Andrew George
MP for St Ives · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“After all, the current situation regarding coercion and safeguarding is certainly not satisfactory. The Bill provides safeguards where presently there are none.”
“I am sorry to be stirring up Members at this stage of the debate, particularly as time is very short. Another theme is that people somehow believe that there is a binary choice available to us on palliative care: that we should either have 100% palliative care, or can go down the route of backing the Bill—or rather, that we should not sup…”
“It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate. Indeed, it is the first time that I have. I am a sponsor of the Bill and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) on how she introduced this debate, and the hon.”
“Defeating the Bill would also reward the worst of the reprehensible behaviour of those in the other place who blocked this legislation last time.”
“I am sorry, but because of time, I will not. If the hon. Member wants, he can send me a postcard with the answer to my question: when have we ever had a perfect piece of legislation?”
“I cannot give way, because of the time constraints. All Bills are necessarily a compromise. That does not mean that we simply have to make do with bad legislation, but the Bill that was sent down to the other place was in fact an excellent compromise that actually achieved all of the matters—”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Andrew George, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) not only on securing this debate, but on the manner in which she introduced it. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, which keeps this and other issues under constant review, I have been listening very intently today, and I will certainly be taking messages back to the Committee. I particularly welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and his—pardon the pun—prescription for the better health of pharmacies. I welcomed the announcement in the Minister’s written statement to the House yesterday, but it is notable that Community Pharmacy England has said that even with that extra investment, many community pharmacies will remain in financial peril.”
“Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I strongly agree about the abolition or the merging of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body into the CQC.”
“It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)—I call him my hon. Friend as he is a fellow member of the Health Committee. The 2012 Act was mentioned earlier, and I am one of the few Members who was in this House when it was passed. I was sitting on the coalition Benches at the time, but I eventually voted against the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Bill because it broke the coalition agreement. We had agreed that there would be no top-down reorganisation, but it was the biggest reorganisation that the NHS had ever seen. Although the Liberal Democrats made the Bill significantly less bad—and I congratulate all those involved in that—there was still far too much that damaged the NHS. I welcome this Bill as it addresses some of those deficiencies. On the points made by the hon.”
“Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) made an excellent speech on that on 16 April, which I hope the Minister will look at.”
“In my constituency there are places where, as a result of clinical improvements and sub-specialty developments, services are moving further and further away for people facing emergencies. For example, in 10% to 15% of stroke cases, mechanical thrombectomies are required, but in west Cornwall, people need to travel 80 miles to Plymouth to get that service. That geographic inequality is reflected in other areas of sub-specialty too. Clause 10 refers to not “causing a variation in the proportion of health services provided by the public or private sector”. I would be interested in the Minister’s explanation of whether that is to protect the public sector or the private sector. Other Members referred to the federated data platform. My hon.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the representations made by both the CQC and HSSIB itself seem to refer to its amalgamation into the CQC. The point is that, as he rightly says, a really important role is played by HSSIB, which could be lost as a result. It is a vital safety agency, and its independence is really important. There needs to be a safe space giving those working in the service the confidence that they can blow the whistle confidentially to that service to improve, protect and enhance patient care. There is a major risk, as the evidence has shown, that the protected disclosure of important legal information could in fact be compromised as a result. Many Members have also referred to clause 4, on reducing inequalities. I entirely agree, but I hope the Minister will also look at geographical inequalities.”
“On the point of geographic inequalities, as my constituency is in west Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, it is impossible to call on emergency services from the north, the west or the south. The consequence of that geographical reality is that it is much more expensive and challenging to provide those services in such circumstances, a problem that many coastal areas face. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these things need to be factored into the funding formula, rather than being ignored, as they are at present?”
“The Isles of Scilly are keen to work with Cornwall to ensure we achieve the maximum level of devolution, and it is really important that the Government look at the very special case of Cornwall. We have a number of cultural and language designations that mean that the integrity of Cornwall becomes ever more important when navigating one’s way through the extremely sensitive process of devolving power. It is easy to undermine the great strengths of places such as Cornwall if those matters are not properly considered.”
“That is to the detriment of communities that are desperately seeking to meet local housing need, hence the importance of ensuring that local authorities are under a stronger obligation to bring forward brownfield first. The other amendment I welcome the opportunity to speak to—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) will echo these concerns—relates to the Secretary of State’s powers regarding combined authorities without local consent. That is the critical matter. The only way in which the Government can demonstrate that they have the backing of local communities is to ensure that they consult them throughout.”
“The Government’s policy, in particular with regard to rewriting the NPPF, will result in a goldrush to the greenfield edges of our towns and communities. In December 2024, they set a new housing target which effectively means that local authorities can no longer defend the edges of their towns if they are unable to demonstrate that they have a five-year land supply. At present, therefore, policy is going in exactly the wrong direction. It also fundamentally undermines local authorities and local communities that are seeking to advance rural exceptions policy. All those rural exceptions opportunities are now effectively lost as a result of local authorities no longer having five-year land supplies.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and in particular her points about parish and town councils. In Cornwall, where we are completely parished and towned in that sense, they are an important vehicle for communication up from the community. They enable communities to articulate their views. Indeed, one might even argue that parish and town councils are the highest tier of local authority in the sense that they are closest to the people and to the pulse of local opinion, and are able to articulate that in the process. I would like to make remarks on two other amendments. On the proposals regarding brownfield first, which I strongly support, I am disappointed by the Government’s response.”
“The point that we make perpetually in relation to Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be co-operating with Cornwall as a combined authority—is that it is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity across the United Kingdom. I hope that, in that spirit, Ministers will respond constructively and, in spite of the passing of the Bill, we will have a vehicle to achieve the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned.”
“I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are simply giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products should the Government not reject the opportunity for local authorities to be properly consulted, which is what is on the amendment paper this evening. That is the most important thing this evening: to ensure that local authorities are consulted. We are seeking to make this an effective vehicle for achieving what is very much desired throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and by local Members. I accept your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but fundamentally, be it Cornwall or any other local authority that is seeking to ensure that its local and wider communities are properly consulted, it is not a question of our seeking a process of isolation, as I think the Government recognise.”
“The Government are promising that they will not impose things without local consent. The other side of that argument is that local authorities in areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly want to press on with devolution much faster than the Government seem willing to allow. Will the Minister account for that in the way in which the Government proceed on this matter?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Penzance DVSA Test Centre is reinstated to full-time operation. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003194]”
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of St Ives, Declares that the Penzance DVSA Test Centre should be reinstated to full-time operation in order to provide a service which meets the driving test demand in West Cornwall; further declares that the reduction in availability has caused significant inconvenience and delays for learners and instructors in the area, with waiting times now exceeding national averages; further declares that the closure or part-time operation of the centre forces residents to travel long distances to alternative test centres, increasing costs and carbon emissions, and disproportionately affecting rural communities and those without access to private transport; and further declares that local driving instructors report a severe backlog, which is impacting on employment opportunities and road safety for new drivers.”
“With the lease expiring in 2028, many constituents, such as local instructor Mark Squire, who is pressing to restore pre-covid opening times, fear the worst for the centre. Alongside this Parliament-compliant petition is a further petition calling for the same, with another 1,121 supporters. This petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Penzance DVSA Test Centre is reinstated to full-time operation.”
“I rise to present a petition on the future of the Penzance driving test centre. The metrics used by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency assume homogenised geographic uniformity, but we are at the end of a long thin peninsula. The DVSA offers a postcode search tool, which is irrelevant to areas like mine. Distress levels are high among instructors and learners; after all, they cannot travel north, south or west to find an alternative centre. During summer daytime, a round trip from the west of my constituency to the nearest centre in Camborne can take over three hours. Penzance is open only two days a week, and I am told that the situation is getting significantly worse.”
“Young people have to compete in a market in which—the Minister knows this because I have raised it several times—the tax system is tipped heavily in favour of second residences. A person with a second home can flip their property from council tax to business rates, apply for small business rate relief and then pay nothing at all. That has to be subsidised by the rest of us through the tax system. In the last 10 years in Cornwall alone, in excess of half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of wealthy second-home owners. We should put that money into first homes for young people. The situation is inequitable and I am surprised that a Labour Government are not prepared to challenge and change that simple fact in order to properly address the issue.”
“The Minister knows full well that in Cornwall we are not nimbys. Our housing stock has grown faster than that of almost anywhere else in the country; we have almost tripled our housing stock in the last 60 years. Yet, the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. We need to look much more widely at the way in which the planning system works. As far as rural exception sites are concerned, the rural exception should not be an exception; it should be the rural norm. Our whole approach to delivering homes on the edges of our communities means that applicants must demonstrate that they will meet need rather than greed. The whole planning system is tipped entirely in a direction that is opposite to the one that I think we in this Chamber today would like policy to go.”
“I am of course professionally and politically very committed to achieving that aim. However, the changes have actually proven to be counterproductive. In Cornwall, we now have to deliver 4,421 homes every year instead of the previous target of 2,600, and we must show that we have a five-year land supply. However, it is simply impossible to do that overnight, as local authorities around the country are well aware. Consequently, we are no longer able to defend the exception sites that we had wanted to deliver around the edges of all of our communities in Cornwall. Indeed, there have been appeals on permissions previously granted for affordable homes that are now being converted to allow for smaller numbers, and for unaffordable homes. There, the changes have been proven to be counter- productive.”
“In part, that is the result of the so-called “benefits of Brexit”, in that we have taken back control of the colour of our passports but lost control of construction inflation in this country—in part, thanks to Brexit. As a result, a large number of homes are shovel-ready, but work is unable to start on site as a result of the simple fact of Brexit. One of the biggest pressures being faced by young people in our area is a planning system that was changed on 12 December last year through changes to the national planning policy framework. That resulted in the introduction of new standard housing methods, which the Minister is clearly well aware of. I agree with the values that the Labour Government are trying to advance: to try to address the desperate housing needs across this country.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on her opening remarks. Other speakers have referred to the issues and difficulties that young people today are experiencing. They are not facing a storm but enduring a prolonged storm, and I fear that unless there are further changes to Government policy, they will have to continue to endure that storm. I declare an interest as a former chief executive of a registered provider of housing—a housing association, or at least a community land trust—and I now sit as a volunteer on the board of Cornwall Community Land Trust. That organisation, along with many others, is also facing a perfect storm.”
“The Minister objects. I am sorry but the small business rate relief is still available. The tax loopholes available are still there. Perhaps the Minister can put me right on that, if he wishes. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right that we need rent controls as well as the Renters’ Rights Act. As well as the stick for private landlords, we should offer them a carrot: tax incentives should be available to landlords who provide decent homes and lower rents. There is a lot that we can do. Young people need to see that we set housing targets based on need rather than greed, that we are able to turn exception sites into the rural norm, and that we enable the intermediate market with, yes, rent to buy but also rent to discount sale.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of second homes. He is well aware that the Liberal Democrats have proposed a change in the use class system to introduce a new use class for non-permanent occupancy. The introduction of such a thing would allow local communities to limit the number of second homes. It could be used as a tool to control expansion of the number of second homes and holiday lets.”
“I am not saying that the Government have done nothing, but the changes to furnished holiday lets and double council tax, for example, were actually introduced by the previous Government. The Minister has simply implemented them, which is welcome. I was simply talking about the massive, gaping tax loophole involving industrial levels of flipping second homes to take advantage of the opportunity to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. That is simply favouring thousands of very wealthy people on their second properties. Surely a Labour Government have to close that one.”
“I believe the Minister has until 10 past 3 if he wishes. He has not addressed the issue I raised regarding the counterproductive impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework, particularly for edge-of-community rural exception sites. A wholesale change of planning is happening. Those sites were originally going to be affordable-led, and now developers can put in planning applications to ensure that those sites are entirely unaffordable because of the Government’s policy on five-year land supply.”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I know that, in a moment, he will come on to the point that this contract is coming to an end. I am sure that it is being reviewed by the Government—the Minister will respond on that issue—but we are encouraging them to bring the contract to a close, for the reasons that my hon. Friend is properly explaining. He will perhaps also agree that we should go through a transition period to ensure that the conditions he has described are addressed, so that the Government can benefit from the software that has been developed.”
“I have listened carefully. The Minister knows full well that committing to spend 3% or 3.5% tomorrow does not mean that the Government cannot commit to commissioning that expenditure now. He is aware that the delivery pipeline can often take five to 10 years in any case, and therefore the defence investment plan becomes vitally important. He has evaded answering the question of when, but surely he can put to us a deadline date by which the defence investment plan can be delivered. In doing so, can he commit to ensuring that RNAS Culdrose and the national drone hub in my constituency will see growth as a result?”
“First, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) with regard to the Cornish Merlin helicopters from RNAS Culdrose in my constituency. The Prime Minister knows that he has the full support of the House when he says that he wants Lebanon included in the ceasefire, but surely he must accept that he could do a great deal more, first by ensuring that no UK arms components end up in the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Government, and secondly by ensuring that there is absolutely no trade with the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for giving way. Is he not making two contradictory points, however? He says on the one hand that it should be legally enforceable—a point with which I entirely agree, particularly as nearly 99% of tribunal appeals are partially or wholly upheld. But he also recognises that EHCPs are not coming through at the level they should within the 20 weeks—certainly, it is about the 10% level—so having the legal backing and framework is not delivering the outcome.”
“I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and congratulate her on having been a great Health Minister—I was sorry that she stood aside. She will be aware that there is a party whose Members are not present this evening. A lot of people in the media are suggesting that they will form the next Government, but their policy in this area is that this is a crisis of overdiagnosis. Does she share my concern that this debate is not being properly engaged in by the people who want to damage the system most?”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, I made a number of interventions in place of my speech. I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because she was making a very strong case about the need to ensure that these reforms are forced through. The three tests that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) introduced to this debate set the template, on which I hope the Minister will respond in due course. In my constituency and across Cornwall—it is good to see Members from Cornwall in the Chamber this evening—the issues that are causing the greatest concern relate to the large number of tribunals that take place in order for parents to ensure that their children get the decent education they desperately deserve.”
“That results in many pupils simply not getting on and getting the services in the education system that they desperately need. Given that I have already made a couple of interventions, I will conclude my remarks and let others come in.”
“I absolutely agree. What worries us most is the fact that parents have to be sharp-elbowed enough to take on the tribunal system, which is no mean feat. What worries me is how many other parents do not have the confidence to challenge decisions, to use the tribunal system, to make a complaint to the ombudsman or to use local authority facilities to pursue those issues. There are major issues that need to be reflected upon. It certainly should not just be those parents with the self-confidence to navigate their way through the system whose children benefit, while so many others fall by the wayside. That causes me a great deal of concern. Another issue that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon identified in his opening remarks is the very low number of authorities meeting the 20-week EHCP target.”
“However, in the case of services from Penzance to Paddington and back, journeys generally take five or five and a half hours, and we have a sleeper service that takes eight hours. The issue in our part of the country is not speed, but reliability, comfort and competitive pricing.”
“It is to an extent justified for west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to be engaged in all rail debates as the very first steam locomotive ran in Cornwall and the first steam rail service ran as a goods service from Angarrack to Hayle in west Cornwall, so we were there at the beginning of the story of rail and of rail services across the country. I am proud of the heritage that Cornwall has contributed to the United Kingdom in that respect. My constituency is at the end of the Paddington to Penzance line, and the primary point that I wish to get across to the Minister is that we should not be mesmerised by speed. The whole High Speed 2 debate has been about cutting a certain amount of time off rail journeys to certain destinations.”
“I will make a very brief intervention, as I want to make sure that the Minister has ample time to respond to the many points that have been raised. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing this debate, and I thank her for telling us about her wonderful constituency. It is indeed a very attractive constituency, but I am afraid it is second best to mine in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—we will no doubt have further debates about that. Nevertheless, I did not stand purely to make that competitive point.”
“I know that the business community in Plymouth has previously lobbied to say, “If only we could take half an hour off the journey, it would change the economic perception of the city,” but taking half an hour off a five-hour journey means nothing to people in the far west of Cornwall. We also want reliability on the services so that the toilets do not constantly break down and people do not have to sit in the vestibule.”
“I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for making that point about vulnerability. At a number of points where the line is singled out—not just at Dawlish—a fire can have catastrophic consequences for the thousands of people seeking to travel on that day. One of my members of staff attempted to travel from Bristol down to the Lizard yesterday afternoon, and instead of that journey taking three hours it took over 11 hours. So often we hear those stories, especially about travelling to the far west of Cornwall—the further west we go, the more affected we are by those vulnerabilities. My message to the Minister is that if we are to invest in the future of rail, what we really want is reliability, comfort, low pricing and space for people’s luggage.”
“Indeed, I was going to come to that point. Busy Members of Parliament, or other people engaged in busy lives, sat on that train do not want those five hours to be dead time in the working day. Reliable wi-fi services can allow people to continue their working days with online meetings and communication as they travel. However, at present, on the vast majority of services the wi-fi is often interrupted and is very unreliable. In contrast to the many billions of pounds required to achieve the HS2 standards set by successive Governments for north-south connectivity, in many parts of the country it would cost significantly less—many millions of pounds—to achieve the kind of comfort, resilience, reliability, superfast wi-fi and competitive pricing that I have described to the Minister this evening.”
“The Minister will no doubt refer to the fact that banking hubs have replaced the banks, which have all been removed from towns, falling like a house of cards. However, having looked at the services available through hubs, I have to say that they are very limited in scope. I wonder about their sustainability in the longer run.”
“According to Fair4All Finance, more than 20 million people across the UK are in “financially vulnerable circumstances”. One in 10 people has no savings, and 21% have less than £1,000 in savings—nearly a third of our population are in extremely financially vulnerable situations: just one or two pay packets away from homelessness. Nearly 2 million people have used an unlicensed lender or loan shark in the last year, and 4.5 million people in financial vulnerability prefer face-to-face banking with a person. The issue has grown in urgency in many parts of the country. Access to in-person banking should be an essential public service. Closures affect people’s financial security, local economies, small business survival, digital inclusion, and the independence and dignity of older and disabled people.”
“The first two people waiting were in the meeting room for one hour—20 people stayed; eight left because they could not wait any longer. This person’s wife arrived at 9 am and arrived back home just before 12 midday, having walked to and fro. It was a total shambles, which shows the disregard Lloyds has for people. The next time the community banker arrives, which is apparently now in three weeks’ time, the hub will be held upstairs, which is not good for older and disabled people. The nearby post office at St Clare could not dispense any cash during that time because the system was down, including the cashpoint outside the post office. Lloyds has recently stopped people from cashing cheques at post offices as well, so banking services that should be and have been provided to people have been withdrawn.”
“The same applies to many in the Penzance area of my constituency. When it announced the closure, the bank promised the local community a community banker who would come for one day every fortnight into a public building to offer an alternative service to help those people who needed face-to-face banking. I have had the following information from a constituent who attended one of those sessions very recently; they have only just been set up. The hub, held in St John’s Hall, a local authority building in Penzance, consisted of one community banker, with equipment in a very large room; no cash or notes were available, only advice. There were 28 people queueing to see the community banker, waiting in a very public place in an echoey room; there is no confidentiality there.”
“I was shocked by the impact and many resulting factors of the closure, as well as the dismissive attitude of the bank when it came to that impact on some of the most vulnerable, disabled and digitally excluded people in the community. I have had a nine-year sabbatical from this place; when I was here previously, I did not face these issues as there were not any bank closures. There have been significant closures since. I was surprised at the dialogue and the attitude of the high-street bank—in this case, Lloyds. I declare an interest in that I was a loyal Lloyds customer until last week; I had been for more than the last half century. I have been so dismayed by the attitude and approach of the bank to this closure that I have withdrawn all my custom and taken it elsewhere, and the bank knows it.”
“My relationship with banking is rather rudimentary, and I hope that those more engaged in debates on banking and financial services will tolerate my rudimentary dialogue on this issue; it is not one of my specialist subjects by any means, as I think will become apparent. Nevertheless, as a Member of Parliament, I have taken a very close interest in this issue, largely provoked by the closure in January this year of a bank in my constituency —in Penzance, west Cornwall. That has had a rather offensive impact on the town. I am also concerned about the rather high-handed manner in which this closure was carried out, without any consultation—simply an announcement that was then followed through.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the accessibility of banking services. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for permitting me the opportunity to raise the issues and concerns about access to banking services across the country and in our communities. These are nationwide concerns, and the issue vexes many MPs and constituents—certainly in my constituency, where a large number of banks have closed in the last decade. Many people, particularly the digitally excluded and the most vulnerable, have been left in extremely difficult circumstances.”
“The bank says in its branding that it is “By Your Side”—but apparently only until it finds that to be unsuitable: an empty branding slogan, one is bound to observe. I hope the Minister looks at this issue. It is a matter not of consumer choice, but consumer displacement. Around 14% of adults in financially vulnerable communities in the UK—that is 2.8 million people—live in rural areas, and the rural nature and travel involved need to be considered, too.”
“and gallant Friend has referred to already, so that it protects access to banking and not just cash; so that it strengthens and widens the FCA’s role to ensure that local impact, equality analysis and access to banking services more widely are mandatory considerations before closures are permitted to go ahead; so that it requires realistic travel assessments for rural and island communities; so that it improves standards and the roll-out of service standards for banking hubs; and so that it considers proportionate service obligations on banks, not least because these banks are, after all, too big to fail. In 2008, Lloyds was bailed out to the tune of more than £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.”