Draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (modification of the local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019
Debate between Andrew Percy and Cheryl Gillan(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. If we are all fessing up to our part in this, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse did, I feel that I should fess up to mine: I was the Devolution Minister for a period when the proposal was under consideration.
I will respond to a couple of points. I think the premise of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wallasey was that the regulations were not thought through properly. This proposal has been in the mix for a number of years. There were lots of engagements when I was the Minister with various stakeholders—different council leaders, and different Members of Parliament. It has done the rounds. I do not want to go too much into Buckinghamshire in particular, because I spent quite a bit of time trying to kick the can down the road—that seems to be Government policy on a number of issues at the moment—in the hope that something would come along.
I want to respond to the point about consent. It is not possible with such reorganisations always to gain consent. Of course it is not unreasonable for local authorities to object to councils being abolished. My own region has been through that experience several times in recent years. Horribly, we were put into a county called Humberside, which never really existed, our borough councils were all abolished, and then we were restructured again when Humberside was abolished. Nobody has been able to create consensus in our region on what local government structures should look like.
I congratulate the Minister on having the chutzpah to proceed with what is generally a fairly sensible reorganisation. Leaving the matter of Buckinghamshire aside, it is time we dealt with this nonsense of two-tier authorities. There is no reason, in this day and age—[Interruption.] I am not talking specifically about Buckinghamshire; I do not want to upset my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
Obviously I am talking specifically about Buckinghamshire. The problem is that everybody looks to local government reorganisation to deliver the best possible services at the best possible price for the taxpayer, but the consultations point towards two local authorities. I believe that the original proposals began as a result of Aylesbury Vale District Council wanting to go off on its own, but then the county decided to create a huge leviathan of a council. Surely that is not common sense. Surely people should be listened to. The responses were in favour of two district councils; as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset says, the geography lends itself to two councils, not one. There would have been a good consensual way forward, so why are we now in a position where the three southern district councils are judicially reviewing the Government’s decision? It seems a sad state of affairs.
Andrew Percy
All that I will say on the geography point is that I represent a constituency in the largest unitary authority in the country and I do not necessarily accept the arguments being made. In local government reform, everybody can always make the argument that a particular solution does not fit the unique geography of their area. It is no surprise that whenever there are reorganisations there is always a district council seeking to create a unitary authority based around itself or one of its neighbours. That is not unusual; there have been similar discussions in the other part of my constituency.
All I will say in response to hon. Members’ comments is that this has not been done on the back of a fag packet. There have been years and years of—[Interruption.] I know that my right hon. Friend did not say that; I am not suggesting that she did.
Andrew Percy
I will finish my point, if I may, but I will give way before I sit down.
There can never be total consensus. When Durham County Council was unitarised in 2009, there were probably people opposed to that. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, made a comment about leadership being imposed, but that is not unusual in such reforms. As he will be aware, when we created the combined authority in the Greater Manchester area, the then police and crime commissioner —the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)—was appointed as interim mayor without any election. Such a situation is not unusual.
Andrew Percy
No, because the hon. Gentleman and I sat on all the Delegated Legislation Committees on the matter at the time. I have heard many similar speeches from him, he has heard many similar speeches from me, and I suspect that we have nothing new to add.
Andrew Percy
I will give way one final time to my right hon. Friend, given that the debate affects her constituency.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I am most grateful. If I felt that this had been done on the back of a fag packet, I would probably have spoken even more vociferously today, but the point is that we hope that the reorganisation will last some years into the future. Reorganisation does not happen every five or 10 years. Across the northern part of the county, we are just about to embark on the Oxford to Cambridge connecting routes, with all the resulting housing development and growth. As part of that, the Aylesbury Vale area will therefore be growing rapidly, despite the objection that with only 300,000 people it is too small. In addition to that rapid growth, we will face all the housing pressures from Slough and Wycombe in the southern areas of the county. It would have made much more sense to go for the consensual option that people want: two authorities. We are creating a monster for the future, and frankly I think it will need reorganisation much sooner than we anticipate.
Andrew Percy
I did not suggest that my right hon. Friend had said that the plans were made on the back of a fag packet; I was referring to another speech. She makes her point, but I consider 300,000 a very small population for an authority and I urge the Government to go much further with reorganisation—I include my own area in that. I have two unitaries, one of which, at 170,000, is too small. We need to come up with proposals to make it a much bigger unitary, potentially by merging it with neighbouring authorities. Some of them would not like that, but it will have to be enforced, if necessary.
I hope that the Minister will have more chutzpah than I did in the same role and will push forward unitarisation. I can be much braver now because I am not the one who has to do the Delegated Legislation Committees and it will not affect my diary quite so much. We really need to deal with the issue. I also ask him to look at the number of councillors. I believe the new authority will have 147—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Percy and Cheryl Gillan
Andrew Percy
I am aware of this issue and my hon. Friend’s advocacy on behalf of his constituency. Clearly, legislation does require Highways England to have regard to the AONB’s purpose to conserve and enhance that natural beauty. I am more than happy to meet him or to pass his concerns on to the appropriate Department.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Minister’s colleague has just confirmed that the NPPF makes it clear that AONBs should have the highest status of protection, yet the Chilterns Conservation Board, the public body set up to protect the Chilterns AONB, had its proposal for a fully bored tunnel under the Chilterns rejected. When it comes to projects such as HS2, it appears that there is one rule for some AONBs and another for the Chilterns AONB. What is the Minister going to do to try, still, to persuade the promoters to have a fully bored tunnel under the Chilterns and to live up to his promise to protect our AONBs?
Andrew Percy
It is absolutely appropriate that AONBs receive the protection they do in the planning process. I am more than happy to pass on my right hon. Friend’s question and concerns about the tunnel and the Chilterns to the Secretary of State for Transport.
Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men
Debate between Andrew Percy and Cheryl Gillan(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I apologise that I must leave this debate early. I mean no discourtesy to the House, but I am chair of a governing body and we are discussing the new school uniform this evening, which is somewhat controversial, so I must be there.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands); I agreed with much of his speech. Given the time constraints and the fact that I am leaving early, I shall endeavour not to repeat much of it. I pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who also sponsored the motion. I have been a member of and an ambassador for the white ribbon campaign for two or three years now; it is great to see them here at this debate. The issue is important.
Having said that I would not repeat what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, I will now do so. We are aware that domestic violence does not affect only women; in fact, sadly, sometimes when I have posted on social media about this particular campaign, I have been instantly attacked by people saying, “Ah, but what about the men who are victims?” Nobody involved in any of these campaigns is trying to brush that under the carpet. We know that it is not the case that all women are victims, or that all men are perpetrators, but it is a fact that the majority of people who suffer domestic violence are women, and the campaign seeks to address one particular element of that: the role that men can play in tackling violence against women.
Actually, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, it is about men and boys, because boys are an important part of the campaign. I know as a former high school teacher that unfortunately, teenage boys in our communities sometimes have views of women and girls that are entrenched from an early age. It used to sadden me often in the community where I taught. It was a difficult community; we had considerable social problems. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems that we had to deal with was boys’ views of women and girls, often because the person they came up against most in their lives, such as their primary caregiver, was a woman. Their behaviour towards them became unacceptable, and their view of women was concerning. We used to deal with that quite a lot.
I am open-minded about personal, social, health and economic education—I used to teach it—but I am not sure that it has a particular impact or value in schools. As a result of the new workload agreement, it is often not taught by teachers but delivered by others within the school. Unfortunately, when a subject is not examined—even when it is statutory, as religious education is throughout the English curriculum—the priority given to it by the school and the quality with which it is delivered are sometimes questionable. I would argue that equality should be embedded throughout the school curriculum, in both the pastoral role that tutors play and through delivering the curriculum. That is the most effective way to deliver on a theme across schools.
We heard from the hon. Gentleman about the cost of domestic violence, which is estimated at about £23 billion to the United Kingdom and £3.1 billion to employers. Of course, putting a figure on it does not do justice to the real cost of domestic violence, which is human and emotional suffering by the victims and their children. We also heard from him that one in four women will experience physical abuse, and almost half will experience some form of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. As he said, two women a week in the United Kingdom are killed in that context.
Although progress has been made, and in many respects it is encouraging that women now feel able to report far more than they used to, it is worrying that back home in Yorkshire, one in five cases of reported domestic violence are not pursued any further. Public interest issues are sometimes claimed, as are other reasons. That is a major concern, but progress has undoubtedly been made. The hon. Gentleman talked about that, so I will not repeat it, but domestic violence has more repeat victims than any other crime in the United Kingdom, and we should bear that in mind.
The hon. Gentleman also outlined much of the Government action that has been taken. I am pleased that this is the sort of debate that unites people across the House. We all want to go in the same direction. We may debate and discuss how to get there—comments have been made about local government funding and all the rest of it—but I think that the issue unites us politically, and we should pay tribute to this Government and the previous Government for the progress that they have made and the action that they have taken on the issue, some of which he reported.
I will not repeat what he said, but I will mention my local authority. The reason why I became a white ribbon ambassador involves Steven Marshall, the South Australian Liberal leader, of all people, who is a good friend. I noticed that he was involved with the white ribbon campaign in Australia. I thought that it looked like a thoroughly good thing to do. He signed up on behalf not only of his constituents and his party but ultimately, if his party forms one, of the Government, to support the campaign. I thought that that seemed sensible, which is why I approached the white ribbon campaign a couple of years ago to ask how we could engage in it better in my own area. My area is served by two local authorities: the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.
I approached our leader—Baroness Redfern, as she now is—in North Lincolnshire and asked if she would sign up the council to become a white ribbon council and Scunthorpe to become a white ribbon town. She was pleased to do so. I encourage other Members to ask their local authorities to do the same. Local authorities are already undoubtedly spending a lot of money and engaging a lot of time and effort to tackle domestic violence, but what the white ribbon campaign can bring is important, including getting councils to rethink how they view the issue.
We have engaged Scunthorpe United, which I am pleased to say has now hosted us for two signings. However, it is not just about signing up, getting an award and all the rest of it; it is about what the local authority is actually doing. My authority is now rewriting all its policies, and there are some progressive examples that would read across to other authorities. The entire domestic violence policy is being reviewed in light of the white ribbon campaign.
Importantly, the council is also reviewing its code of conduct for employees. The current code of conduct states that employees must not behave in work or outside work in a way that calls into question their suitability to work for the council. We do not think that that is tightly defined enough, so the local authority is seeking to make it absolutely clear by writing it into the code of conduct that any employee who engages in domestic violence is never suitable to work in North Lincolnshire. I would say that they are not suitable to work anywhere, particularly if they deal with other vulnerable people.
When commissioning and procuring services, the council will ensure that the principles of the white ribbon campaign are written into new contracts as much as possible, so that anybody with whom the council contracts is aware of them too. The council is also considering a youth engagement strategy, which is important. I agree with what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said. I know what it is like, as a former teenage lad and a teacher of teenage lads. The people they look up to are, frankly, not Members of Parliament. I am sure that the public generally look up to and respect Members of Parliament, but a really good way to teenage lads is their role models in sport—in the local football team, in rugby and, I hope, increasingly in American football, a proper sport. That is how to engage lads of a particular age, which is why a youth engagement programme run by the local authority with sports teams—not just football, but other sport clubs—is important.
There is no doubt that in northern Lincolnshire, we have a big ethnic and minority population who can be difficult to reach on this issue. We have teams operating in those communities, and the council is looking to engage them to find role models there as well, which will be important. Getting the local leaders to take a stand is important, so we have engaged with people in business and local solicitors, and we are encouraging all the elected members in the cabinet to sign up and become ambassadors for the campaign. Then, of course, there is the training for staff and all the rest of it, which is so important.
There is a lot that the council can do. I am really interested to see whether one idea comes to fruition. It is to consider a graduate placement or apprenticeship opportunity in this field, specifically to promote the white ribbon campaign in North Lincolnshire, which I think would be really innovative.
A lot is being done; there is a lot more that could be done. Local authorities have a really big role to play in this area, as do schools. The NHS is also important, because one issue that still comes up repeatedly is whether or not the training on domestic violence provided within the health system is as widespread or as sufficient as it should be.
I will not say much more than that, Madam—Mrs Gillan. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I believe that this issue unites the House. As I have said, a lot is being done. I pay particular tribute to the white ribbon campaign. If we can get Government working more closely with campaigns such as that, it will be all for the better. I agree that we need to look at the Istanbul convention and consider where we are with that.
There is a real leadership role here for Government, but we will never tackle this problem from the top down; we will tackle it from the bottom up. That means men taking a stand and making it absolutely clear that we will not remain silent whenever there is domestic abuse or violence perpetrated against women, or tolerate it. We have a responsibility. Those of us who are not involved and never will be involved in domestic violence have a responsibility to make it absolutely clear to those of our gender who are involved that we will not stay silent if they engage in that sort of behaviour.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I call the other sponsor of the motion, Jess Phillips.