Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), on securing this important debate and on making a powerful case for our local communities, as she always does. I, too, place on record my appreciation of the vital work of our firefighters in keeping us safe. We are about to enter the festive period, when many of us will, I hope, be safe at home with our families. We must remember, however, that the emergency services, including firefighters, will be on duty over that period, as they are every day, keeping us safe.

Recently, I too met the Tyne and Wear chief fire officer, Chris Lowther, and a fire authority representative. More recently, I met Russ King of the FBU and firefighters at the fire station in Tynemouth. I therefore understand why the fire authority felt the need to propose the changes in the integrated risk management plan, given the financial constraints within which it has to operate, but I am sceptical and indeed critical of the suggested changes as they affect my constituency. To be clear, however, we should not simply fight for our own areas; this should be a whole Tyne and Wear issue, and the plan should be one that keeps every community safe, whichever constituency it happens to be in.

As my hon. Friend said, under one of the proposals offered, fire engines at Wallsend will simply be day-crewed, with an engine from Tynemouth taken over there to provide cover during the night. My first concern, therefore, is about the dilution of cover and the time taken for sufficient engines to arrive at a major fire incident. According to the consultation document, an average delay of simply 17 seconds will result from the change, but for someone who lives in St Mary’s ward in my constituency, with the second engine at Wallsend, the delay will be considerably longer in practice.

The fact is that, while the speed of response is important, the weight of response is crucial. For a fire involving people, at least three appliances are sent, so a thinner spread across an area would mean drawing engines from further away, and that adds time. In addition, as a result of previous cuts, as we have heard, some crews have already been reduced to only four members. For a person in the first engine reaching the fire and believing someone is in that fire, the enormous moral pressure to act is great, and that increases the risk. Under the proposed changes, that will get worse. Tynemouth station also has a mass decontamination vehicle to decontaminate firefighters and indeed the public. In theory—or in practice—that requires 28 operatives, but under the proposals that number will be reduced to only 16. To be clear, resources are already stretched, and the proposals will stretch them further.

Tyne and Wear appliances are already thinly spread, in particular when they are drawn into Northumberland. In recent years, Northumberland fire service has made cuts, and those at West Hartford, for example, mean that Tyne and Wear appliances are regularly drawn across the border into Cramlington. This summer, in Blyth, a major incident required five engines: three came from Tyne and Wear, and two of them were from Tynemouth fire station. Section 16 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 provides for mutual assistance, but the situation in Tyne and Wear is already stretched, so cuts might make mutual assistance impossible in future.

Even without engines crossing the border, the situation in Tyne and Wear is overstretched. Last Thursday, in North Shields, firefighters were called to a fire on the Meadow Well estate. At the same time, a further fire was reported in Cullercoats, which required an engine to be called from Fossway in Newcastle, seven miles away, leaving east Newcastle, an area of considerable industrial activity and housing, with a lack of cover. In April 2018, four engines were called to a fatal house fire in the Knott flats in North Shields—under the proposals, four engines will not be available locally. Earlier in the year, a fire at Hillheads in Whitley Bay was also, unfortunately, fatal. If the changes go through, the risk will be even greater. Firefighters tell me that it was becoming very rare to go to a house fire in which there was a fatality, but that has not been the case in recent times. Under these proposals, that could get worse.

Fire prevention is a crucial part of keeping people safe. The fire authority says that if the job losses continue in Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service as a result of these changes and what has gone before, 70 posts will be lost, and the FBU says 82 posts will be lost. Either number is considerable. One effect is likely to be a reduction in fire prevention work. There is already little time for fire prevention work in schools. Attacks on crews are also up by 25% nationally, and antisocial behaviour, which is increasing, is often linked in my constituency to fire raising. Uniquely, there was a bonfire night campaign this year, which is the first time I remember that being the case. There is an ever-diminishing resource and an ever-increasing risk. Although we see that in our constituencies, this is not about turning one area against another.

It is clear, not least from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside said, why we are in this position. Tyne and Wear is a metropolitan fire brigade; metropolitan fire brigades have taken 50% of the cuts since 2010. One of the root causes is the linking of funding to band D council tax. That means that better-off areas in the south tend to do better than metropolitan areas in the north, where the typical council tax band is more likely to be A or B than D.

There is a way that fire authorities could raise more funding. If they wanted to increase the precept by more than 2.99%, they could have a referendum, but I am told that the cost of holding a referendum would be greater than the money that would be raised to spend on the service. Understandably, that is not a route they would want to go down. Tyne and Wear has said that it has not had capital grants since 2010-11 and that equipment needs to be replaced. Reorganisation sometimes means that the location of fire stations has to be remodelled. It is important that the fire authority looks at reserves, but it must be careful because it cannot spend that money and still have the reserves in future to spend again.

I hope that the Government will reconsider changing the funding formula in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside described. I hope they will think carefully before they go too far down the sparsity route. Sparsity added into the funding will not do anything for metropolitan areas such as Tyne and Wear. I hope that we get some kind of equalisation. Whether it is business tax, council tax, or whatever other kind of taxation or funding, we have a habit of using a national model that does not look at needs in different areas. If fire authorities in the south have sufficient resources to run a good service, why are they being rewarded while other areas, such as Tyne and Wear, lose out?

The Government must face up to the consequences of the proposed cuts. The Home Office is responsible for fire and rescue—the police and fire Minister is in his place. It is odd that the funding still comes from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is true. It is very odd for one Department to be responsible for making decisions, and another to be responsible for going to the Treasury to lobby for money. HCLG has its own priorities, so I am not sure another Department’s priorities will be at the top of its list.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but the Home Office cannot perpetuate a laissez-faire approach where decisions on police cuts are the responsibility of the police and crime commissioners, and spending and decision making on the fire service are down to chief fire officers and fire authorities. If the Government do not provide the funding in the first place, fire authorities and police and crime commissioners will simply manage cuts. That must not be allowed to continue.

There is a consultation, but the period is truncated. Whether or not it continues to be truncated, I hope that residents in Tyne and Wear will find time to look at the consultation and to make their views known. I certainly will.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

No. I made the point only because I would not want the people of Tyne and Wear reading about this debate in the local newspaper to have any sense of, or have, a lack of confidence in their fire service as a result of representations made by their Members of Parliament.

Let me address the heart of the issue, and subject of this debate, which is the integrated risk management plan that the fire authority is putting forward, and make several points. In case residents were not aware, the authority is required to do that. It is regular business for fire authorities: they are required to produce these plans and show how they plan to respond to a range of emergencies on the basis of risk assessment and management for their locality. Quite rightly, the plans are based on the professional and expert advice of senior fire and rescue officers and are made in consultation with local communities. The fire and rescue national framework requires authorities to produce a plan that reflects up-to-date risk analysis, including assessment of all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks.

I point out that the Tyne and Wear reserve strategy makes it clear that the actions proposed in the current IRMP, and which are being consulted on, represent a review of organisational changes required by the authority to operate more effectively—its language, not mine. That is the context for the plan. It is not laissez-faire but a fact that it is not the position of the Government to have a view on the efficacy of the plan. It is for local experts to draw up these plans, although over time, with the new independent inspection regime that we have introduced, all of us will have a clearer picture by being able to compare the operational effectiveness of individual fire authorities in a way we have not been able to in the past. It is not for me to have a view on whether this is the right or the wrong plan. To repeat the point made by various Members of Parliament, it is for local people to have a view.

Therefore, I wholly support and endorse the messages about the constituents of Tyne and Wear MPs being encouraged to engage with the consultation. If there are concerns about the length of the consultation period and the consultation running over Christmas, they need to be listened to very carefully, because this is a vital public service. Clearly, uncertainties and concerns are being raised by MPs about the changes, so constituents need to be aware and need to engage with the exercise. To repeat the point made by the hon. Member for North Tyneside, it needs to be a proper public consultation.

Let me make a bigger point, in relation to the future funding. I have recognised that Tyne and Wear has been challenged by the last spending review. I need to make this point at the start, because there is a point of differentiation to be made. I am not tribal at all, but I cannot let comments stand from at least two contributions to the debate. Austerity is not a political choice; it is not ideologically driven. The idea that Conservative MPs went into politics deliberately to reduce public expenditure is deeply insulting. The idea that austerity is somehow disconnected from the actions of the last Labour Government and our inheritance of the largest peacetime budget deficit is absolutely disingenuous. The public are not fools and should not be treated as such. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the fire service is properly resourced, while continuing to challenge it to be more efficient and to modernise and do all the things that we expect of a modern public service.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

There have been concerns about whether the Home Office is somehow detached from the process. I can assure the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) that we are not. Fire funding is part of the local government settlement, and that situation is not unusual: lots of health and education funding comes through local government. However, it is the Home Office that is responsible for the fire budget at the spending review and it is the Home Office that is working with the sector to update our understanding of demand and risk and to identify the evidence that we need to take into discussions on the next funding settlement. I am absolutely determined to ensure that our fire service has the resources that it needs, while continuing to be robust in challenging it on efficiency reform.

Mention was made of Grenfell. I am the Minister for Grenfell victims. That has been a huge part of my life for the past 18 months. One has only to listen to the podcasts from the public inquiry and hear the evidence of firefighters to understand what they had to work with and through on that night, in the most terrible of conditions. I have the deepest admiration for the work that they do and I want to be absolutely sure that they are properly supported by means of a proper understanding of the demand and risk that is in front of us, the past not necessarily being a guide to the future.

The fire funding formula is being reviewed, along with all other local authority formulas. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will shortly publish a consultation document on the review of local authority formulas. We have been working with the sector to understand what the new cost drivers for a new fire formula should be, and I strongly encourage Tyne and Wear fire and rescue authority—I will make this point directly to Chris Lowther—to get involved in that process and respond to the consultation. The review will also look at how council tax is used to produce funding allocations. MPs and fire authorities need to engage with the process. That work is imminent. We must engage with it and get it right.

That takes us to the comprehensive spending review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has signalled that austerity is coming to an end. [Laughter.] There is laughter from MPs, but they laugh at their peril, because cuts are very much a consequence of the actions that they took when they were in power. Austerity has meant tough choices and sacrifices being made, not least by people working in the public sector. We all want to move on from that. The CSR is the right place for that and the right place to ensure that the fire service is properly resourced for the critical work that it does.

I want to close with a point that is not central to the debate, but which was made by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and is very important. We are talking about supporting the fire service. It is absolutely unacceptable that our emergency workers, including our firefighters, should be subjected to abuse, assault and attack. Given the risks that they take on our behalf, that is absolutely unacceptable, and the strongest possible message about that needs to go out from this place. That is why I was so pleased, in an age of tribal ding-dong, that there was strong cross-party support for the Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and the signal that that sends to the courts on additional protection and powers to deal with violence against emergency workers. We did good work on that measure to send that signal about how completely unacceptable it is to attack and assault our emergency workers.

There have been strong representations from Tyne and Wear. Of course I will sit down with the chief fire officer to discuss the issues in more detail. We do feel that the fire service has the resources that it needs. This is a case of stable funding alongside efficiency. I totally recognise that Tyne and Wear had a tougher settlement than most. In relation to the integrated risk management plan, I urge constituents from that area to get fully involved and engage with it. I give my undertaking to ensure that, in the reviewing of the funding formula and in the CSR, this Government will continue to ensure that our fire service has the resources that it needs.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I am afraid not, because I am really short of time.

I know that many hon. Members have concerns about the way the arrest warrant, in particular, has operated since the Labour party first signed us up to it more than a decade ago. That is why we will remain part not of the arrest warrant of old, but of a reformed arrest warrant, with greater protections for British citizens and others. The changes that this Government have made through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the arrest warrant is no longer the one operated under the Labour party.

First, this Government have changed the law to ensure that arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge now considers whether the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate, and it is a British judge who considers whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.

Secondly, the Government have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met, and it has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.

Thirdly, the Government have changed the law to ensure that the issuing state must be trial-ready before individuals can be extradited. That will help to prevent lengthy periods of pre-trial detention, which I know have concerned some Members, as they have the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has campaigned so hard on that. It is the example of his constituent, Mr Andrew Symeou, that has resulted in the change we have made. All those changes have been made to UK law and came into effect earlier this year. Our reforms are based on existing laws and practices in other member states, and they are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who I know will not be voting today, commented on the amount of debate there has been on the subject. It is worth pointing out that Ministers have spent more than 10 hours giving oral evidence to Committees and have answered almost 350 parliamentary questions on this matter. Since October 2012, Ministers have spent at least 18 hours debating or answering questions on the subject in this House, and at least 10 hours in the other place, and that does not include the three hours here this evening.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who has significant experience in dealing with these matters as a former colleague of mine in the Home Office, explained that this is an international arrest warrant that speeds up the process of finding and extraditing criminals. He made an extremely important point, because this is a public safety issue. He talked about trafficking being one of the biggest crimes that we face today—trafficking of drugs, of firearms, and of people. I know from my experience as the Minister with responsibility for modern slavery that the trafficking charities are incredibly keen for Britain to stay part of the arrest warrant mechanism because they know that it is so important in making sure that we tackle this heinous crime. He made a point that is worth repeating—that of the 5,000 people extradited from the UK under an arrest warrant, fewer than 5% are UK nationals. Furthermore, many member states do not extradite their own citizens. We must bear that in mind when we are considering whether it is appropriate not to be part of this arrest warrant mechanism.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised ECJ jurisdiction, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). It is important to remind the House that Labour signed us up to the Lisbon treaty without a referendum. Labour is responsible for the position that we find ourselves in today, and we have to work within it. The important thing is that we protect our constituents—our citizens—in working within the constraints of the mechanisms arranged by Labour.

I pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), because I know how hard he has worked on this matter and how much time he spends on dealing with it. I want to clarify the point he made about the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice wrote in a letter dated 10 November that he considered paragraph 20 of the European Union Committee report on this matter to be the correct interpretation of the situation. The report says that if the UK were to leave the EAW,

“it is highly unlikely that these alternative arrangements”—

the arrangements that this Government have put in place—

“would address all the criticisms directed at the EAW. Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about the position of the Scottish Executive. I remind him that as a result of significant discussions that Ministers have conducted with the Scottish Government, this Government decided to join the European judicial network rather than the European genocide network because the Scottish Government specifically wanted us to be part of that, and we listened and made sure that we were part of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—my constituency next-door neighbour—is an expert on all matters EU. I have enjoyed many of his local speeches and comments about the EU. He asked what is special about the EU. My answer is that we need the best extradition arrangements we can have. We should not turn our back on the opportunity to have great extradition arrangements, where they are available, just because Europe is involved.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has significant experience of extraditions under the old system. His examples from the Thames valley region really brought home how important this matter is.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who has not returned to his seat, said that there was 100% agreement within his party. I hope he spoke to its economics spokesman before he made those comments, because he may find that that is not the case.

I want to make a point about prima facie evidence. It is not a requirement under the 1957 extradition convention that requesting states provide prima facie evidence when submitting a request. Therefore, leaving the arrest warrant and reverting to the 1957 convention would not have meant that all requests had to be accompanied by prima facie evidence.

Hon. Members have made many other good points. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) say that this is about law and order and working within the rules of the EU as they stand at the moment.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the Home Secretary made clear, and as I said in my contribution this afternoon, the police and the Security Service have stated that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk associated with those individuals. The right hon. Gentleman, and others, have sought to make a point about the risk assessments. Those have been made but they are an operational matter for the police and the Security Service. It would seem that right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to have information disclosed on the Floor of the House that could make it that much harder for the police and the Security Service to do their job of protecting this country.

The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides for the appointment of an independent reviewer of the operation of that Act, and for that reviewer to report annually on the outcome of that review. David Anderson has been appointed to perform that function and reviews all TPIM cases. No doubt he will cover those coming off their TPIMs in his annual report.

We are returning dangerous foreign nationals who have no right to be here back to their home countries through deportation with assurances, just as we did with Abu Qatada last July—something the previous Labour Government failed to do. We are working to do more than ever to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. I am clear that the best place for a terrorist is in a cell, and those who endanger lives and threaten our national security deserve to receive long sentences. Unlike under the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentences, under new proposals, criminals convicted of serious terrorism offences and who receive a determinate sentence will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentences without any assessment.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and it is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). As the Member of Parliament for Hadrian’s wall, I can assure him that many Romans—

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

Not all of it.

[Guy Opperman]

I hear chuntering from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson; I entirely accept that of the 85 miles of Hadrian’s wall—[Interruption.] Well, we can disagree. Some parts are in Newcastle and some parts are in Carlisle, but without any shadow of a doubt all the best bits are in the constituency of Hexham. However, I digress and it is wrong of me to take Opposition Members’ bait.

The most important thing is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), because he has done a wonderful thing. As we all know, it is very difficult to navigate a Bill through this House, however lovely Fridays are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made clear, and however much a Bill is supported by the whole House.

The Army charities do such wonderful work supporting our armed forces personnel and their families, including any of those personnel who are injured or who have suffered misadventure. We all pay tribute to them for the work that they do; I am quite sure that I speak for the whole House in that respect. The particular charity that I would pray in aid is Veterans Aid, which has said of this Bill:

“We warmly welcome any initiative that removes obstacles to those who have served this country with honour from settling here legally…Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign & Commonwealth servicemen and women disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy that is demonstrably at odds with the spirit of the Military Covenant. This was an injustice and we applaud the Government”—

and, as the quote says, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking—

“for listening. We still have many cases in being but this will definitely help us move things forward”

for many of the customers that it is assisting.

It is wonderful that the military charities are supporting the Bill, which is about enforcing the military covenant. That is so fundamental to the being of this country, and so important to how we assess and appraise the armed forces, that it is right and proper that we have updated reports on it. It is a wonderful thing that the House is provided with an annual report on the military covenant, and that the progress and development of the relationship between the state, the public and the armed forces is assessed on an ongoing and regular basis.

The Bill addresses two key issues that form part of the military covenant: the state of immigration, and the relationship between the state and its armed forces. Most of all, however, it is surely about justice and fairness. That is because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough accepted and made clear, it is only right and proper that all armed services personnel should be treated in the same way. I am pleased to say that the military covenant is a priority for this Government. It is about fair treatment for our forces and ensuring that we have an impact on the lives of military personnel.

I obviously represent the best parts of Hadrian’s wall, but I am also lucky enough to have Albemarle barracks in my constituency, where 39th Regiment Royal Artillery is based. In 2015 we will welcome a new regiment there, the 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. I cannot say specifically whether those individual armed forces personnel will be affected by the Bill, and it would be wrong of me to inquire about the specifics in advance of the Bill’s implementation. However, given the nature of those battalions, there will in all probability be individuals who are affected by it. My constituency also has RAF Spadeadam, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). The individuals who work in those facilities for the armed forces will be assisted by the Bill.

The covenant was established under this Government in May 2011. As we know, it is based on the principles of removing disadvantage from serving personnel in relation to access to public and commercial services. It also allows special provision in relation to access for the injured and the bereaved. Part of the ongoing process, which, I am pleased to say, this Government as a coalition have set up, is to address that relationship. If Members have not read the two reports on the military covenant, they really should look at them. The 2012 armed forces annual covenant report, which runs to almost 100 pages, provides a proper and detailed breakdown of the relationship between the state and the armed forces. There have been significant achievements, of which this Bill is one, relating to, among other things, health care, the medical rehabilitation that we have seen so successfully carried out at Headley Court, and housing. Frankly, this Bill would not be coming to fruition today were it not for the armed forces covenant, the hard work of the various charities and the dedication of the Government to make a genuine difference to that relationship.

I speak as a fifth generation immigrant. With a name like Opperman, I have more Saxon than Anglo in me. I endorse entirely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who said that one must look only at those who have fought on our behalf in the past to see why this Bill is so right. During the battle of Britain, there were 145 pilots from Poland, 32 Australians, 28 Belgians, 25 South Africans, 13 French and one each from Sri Lanka, Jamaica and Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend may be surprised that the French were fighting on our side, but there are times when they have assisted us. I am sure that President Hollande would be grateful for our assistance right now.

My point is that in our hour of ultimate need in the second world war, it was not just British citizens who were protecting us and fighting against the Nazis, but a large number of men and women from many different countries. To deny those who had fought in the battle of Britain the ability to have British citizenship is abhorrent.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Before I respond to the points that have been made by various Members, it is important in the short time that I have to restate a few simple points to ensure that this debate is understood and placed in its proper context, particularly in the light of the last contribution and some of the other contributions this afternoon and evening.

First, the decision that the previous Administration left us to make is whether to exercise the opt-out by 31 May 2014. The Opposition motion and a number of the contributions this evening have given the impression that this is a rushed decision. Before coming to a final view on such an important matter, the Government must be satisfied that they have worked through all the options, understood the implications of them, provided Parliament with as much information as is practical and given Members the chance to debate the issues in an informed way. That is the proper way for a Government to conduct business and that is precisely what we are committed to doing.

Secondly, I remind Members that some 130 measures are subject to this decision, not just the handful named in the Opposition motion. While the Opposition may view those measures as the most important ones that are subject to the decision—although in the light of the contributions this evening, I am not so sure about that—I do not agree that we should single out individual measures when making the large opt-out decision. Instead, we should look at the measures in the round. That is to say, we should consider all 130 or so of them. We must take a decision based purely on what is in the national interest.

My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have been consistently clear to this House and in evidence to the other place that the Government’s current thinking is that we should opt out of all pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures, but seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have given a clear commitment, reiterated today by the Home Secretary, to hold a vote on the matter before any formal decision to opt out is made.

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have done so much to allow Parliament to scrutinise EU matters more fully than ever before, and who are allowing a vote on such an important matter. When such an unambiguous commitment has been made and repeated by the Government, I am not clear what benefit is to be gained by holding a vote on a motion that only partially deals with this matter. Surely it is better to welcome the Government’s commitment to a vote, and for the Government to ensure that any vote takes place in a fully informed manner.

The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest. After contributions from hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), let me say clearly that this is not about playing games or not acting responsibly—something the Home Secretary made crystal clear in her contribution this afternoon. Consideration will be given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental effect on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. That is the correct and measured approach the Government will take.

Important contributions have been made this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) highlighted the impact of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. Much of the third-pillar legislation was made to the lowest common denominator in order to secure unanimity, and it was not negotiated with European Court of Justice jurisdiction in mind. Much of the drafting reflects that and is not of a high standard. Indeed, some of it is ambiguous and could lend itself to expansive interpretation by the Court—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend. He also referred to the Metock case that highlights the issues involved and why this matter must be considered so carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) highlighted evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers which said that 55 of the measures in the basket have no practical effect, and that is why the evidence presented must be weighed carefully. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) highlighted the balance of competences review, but that is a separate matter concerning modifications to treaties. The issue currently before the House concerns the utilisation of a measure in an existing treaty.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) seemed to imply that there was no room for practical co-operation, but there absolutely is. Much of our co-operation to fight crime and terrorism does not depend on EU-level instruments. Indeed, our operational partners co-operate closely on a daily basis and that will not change. We have been clear throughout this process that where there is a case for practical co-operation with other European partners, the Government will support it.

Some hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, highlighted Europol. Obviously, the Commission has published a new measure and there will be a separate debate on that at the start of July. Therefore, our decisions on Europol will clearly be framed in the context of the new measure and existing measures that fall within the basket. We also expect the publication of new instruments in relation to Eurojust.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The question is—[Interruption.] I do not think we need any help from you, Mr Browne. Thank you. You are very good at giving advice, but we do not need it.

Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Police

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I will get to the details, because some Members are actually genuinely interested in police funding, rather than in trying to score party political points. I owe it to them to treat them seriously, so let me turn to the funding settlement details.

In the past 12 months we have heard from policing partners on a number of funding issues, including the police allocation formula, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), the process of damping and the community safety fund. There is a widely held view that the police allocation formula should be subject to a full review before any changes are made to the current damping policy. We will commence a review later this year. In the meantime, the current damping arrangements will remain, but a review will be undertaken on whether we can improve the allocation of central police funding.

Linked to the issue of allocation is the precept—the police element of council tax. Of course, I recognise that there is considerable disparity between force areas in the proportion of overall funding that comes from council tax, but we have to ensure that funding allocations to the police are as equitable as they can be. This is why all forces have received an equal percentage of the reduction in core Government funding.

On community safety funding, in 2013-14 police and crime commissioners will receive funding from a new and un-ring fenced transitional community safety fund, which they can use to invest in tackling drugs and crime or in community safety activities. In 2013-14, that funding will total £90 million. PCCs will have discretion to invest funding from the CSF in their own locally determined community safety priorities, including in existing programmes. This fund provides PCCs with the full flexibility to invest in their own priorities. To ensure that PCCs are able to make an informed decision about how to use their CSF allocations, we will publish details on the Home Office website of the existing drugs, crime and community safety funding streams that are ending. From 2014-15, the CSF will be rolled into the police main grant to give PCCs even greater freedom and flexibility over how they use their resources.

In summary, we cannot afford to continue the borrowing-fuelled levels of spending under the previous Government. The fact that crime continues to fall shows that the quality of policing cannot, and should not, be measured purely in terms of the level of resources put into it.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

In Northumbria, the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable are proposing to increase the precept on average by less than 5p per household to recruit 50 additional officers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Mr Browne]

That is their decision. That is what they were elected in Northumbria to decide. There seems to be a lot of good news in Northumbria. Let me see, the hon. Gentleman is one of the best parts of the whole country—no wonder he did not intervene earlier. In the two years since his party was chucked out of office with one of its lowest shares of the vote ever and our coalition came in, crime has fallen by 18% in Northumbria. People in Northumbria are safer now than they were before. They are less likely to be victims of crime, and I very much welcome that.

Forensic Science Service

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

Let me first place on the record my thanks to the Science and Technology Committee for its report and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the excellent leadership he has shown and the way in which he introduced the debate.

I hesitated to speak in this debate for two reasons, both linked. I had responsibility for the Forensic Science Service in the very last months of the previous Government. Therefore, there is inevitably a hesitation when one rises in such debates, not only to say something positive about what we did, but to talk about one’s successor, because the second point is this. I do not think it is fair when Ministers have left office if they jump up at every opportunity to criticise or comment on what their successors have done. The Minister deserves my support, in exactly the same way that he gave me support when I was honoured to hold the position that he now holds. However, I want to make some brief observations, not from the perspective of a criminal lawyer by any means, but from the perspective of what I think is good or bad public policy.

Whatever else has been said, the reality is that the fortunes of the Forensic Science Service have proved difficult for every Government, and would have done for any Government—both for this Government and the previous Government. They have been difficult for all sorts of reasons, not least because of the changing nature of forensics in recent times, particularly with the proliferation of DNA testing, but also because of a market—if one wants to call it that—that has been complex and in which both the Forensic Science Service and a number of private providers have played a part. When I say that in my experience some of those providers proved to be fickle, that is in no way a criticism of those who do an excellent job and are an integral part of the market; indeed, nothing that we did was about undermining what they were trying to do. However, it is true that some companies put their toes in the water and tended to look for the cheap things they could do to make a quick profit before moving on. This particular aspect of the criminal justice system deserves better.

Where I would disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) is that we should not take an either/or approach to the forensics sector. There is no reason to believe that it would be better just in private hands or just in the hands of Government-run bodies. That was the approach that we took, and that is why the transformation programme was necessary. It was not a subsidy, as he suggested; rather, as the name suggests, it was meant to transform the Forensic Science Service from being a loss maker—which we all acknowledge it was—to being a player that could continue in the forensics market. I believe that the FSS brought, and still brings, something of great value to the forensics market. It helps to be a guarantor of the highest standards, which are not simply necessary for criminal justice in our country, but well regarded and well respected elsewhere.

The transformation programme was radical in what it intended to do. It aimed to close four laboratories around the country—not three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said. Crucially, however, in the seven that remained, work was to be done differently, because it was entirely unacceptable that an organisation such as the FSS could continue to make a loss. That was the whole point of the transformation programme as we saw it.

The Government’s defence, in their response to the Select Committee’s report, is that the FSS was continuing to lose £2 million a month. I dispute that figure, not least because the numbers were coming down. Also, in answer to a point that was raised earlier, the intention was not to have a Forensic Science Service that was continually indebted to the Government and the taxpayer; it was to have one that could stand foursquare on its own two feet. In that sense, therefore, I do not think the transformation programme has been characterised properly. The Government’s response to the report warns:

“Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011.”

I have news for the Minister, although he already knows this: all the discussions that we had throughout the transformation programme took that for granted—not that the FSS would be in administration, but that it would always be on the edge of difficulty. Again, that was the whole point of the transformation programme: to ensure that if we wanted a Forensic Science Service, things would have to change, and they did.

Let me ask the Minister a question that I hope he will address. One of the issues that was in danger of tipping the FSS into difficulties was the black hole in the pension fund. Forgive me, but if the FSS is closed, I would imagine that there necessarily remains a commitment to the pension fund. Somebody will have to fill that hole at some point along the way, so how much of the money that the Government are using to close down the FSS will go into the pension fund?

The previous Government, of whom I am proud to have been a member, introduced a reform programme. However, contrary to what we have heard this evening, we started from an assumption that at one point in the future the FSS would be—could be—privatised. My only concern was that it would have to be demonstrated that it was better to put the FSS into private hands than for the Government to continue to have an interest in it. In my view, that needed to be demonstrable, and the evidence was simply not there. However, as far as I remember, closure was not an option that was seriously considered—or, indeed, seriously sought. I wonder where it came from, because it is quite a major step from where we were. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office scientific adviser played a key role, not in responding to the decision, but in formulating it? What was the role of the forensic science regulator? The report talks about Andrew Rennison in excellent terms—he is indeed a fine man—and about how he has been reappointed, but was he consulted before the decision was made? Or again, has he simply been asked to make the best of a bad job? What did the police say? We can only really know that once the Government have published ACPO’s response—I refer not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston did, to how the police will cope, now that the Government have already made the decision, but to whether they said it was a good idea or not.

We were criticised for how we introduced the transformation programme. I still have the scars on my back, not least those inflicted by a Deputy Speaker who was, and remains, a doughty fighter for his constituents in Chorley, over one of the labs that was to close. Let me say this. On looking at the decision, how it was announced and the consultation, it makes me think, although Mr Deputy Speaker will not agree, that what we did was a model way of doing it. I am afraid this Government’s response is not acceptable.

I want to pay tribute to the excellent men and women of the Forensic Science Service. They have given, in some cases, decades of commitment, building up decades of experience not just for the service, but for our country. The reality is, as we have heard, that when the FSS goes, some of those people will leave forensics and some will stay in it but go to other countries, which will benefit from the experience that we built up over a long period. I simply ask whether this is the right decision.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that those excellent scientists will have more places in the private sector to go to and may well end up with a wider choice and earn more money? That is the free market at work.

[Mr Campbell]

They may do. It is entirely their choice if they want to do that, but let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question. When the Gulf states, which are running out of oil and are making investments for a modern state, wanted the very best forensic service for their country—indeed, the best in the world—who did they go to? They did not go to America or to Germany; and when they came to this country, they did not go to the private companies either. I will tell him who they came to and still have a contract with, as far as I understand it: they came to the Forensic Science Service. What is it that the Gulf states appreciate about this service that we apparently no longer do?

I have enormous respect for the police, for the science and, indeed, for the courts, but there is an issue about what will happen if forensics lies mainly or wholly in the hands of those working in police labs. They are doing their best, and we know that they will not cut corners or come up with the wrong decisions for whatever reasons people might suspect. The criminal justice system, however, is about more than that. It is about respect for people in that situation. I want some reassurance from the Minister, who has nodded his head when this matter has been raised, that when the FSS has gone, along with the expertise, status and respect that goes with it, we will not see miscarriages of justice or court situations where cases are thrown out because the police have not only caught the criminal and aided in the prosecution, but have provided the forensic evidence as well.

This debate is about whether we want a forensic science service in the future and what it will look like. We would have known what it looked like if the transformation programme had been given a chance. We asked some hard questions, so I ask the Minister whether those same questions were asked when he looked at the world beyond the FSS. For example, can he guarantee that in a major incident a forensic officer will be in there within four hours? It seems obvious that one will be, but is that the case? We asked that very hard question of the FSS, which sometimes struggled to give us an answer.

What will happen, God forbid, if there is a 7/7 or a 9/11? Is the Minister convinced that we will have the capacity in forensics to deal with that situation? At the time of the report, Durham, Cleveland and South Yorkshire constabularies not only did not have the necessary facilities, but did not have the contracts with external providers either. Yet we are told that the FSS is going to disappear this year. I wonder whether we are taking risks.

My final point is that this is a risky decision. I do not envy the Minister the decisions he has to take; I envy him his job, but not his difficult decisions. This is one decision, but what about all the other things happening across Government? What about the cuts in police numbers? What about the Justice Secretary’s acceptance that crime will inevitably rise in a recession? What about the changes to the rules on DNA that the Government are making in the Protection of Freedoms Bill? Add them together, and I am worried. Whatever the Minister’s motives, this is the wrong decision. I do not doubt that the Minister has gone to the nth degree to look at the issues, but I worry. This is my final question: why is it that instead of spending taxpayers’ money to get an FSS that is fit for purpose, we are spending the same amount of taxpayers’ money to end up with no FSS at the end of it all? It just does not make sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation.

I hear some of the points that have been made about whether there has been a reduction in the overall forensics market as a consequence of police in-sourcing. Indeed, I remember the Westminster Hall debate in which the hon. Member for Tynemouth was clear that there was no evidence of a vast swathe of police in-sourcing. Even at that time it was being postulated that it was the cause of some of the challenges facing the FSS.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

Does the Minister not accept that since that debate—of which we both have memories, and certainly not fond ones—the context has changed? We were talking about the police making decisions when they had budgets that were rising year on year. How much does he believe the decisions that the police are now making about forensics are driven by the cuts they see coming down the line?

[James Brokenshire]

The police have been looking carefully at their forensics spend and how to ensure that it is used effectively. Indeed, I congratulate ACPO and a number of police forces up and down the country on how they have approached this issue, which in many ways is about the ability to focus on the delivery of forensics spend. It is also worth highlighting the fact that, I would argue, the market was stimulated to a huge extent by the DNA expansion programme and how it unwound over that period. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the impact that that had on the market was not sustainable. Indeed, the development of DNA technology has moved on further, and I am sure that it will continue to do so, with innovations such as the concept, even, of “DNA in a box”, as it is sometimes described, which enables people to undertake DNA testing immediately, at scene.

By December 2010 the FSS was in serious financial difficulty, with significant operating losses and the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensics services, as the police continued to drive efficiencies in their use of forensic services. We judged it vital to take clear and decisive action to protect the supply of forensic science services to the criminal justice system. Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011—that was the clear statement that the company was making to us at the time, and that was the situation with which we were presented. That would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system. We were not prepared to expose the criminal justice system to that level of risk. I note that the Select Committee, while critical in other ways, agreed with the analysis that simply letting the FSS go into administration would not have been the right thing to do.

We maintain that the managed wind-down of the FSS was the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. The orderly wind-down of the company ensures that the police and the criminal justice system as a whole continue to have the forensics capability that they need to protect the public and bring criminals to justice. The transition process has underlined how that has been achieved. The costs of closure are being carefully managed, and obviously this estimates day debate underlines the costs that have been provided for. We are clear, and we maintain, that costs are not escalating and will be delivered within the provision that has been made. The National Audit Office has reviewed the calculation of the Home Office’s provision and is content that it is reasonable.

Metal Theft

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on the way he introduced the debate and on the lead he has shown on this important issue? I congratulate also the other authors of the excellent motion we are debating. This is an important time for tackling this issue.

I start my brief remarks by congratulating the Government and agreeing with them on some of what they are doing. I agreed with the Home Secretary when she said last month that people who deal in stolen metal are criminals “pure and simple.” Yes, they are. I also agree with the crime prevention Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) when he said last year that metal theft is not “a victimless crime.” No, it is not.

My constituents would agree with both those statements, particularly if they use the east coast rail line, where cable theft seriously disrupts services at least once a week. Tynemouth residents would agree too, because they are angry when war memorials are vandalised or cowardly thieves steal commemorative plaques from seafront benches. They ask why it is taking such a long time to get to the right place on the matter.

The Government sometimes stand accused, particularly by Opposition Members, of going too far, too fast, but on this issue they are not going far or fast enough. For example, when the pilot scheme to tackle metal theft in the north-east was announced—Operation Tornado—I sincerely welcomed and supported it, but there was an earlier pilot, Operation Fragment, in 2009, and when I asked the Home Office in a parliamentary question whether any evaluation of that pilot had taken place since the election, the Government said that they were learning from previous operations.

The Home Office then announced a metal theft taskforce, which sounds very much like the metal theft unit in the Home Office that was disbanded. Yesterday in another place, the Government announced that they are considering legislative changes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn said, he has introduced a private Member’s Bill that is fit for purpose, so the Government need consider no further.

It is baffling. Why has it taken so long to act? Was it because after the general election Home Office officials were told to disregard everything that had gone before and start a year zero policy? Has the Home Office, like the Justice Secretary, been convinced of the view that in a recession crime will inevitably go up? It did not go up during the 2008 recession and it does not have to be inevitable now. Alternatively, did the Home Office fail to see the link between commodity prices and theft and thus what was coming?

What can be done? Certainly cashless sales and increased fines will help, but the answer is not reform of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, but its replacement. The police need real powers to enter scrap yards and to close premises if necessary.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. I am sure that, like me, he goes on operations with his local police force, and if he has not done so, he should. I have sat outside a scrap yard in my constituency with police officers, observing the arrival of vehicle after vehicle that was known to the police. They know the criminals are there, but they are powerless to do anything. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

Yes. It is important that we give the police powers to do something about that situation. If I was sitting outside a scrap yard in the circumstances my hon. Friend describes, I hope I should not just be there with police officers. I hope I would be there with people from the Department for Transport and the tax office. If people are breaking the law by illegally selling and buying scrap metal, they will be breaking other laws. It is important that officials work together in what used to be known as the Al Capone approach—if we cannot get them for scrap metal sales, get them for something else.

We need to license scrap yards, which is important not simply to crack down on illegitimate dealers, but to protect legitimate businesses, because as we have heard, they are being dragged down by some of the practices elsewhere. Criminals must pay for their crime, not just through increased fines but by our making sure that when they are convicted, their assets are seized.

The Government need to act quickly to get a grip on the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn said, they cannot even give a proper estimate of the cost to the public purse and to the community of metal theft. Figures vary from Deloitte’s estimate of £220 million to £770 million. That is a big gap and I am not sure even those figures give a proper view of the scale of what is going on. Nor can the Government say in how many cases assets are seized after conviction of the perpetrators.

I shall be genuinely interested in hearing the Minister’s response. She is the fifth Minister in this Government to deal with the matter, so I hope she will bring focus and action. The answer is in the motion. I hope the Government accept the motion and that they implement it as soon as possible. They could make a good start by indicating this evening that they intend to take up the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Given the changes that his leader has instituted in his party, is he saying that there are Members on the Conservative Benches—women or members of ethnic minorities—who have not got here purely on merit?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not saying that at all. There is a risk that others might regard the winner from an all-women shortlist as not having succeeded against the whole field of candidates, which is self-evidently true.

[Mr Campbell]

Is that the hon. Gentleman’s view? If so, would he care to name any of them?

[Mr Nuttall]

As far as I am concerned, all Members on the Government side of the House have got here on merit, but there are plenty of Members who succeeded in their applications as a direct result of the all-women shortlists that the Labour party introduced.

[Mr Campbell]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the changes instituted by his leader to try to make his party more representative have been a waste of time?

[Mr Nuttall]

I believe that all selections should be open to all candidates, regardless of their race, sexual gender or any other merits, that political parties, wherever they are in the country, should be free to choose who they want on merit and that the 2002 Act should be repealed, which the Bill seeks to do. The key objective of that Act was to enable a political party, if it so wished, to adopt measures to regulate the selection of candidates, but I do not believe that that is the right way forward. According to the explanatory notes that accompanied the Act, in the 1996 case of Jepson v. the Labour party an employment tribunal held that section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 covered the selection of candidates by political parties, which therefore constrained their ability to take positive action to increase the number of women elected to this House.

Women (Government Policies)

Alan Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

No. I forgot that I was not going to give way. I was seduced by the siren voices behind me.

An important point was made about the Government’s commitment to women. Extending the Sojourner project, and finding a long-term solution with the Department for Work and Pensions, mean that such women will not again be put in the position of not knowing where the support is coming from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said that we should work together. Well, I am very happy to work with her, and I am happy to work with Opposition Members too, because we need to get past these attacks about blind spots and what they say the coalition Government are and are not doing to women. We all care passionately about the position of women in this country. I find it difficult to accept Opposition Members’ criticisms, given how much we are doing. The Home Secretary laid that out quite clearly in her introductory remarks when she gave a long list of things that we are delivering for women.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby on what was a powerful speech, if not a tour de force, in which she pointed out Labour’s failure to reform the welfare system. She talked of our relentless focus on children’s well-being, and the fact that we are taking 1 million children out of poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes talked about health visitors and the importance of Sure Start, and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull pointed out that not a single Liberal Democrat council has closed any children’s centres—[Interruption.] Sometimes it is quality, not quantity. Much as I would like to work with Opposition Members, I am afraid that it might not happen.

I wanted to respond to all the points that have been raised, but unfortunately I will not have time. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked about support for carers. The Government have provided £400 million to the NHS for respite care over the next four years.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.