NHS: General Medical Practitioners
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord on the work he did as a Labour Government Minister between 2003 and 2007. I am grateful for his question. We are incredibly grateful to GPs and their staff, whose hard work ensured that more than 32.6 million appointments were carried out until September 2023, more than two-thirds of which were face to face. On 30 June, NHS England published the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. The plan sets out the steps that the NHS and its partners need to take to deliver the NHS workforce, including GPs, that meets the changing needs of the population over the next 15 years. We are working with NHS England to increase the general practice workforce in England. This includes measures to boost recruitment, to address the reasons why doctors leave the profession and to encourage them to return to practice. NHS England has made a number of retention schemes available to boost the general practice workforce.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is also important to congratulate GPs and practices that are introducing innovations, such as weekend working, and their attention to the patients? They get an awful lot of attacks, but in my view they are in need of some congratulation as well.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend. The 2022 GP patient survey showed that 72% of patients reported a good overall experience at their GP practices. GP practices that innovate tend to get better results in customer patient satisfaction.
Afghanistan
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, in a debate such as this with so many valuable and knowledgeable contributions, especially in this House, where noble Lords have relevant and deep experience, it is inevitable that whatever I say will either have been said before or be better expressed as the debate continues, so I am going to concentrate on two areas of concern.
First, it is right and proper that in these circumstances, as major players in Afghanistan in recent years, the UK should ensure that those who are now in danger, as defined by the UN Convention on Refugees, should be supported, including being safely provided with sanctuary. As the Minister responsible for our Bosnian refugee resettlement programme in the 1990s—a much smaller but important programme under UN auspices—I know how positively we can respond in such emergencies. Our NGOs, local authorities, educationalists and health and social services all went the extra mile then and I am sure that they will do so again now. The decisions as to who should get priority and sanctuary here should be based on need and categories must be determined. This should not simply be a matter of a numerical target. We must discuss with others, in the USA and Europe, how we can effect a successful programme. We have a proud record of accommodating oppressed people in the UK and we now have a chance to demonstrate it again.
My second point is made as a president of the West Yorkshire branch of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity that offers support to serving personnel, veterans and their families and has done so for many years. The positive effects of their participation in Afghanistan should not be underestimated. We lost more than 450 men and women service personnel, whose families continue to mourn. Others were seriously injured and disabled. Some of those injuries are not obvious to see, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorders. The courage and commitment of these men and women must not be forgotten. However, our support must be in a tangible form. The Armed Forces Bill must be reviewed to ensure that the Armed Forces covenant is extended so that it recognises wider needs than at present and places greater responsibilities on national, not just local, government.
There are those who have served their country and there are families of those who died who now feel that their courageous service in Afghanistan was in vain. Whatever the current situation may be, the positive contribution to protection from terrorism and drugs and the social changes, including the emancipation of women and children, which even the Taliban will have difficulty in reversing, was worthy and worth while. Those who served can all be very proud of what they did. Our forces are forces for good, supporting freedom and democracy, and I hope that they will continue to be so.
House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, on Tuesday 9 February 1988, the House of Commons agreed to set up a Select Committee and an experiment to allow the televising of its proceedings. As a fairly new MP, I voted against it. I have regretted that vote ever since. Many past and present Members of this House participated in the debate, and most voted to support the Motion. Meanwhile, this House had allowed TV cameras to cover its proceedings since 1985—demonstrating even then an independent and progressive approach to reform and innovation, which has been so clearly replicated during the Covid crisis.
Like most other noble Lords, I congratulate all those on our committees and our staff, old and new, on the way they have found new ways to maintain the House’s reputation and function during this difficult time. This House must again make up its own mind about the use of the new technology that has been so effectively deployed during this crisis. It should not and must not be led by our friends in the other place, whose approach to the recent pressures has been sometimes misplaced and even unhelpful in the delivery of their role as the elected Chamber of Parliament.
We have been lucky not only in those who serve us but in the 21st century technology that has been available to us. In 1985, or even 1988, we could not have carried out our functions in the situation we have experienced lately. For technology to be of use it must be applied in ways that enhance the functions to which it is attached, and I believe we have achieved that. I have argued for some time that the proceedings of this House and its committees should be fully available to the public not only on our own TV website but on a designated parliamentary channel. The broadcasting authorities have not yet conceded this. My reasoning is that, as was stated in those 1980s debates on televising parliamentary proceedings, the primary emphasis of our work must be on ensuring that the public can see and hear us, rather than on whether this always serves our internal arrangements.
The use of Zoom and Teams has permitted us to keep faith with the public, and to appear before them in debate with our contributions throughout the crisis. The use of electronic voting has been a great and successful innovation which, when it was rightly enhanced by full explanations of the effect of particular votes, led to more Members knowing more about the subject being voted on that night than sometimes might be the case with physical presence.
A number of international legislatures have been interested in our innovations. I believe that our PeerHub may be copied on a permanent basis elsewhere. The virtual proceedings have reached a level of refinement where I believe any ideas of permanent removal would lose us a most valuable tool. These changes have not diminished the public’s respect for this House, but they have permitted many Peers to continue to participate in our proceedings who could not otherwise be present. If we are to retain these advances, they may need adjustment as normality returns, but I hope that all the hard work and achievements that we have brought forward are not lost.
Covid has forced work practice changes on many people. Leading companies, professions, and infrastructure and care providers in the UK are maintaining useful and positive advances. Working from home for at least a proportion of time is not only respectable but a positive benefit to all those involved.
We are a diverse House, more so than the other place, in age, gender, geography, disabilities and our responsibilities for others. Some Peers live nearby, but many live hundreds of miles away. Over more than a year these Covid restrictions, including specific and strong requests to stay away, have forced many Peers to give up their London accommodation or ongoing arrangements with hotels. To re-establish such arrangements would be expensive and complicated for some. Many Peers have invested in the technology needed in their homes, so that they can participate fully in our proceedings. These investments, often from private finance, should not be wasted. Some of the finest speeches in the last year have been from Members’ homes—even if the bookcase backdrops have not always displayed a catholic choice of literature.
I regret that I will not be supporting the Motion of my noble friend Lord Cormack. May I gently remind him of his remarks as an MP, in a debate in 1988 in the other place? He said, inter alia:
“Our constituents have a right to see us through the medium of the day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/1988; col 270.]
Well, the public may not be our constituents in this House but, if the latest means of communication to the public are in our hands, we should be reluctant to give them up altogether.
Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register and fully support the way that, during the Covid crisis, the Government have tried to allay the fears of those tenants in cases where there is a danger of them being oppressed or evicted by bad landlords or unavoidable economic or social hardship.
However, we should reflect that the size of the private rental sector has grown dramatically in recent years. Nearly 25% of the UK population is now housed in the private sector—an increase, over 10 years, of over 60%. In the vast amount of cases, the relationship between landlords and tenants works well and to the satisfaction of both parties. In a small percentage of cases, it does not. This might be because of dissatisfaction felt by one party about the other over some of the arrangements between them or the quality of the agreement between them. However, in only a few cases—proportionally—is the behaviour sufficiently bad to require action by either of them. This may be the anti-social behaviour of a tenant or a long-term failure to pay rent without excuse, or it may be the threatening behaviour of a landlord or a precipitant notice to quit. However, in some cases, the only solution for a landlord may be to commence eviction proceedings.
The Government recognise that, in the present crisis, some tenants will be under especial pressure—both economic and social—and have therefore introduced changes to give breathing space before evictions can be effected. This is sensible but, surely, we must also consider the effects on many landlords, who are also under enormous pressure and who may well be exemplary in their treatment of their tenants. They also have bills to pay and responsibilities to maintain their properties. If they are without rents or cannot regain possession of properties where bad tenants are currently situated, what are they to do?
I ask my noble friend to do his best to ensure that there is a level playing field and that, in seeking to help tenants—which I am sure is right—he also looks to ensure that the consequent burden put on landlords is alleviated by more positive and balanced government assistance.
Business and Planning Bill
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate ExcerptsMonday 20th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I(Corrected-II) Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2020)
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to government Amendments 58, 65, 78 and 81, as well as to other amendments related to them. This takes me back to law school and the two greatest challenges I encountered there. The first was in the field of equity. We had a phrase in the legal profession: “Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor’s foot.” Yet it was—and still is—a vital and valuable area in which fairness can be administered in the application of the law in England and Wales.
The second element was the word “reasonable”. I spent much time then, as I have again now, rereading some of the judgments, particularly those of a lawyer I greatly respect—the late Lord Denning—who talked about reasonableness and the interpretation of “reasonable”. It is a minefield, particularly in an area of legislation such as this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right in what he said a little while ago in this debate: dealing with the word “reasonable” in terms of the Minister’s powers to extend the provisions opens up a challenge—which I hope will not happen because in general this legislation is not only necessary but, in the main, well drawn.
I recognise the activities of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in what it said. It supported—as shown by the letter we received from my noble friend Lord Howe earlier today—the wording of the various government amendments here, with the word “reasonable” used in terms of ministerial activity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, the Constitution Committee came out quite clearly with wording not dissimilar to that used by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The advantage of that wording is simply this: talking of necessity, and introducing necessity and appropriateness into a decision taken by a Minister who wishes to extend, makes the legislation less vulnerable to challenge.
I hope that, even at this late stage, my noble friend the Minister will consider looking at those words, which again came from the Public Bill Office as well as from our Constitution Committee, and making those changes to give the Bill a real prospect of being unchallenged—either in its temporary form or in any extended form that might be regarded as necessary and desirable.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
My Lords, thanks to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a number of very important amendments have been tabled by the Government that limit the extent of the powers in the Bill, with exceptions for a need consequent on a further outbreak of the coronavirus. Although there are disputes over the wording—the exact precise wording, as we have heard from a number of speakers—in general the amendments are supported on these Benches.
Of course, we all greatly miss our friend Baroness Maddock and record our commiserations to my noble friend Lord Beith.
Business and Planning Bill
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate ExcerptsMonday 6th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, we should all welcome the general thrust of the Bill, especially the declared purpose of assisting businesses, especially the small and medium-sized ones, in the current crisis. For the most part, concerns from individuals and organisations about inconvenience caused by changes near to them or affecting their interests—for instance, open-air activities or the extension of hours on building sites—can be assuaged to some extent by the temporary nature of the relevant provisions and the accepted obligation already given by the Government to come back to Parliament if any extensions or retentions of these provisions are contemplated or, in their view, necessary.
However, my remarks today, like those of the previous speaker, will concentrate on the parts of the Bill that deal with planning issues. I do this in the full knowledge that the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of planning law and regulations—as predicated in remarks made earlier this year by the Housing Secretary, my right honourable friend in the other place, Robert Jenrick, and my noble friend earlier—which is to be set out in due course.
As a lowly PPS in the Department of the Environment, I worked on the delivery of development corporations with my boss at the time, Sir David Trippier, to areas or zones of economic deprivation in the 1980s, and I regarded the special planning powers vested in their boards as key to revival. Such targeted zones, especially in inner cities, will in my view be necessary again in a post-Covid world. I hope my noble friend the Minister will look sympathetically with his colleagues at this possibility.
However, the reference to changing the planning appeals system in this Bill, which seems to emanate from some of the proposals for a White Paper, should be examined closely. I believe these ideas were contributed by the independent review panel, to which my noble friend referred earlier. These changes, unlike most of the Bill’s contents, are to be permanent, ahead of other more comprehensive changes, so we need to be most careful in examining these things as the Bill proceeds. I assume these changes will remain as part of the fuller proposals.
The balance between developers and planners and the communities the planners serve is sensitive. Many local planning decisions are already defeated under the current appeals system because of the sheer cost of the process. This is deterring many local authorities, with limited resources and strict rules on public expenditure, from standing up to speculative developers, often in cases where the development sought might be damaging to the local environment and unwanted by local communities. Some developers with large resources are unaccountable in the same way and therefore in a privileged position.
At first sight, any simplification of the appeals process could be thought to address the inability of local authorities to resist unacceptable applications. It is vital that balancing the protection of communities and the environment with the need to build more suitable houses and other buildings is maintained and, where necessary, altered so that the default does not unduly favour the developer.
On that point, I hope my noble friend will appreciate the problems with Section 106 provisions, which sometimes require a developer to offer some community contribution out of his profits. This has often proven a blunt sword. I trust that, in any new proposals to come before us, such provisions will be enhanced and clarified. I know of many cases where developers have avoided their responsibilities under Section 106 and any community infrastructure levy. It is vital that planning proposals, whether in this Bill or later legislation, maintain the important balance between community cohesion and acceptance, and the need to build.
House of Lords: Future Location
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, yesterday morning the people of Yorkshire woke up to the knowledge and excitement of the possibility of Parliament coming back to the north of England. However, I think the excitement was somewhat sullied by the later indication that it was only the House of Lords that would be coming to York. While York would welcome that, I suggest that my noble friend also looks carefully at a new location for the House of Commons. In the interests of national unity, perhaps he should consider the Commons going to either Edinburgh or Glasgow.