrow lunchtime, may I invite him to join me at Charlton Athletic’s training ground in Eltham to celebrate the opening of their community centre for skills, supported by Charlton’s charitable trust, Barclays Spaces for Sports and the Football Foundation? From my constituency, Charlton run one of the biggest community action programmes in Europe, possibly even in the world. They engage with young people and provide educational opportunities and employment opportunities for them. If he cannot join us tomorrow, will he send a message of congratulations to Charlton for the work that they do?”
“That helps young people to address antisocial behaviour in the wider community and gets them to understand the consequences of their actions for not only emergency workers, but people who need emergency services.”
“The Government’s respect agenda, although not directly addressed by the Bill, is part of what the Bill seeks to achieve because it is better to prevent emergency workers from being obstructed or attacked while carrying out their duties in the first place. I commend the work of the Metropolitan police, the fire service and others to explain to young people the dangers posed by things that they do sometimes for a lark and the consequences for other people if they impede emergency workers. That approach includes explaining to young people the importance of the work done by emergency workers and the dangers to which emergency workers expose themselves in addition to the problem of their possibly being attacked.”
“It is arguable that in their daily work they frequently need immediately to respond to the needs of people who have been brought in for care and attention, and obstructing accident and emergency workers can have catastrophic consequences for people who need their attention. I accept that accident and emergency workers work in buildings and that they are often supported by security guards, but they face a great deal of aggression for no apparent reason. I have witnessed such behaviour when I have accompanied people to accident and emergency. The obstruction of such workers should be dealt with more severely, and the situation would be simplified if the Bill applied to them, too.”
“My two Bills on environmental measures, which I fought for several years to get through the House, always fell on what became known as Eric Forth’s killing fields for private Members’ Bills. I had to sit silently as he eloquently talked them into oblivion. I am pleased to say that elements of one of my Bills have been resurrected in the legislation on home information packs, but sadly not with my name on them. None the less, Eric Forth was a formidable person who will be missed at our Friday morning debates. It is surprising that we need to address the issue that is covered by the Bill. We have had emergency workers for many years and the problem is not new, but the Bill will be welcomed by those workers. I understand that accident and emergency workers have been excluded from the Bill.”
“I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). He was kind enough to ask me to be a sponsor of the Bill, but with his experience of the procedures of the House, it was not the most onerous task to support his Bill as he is so capable of steering it through all its stages. It is no surprise that it has reached Third Reading this morning. When my right hon. Friend moved Third Reading, he mentioned Eric Forth, my former constituency neighbour in Bromley, and the fact that he was fortunate enough to have Eric Forth’s support for the intent of his Bill. I pay tribute to Eric Forth as a formidable opponent and a regular at our sittings on a Friday morning.”
“I am grateful for that intervention, but I will not pursue it, because I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker thinks that that would stray too far from the Bill. Nevertheless, we need to address the antisocial behaviour that has made this Bill necessary. The Government are addressing that point through the respect agenda, which has my full support. I commend the work that has been done, but I believe that we need to invest more money to minimise the number of times that the Bill is used to protect emergency workers.”
“They do an enormous amount of good work in our local communities, and they deserve the cover of the Bill if they are impeded in doing so. Once again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on successfully piloting the Bill through the House.”
“Yes; the Bill is necessary. As I have said, it is surprising that the gap in the law still exists and that we still need to simplify the law regarding firefighters. Although existing measures can be used against those who obstruct firefighters, the Bill simplifies the procedure and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has said, covers other emergency workers, such as ambulance workers—I am surprised that they have not included before—and coastguards. The Bill is necessary, and the emergency workers and public sector workers whom it covers will welcome it. As has been said in this House on numerous occasions, emergency workers risk their well-being when they attend emergencies and protect the public.”
“The work of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on this important issue is a source of pride to all Labour Members. In recent weeks, I have visited a number of schools to pick up “buddies” that they have made as part of the Make Poverty History campaign. Those young people send the message to me that they want to make poverty history, but they do not want the aid that we provide to have strings attached. Through the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend engage with those schools to foster their interest and support for the Make Poverty History campaign, and make sure that the only strings attached to aid are to ensure that it gets to the people who need it most?”
“I wanted the opportunity to engage with my right hon. Friend on a number of issues that, I think, are missing from the Bill, such as targeting resources on those areas where we need to raise standards—”