Veterans’ Pensions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 16th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It always helps when one has some advance notice of exactly what will be put forward; that would have been helpful. I am more than happy to write to her if somebody can come up with suggestions, but I have to say that she is really whistling in the wind on this one. That is because any group of people who have served and who then find themselves in dire straits are always a concern to any Minister in the Ministry of Defence. However, the idea that we can suddenly rustle up some scheme that would enable people to apply on some ad hoc basis, and can find some magic pot of money, is very difficult. No doubt that is why her party, in its 13 years in power, did not do something similar to what she is proposing, because the argument was just as strong then; it is difficult to see how such a scheme could exist.

We have outstanding military charities that are always there to help and support those in particular need. There is the work of the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, and a whole raft of military charities, especially as that work relates to those who served some time ago, to help them as they move into the autumn and winter of their life, if I can put it that way. We should not underestimate the work those charities do, much of which is long-standing.

Also, we should not underestimate the resources that we have made available through LIBOR funding to help a number of those charities, including the Royal Hospital Chelsea. That is an outstanding example of the assistance and support provided to those who have served, often many years ago, and who are coming towards the end of their life. Such charities do great work and I am very proud of the fact that we have managed to make so much funding available. By way of example, veterans’ accommodation received somewhere in the region of £40 million last year. There were a series of projects to improve such accommodation. In some instances, there was brand new accommodation; in other instances, charities—such as the one just outside Brighton for servicemen and women who have lost their sight or had it damaged—were helped to improve the accommodation that they provide.

Again, a large amount of money has been provided, but it delivered huge benefit for all those who have served in the past, from the older veterans right through to those who have served in more recent times. I would say—with some passion, if I may—that this coalition Government should be extremely proud; I say that as I see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) has appeared in Westminster Hall. This coalition Government have really made a significant improvement to the welfare of all those who have served, and their families, because of the way that the Chancellor has taken the LIBOR funding and put it to great use.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on her. I should explain that I have been on a Statutory Instrument Committee, and then I had to discuss road safety in the main Chamber. Even I cannot be in three places at the same time. Nevertheless, I certainly support the thrust of this debate, and I recognise what the Minister has said about this Government; they have contributed significantly, not least in taking forward the armed forces covenant. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that some of the pieces still need to be put into the jigsaw of military life for those who have served.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we are far from being in a perfect world, and there is a great deal more that can be done.

Let us turn our attention to mental health. We know that the rates of incidence of poor mental health among veterans are no greater than for the rest of society. Equally, however, we know that for each individual who has served, suffering in any way from mental health issues is an absolute tragedy, for them and their families. Too many slip through the net.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I believe that if the Bill passes through all its remaining stages, of which there are not too many, and if we extend the remit of Nicola Williams, in whom we all have confidence, to create the role of the ombudsman—following the passing of amendments in Committee that the Government did not oppose—the system will be hugely improved, and people will have more confidence in it. It also sends out a very clear message to our armed forces that they have got to sharpen up now and absolutely make sure that when somebody makes a complaint, whether it is a more serious and more appalling bullying and harassment complaint—which mercifully are rare; we know there is nothing peculiar about our armed forces that means we have more such complaints than other professions or fields of work—or complaints about allowances or pay or whatever, it is taken seriously and is acted upon not only fairly and justly, but with all due diligence and expeditiously, so we do not have these delays.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Does the hon. Lady agree that what we are talking about this evening is a continuation of the good work done by the last two Governments through their respective Armed Forces Bills—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I are, I think, the only two Members who served on both occasions?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, I do. Both the hon. Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border have said that we have seen a progression to where we are today, and we must understand and recognise that some think this is a step too far. They think we have gone too far and perceive some threat to the chain of command. I absolutely do not believe that, but things often take time to develop in the ways we want. I am absolutely confident that we have struck the right balance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have an excellent letter here from the leader of Wigan council, Lord Smith, extensively detailing all the great work being done. One of the tasks I want to do in the remaining weeks of this Government is to make sure the covenant team with the MOD brings all this work together and gives more advice to local authorities on sharing best practice, because it is stacked full of ideas. There is £30 million available to deliver on many of these projects, and I am pleased to say many are taking that up as well.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The armed forces covenant had, of course, the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition, but does the Minister accept that this is still very much a work in progress? Not all local authorities understand it. Only last week Essex county council refused to continue a support package for the needs of one military family moving with their child from another part of the country.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I have to say my own county council in Nottinghamshire did not understand the covenant when it came to a soldier constituent of mine coming down from Catterick who needed to have a place for his child. I reminded the county council of the covenant. That is the sort of work that local MPs can do when these cases come to us through our casework. It is about making sure we share best practice. There is masses more work to be done, and it would be nice to think I might be able to continue after 7 May, Mr Speaker, but that takes us into different territory.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I support the comments of my fellow Essex MP, the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell). The last Government quite rightly introduced the national service badge, which has been greatly appreciated. The medal would do no harm, but it would do a lot of good.

[Anna Soubry]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Medals are for specific campaigns and acts of gallantry, and rightly so. In this instance, therefore, we will have to disagree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I assure the hon. Lady that I never said any such thing. It is an absolute pleasure and a great honour to do the job that I do, and I like to think that I do it with total commitment. I, too, want to know why that man has not received the treatment he says he should have received, and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady met me so that we can discuss why that is. I have no difficulty whatsoever in taking up every single case and asking the questions. It was a challenge I threw down to the BBC; I said, “I want to know the names and I want to help.” I am waiting to hear of any of those details. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s supplying me with the details relating to her constituent; we will get it sorted.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The armed forces covenant had all-party support, and we should remember that. The Minister referred to local government. Can she give an assurance that all Government Departments are signed up to the covenant, and particularly the Department of Health regarding general practitioners, veterans and hearing loss?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and good point. He has asked a couple of questions in one, and I hope to answer them as fully as I can. It is delivery that is important, which means that all our Departments have to sign up to it, but of course, they can play a part in delivering the corporate covenant as well. However, there is more that we can do, and we have to get the message out across the NHS and through the devolved Administrations. If we all do that—if I may say, working together to ensure that—we can absolutely deliver on the covenant in the way we want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The simple and short answer is yes, I am more than happy to look at that.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The anomaly is not acceptable, because post-1945 war graves have not been maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I would suggest that this is in breach of the armed forces covenant. If there is a will, there is a way. The CWGC should be allowed to take over and maintain those graves of military personnel who have died since 1945.

[Anna Soubry]

Again, I am very grateful for those comments and happily take them on board. I am happy to look at the issue and report back both to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

When does the relevant Minister expect to announce a decision on the normal pension age for workers in the defence fire and rescue service?

[Anna Soubry]

That is a long-running problem. As my hon. Friend will know, those in our defence fire and rescue service are actually employed as civil servants, so it is a difficult one, but we hope to make a decision as soon as possible.

Prescription Charges (Long-term Conditions)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

I congratulate my—I have to say—hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) on securing the debate, although I do not think that he made much of a friendly speech, and I have no doubt that he will not be much impressed by my response. He rightly brings the subject before the House, as is his right, and so he should. However, I think that we have to be completely realistic and honest about the situation in which we find ourselves. The simple truth is that if we extended the exemptions to all long-term conditions it would cost a considerable amount of money, and, in the words of a member of the previous Government, there is no money. I am very proud of the fact that the coalition has been able to secure the NHS budget at a time when we have had to take tough decisions and cut other budgets. We have not only maintained the NHS budget; by 2015 we will have seen a rise in the amount of money going into the NHS under the tenure of this Government. I am very proud of that.

My hon. Friend asked whether it is right and fair that all these long-term conditions do not receive free prescriptions. He then drew a contrast with people who, in his words, have “self-inflicted lifestyle choices”, referring to those who have drug addition, alcohol addiction, obesity problems and so on. I would challenge him on that. I do not take the view that it would be right in any way, shape or form to make such suggestions about people who are having their prescriptions paid for because of their income status but have those afflictions. I can assure him that addiction is not some lifestyle choice. Many people who are addicts are born addicts; it is a disease that needs treatment, and those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from it need our support. I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should take money away from those unfortunate people in order to give it to those who are, I accept, equally in need.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I regret that the Minister is drawing an inference that I did not intend in any way. I was merely making a comparison in saying that some people have been dealt unfairly with by mother nature in having to pay to stay alive, whereas others who we are told can be treated are, for whatever reason, getting free treatment.

[Anna Soubry]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made that point, because some people, I can assure him, would have made such an interpretation. I am pleased that we have set the record straight.

In fact, the current system does provide support for people who need it the most. In 2011, for example, about 94% of all prescription items were dispensed free of charge at the point of dispensing. It is estimated that about 60% of people in England are exempt from charges. A wide range of exemptions exist to help the most vulnerable, those requiring prescriptions the most and those most in need of support. People aged 60 and over, women who are pregnant or are in the 12-month period following childbirth, those on income support, those with pension credit, those on income-based jobseeker’s allowance, those on income-related employment and support allowance, and those in receipt of a variety of tax credits all rightly receive free prescriptions.

As we have heard, people who use prescriptions frequently can buy a prescription prepayment certificate that allows anyone to obtain all the prescriptions they need for the equivalent of £2 per week. The cost of the annual prescription prepayment certificate has been frozen at £104 for the past four years, and the cost of the three-monthly certificate has been frozen at £29.10 for two years. There are options whereby people can pay by direct debit. I concede that the system is not perfect, but it is very good.

My hon. Friend asked, properly, why we have this system in England whereas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland prescriptions are free. I am sure that he knows the answer: health is a devolved matter. It is for those in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide how they will spend their budget. The simple truth is that making prescriptions free for all in those countries has taken money away from other areas of their health budget. We have decided to spend our allocation of money in a different way, and rightly so, especially when we consider that the prepayment certificate of £104 a year is eminently fair for people who are unfortunate enough to have the long-term conditions that my hon. Friend identified and described. It is important to put forward that argument as well.

As it happens, I suffer from a long-term condition—asthma—and have the benefit of an excellent GP. I am sure that that will not win me any extra favours with my hon. Friend—although I am sure he will be grateful for my comments—but I, like most of us, have an outstanding GP who has made sure that my medication is at such a level that I do not now need a prepayment certificate, because we are managing my condition.

I am not suggesting that one should always be alert to the financial cost of issuing prescriptions, but I think it is right and fair to say that many general practitioners are aware of it. Increasingly, prescribing GPs—in other words, all GPs—are taking on the huge responsibility of bearing in mind the cost to the national health service of the prescriptions they issue their patients.

I pay tribute to the Prescription Charges Coalition, which has worked with officials in my Department to help raise awareness of the help available to patients with the cost of their prescriptions, particularly the prescription prepayment certificate. The awareness-raising work with the PCC has already had encouraging results. Purchases of certificates in the first quarter of this year were 13% higher—about 50,000 extra—than in the same period in 2012, when this work began. We continue to work with the PCC to consider how we might build further on that awareness-raising activity.

My hon. Friend asked a number of questions and I hope I will be able to answer them all. If not, the usual rules will apply and my officials will, of course, write to him. Since 1968 the only condition that has been added to the list is cancer in September 2008, as announced by the then Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Ian Gilmore. The Health Committee has produced a report and answers have been provided, but I think it is fair to say that this is all about cost. I accept that things have changed a lot since the late 1960s, but the simple reality is that if we extended free prescriptions to all long-term conditions it would cost an incredible amount of money, and I am afraid to say that that is money that we simply do not have.

It would be very difficult to consider particular conditions in isolation and to somehow choose one. My hon. Friend has advanced the case of cystic fibrosis and one can understand why: nobody chooses to have cystic fibrosis; it is a thoroughly unpleasant condition.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I did say that I was using cystic fibrosis as an example of various long-term conditions. All I ask is that the Minister and her officials look at the recommendations of Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, because at least that would give some encouragement to people with long-term conditions that the Government were looking at their situation seriously.

[Anna Soubry]

That is a valid point, well made, but the Government’s attitude is that it would not be right in the current situation to look at just one particular condition in isolation, because others would argue, with vigour—and rightly so—that their condition was as valid of an exemption as any other.

My hon. Friend asked why the Government have not introduced more flexible prescribing patterns and moved away from the 28-day prescribing policy. The responsibility for prescribing, including repeat prescriptions and the duration of prescriptions, rests with GPs and other doctors who have the expertise and who rightly take clinical responsibility for that particular aspect of a patient’s care. Doctors can prescribe flexibly and take decisions about prescribing patterns on the basis of a patient’s need. Ultimately the decision must be left to the doctor, but guidance has been issued by the National Prescribing Centre about prescription terms, encouraging prescribers to be receptive to the needs of patients and to use appropriate prescribing patterns.

My hon. Friend asked about the lack of relevant data on the costs and consequences of the current prescription charging system. At the moment, some £450 million is raised each year by charging people for their prescriptions, which is equivalent to about 13,500 qualified nurses or 3,500 hospital consultants per year. One can see the power of that money from prescription charging, but given the lack of relevant data, more research is needed to inform policy. It is important that we make best use of the available evidence and identify gaps in knowledge. We would, of course, welcome input from groups such as the Prescription Charges Coalition about any evidence it is aware of or studies that may have been undertaken in that area. That would help inform any research proposals that the Department of Health might consider in its assessment of research priorities. I hope that may be of interest and comfort to my hon. Friend.

As I have said, the Government report that 90% of prescription items are dispensed without charge, but up to three quarters of those of working age with long-term conditions are believed to pay for their prescriptions. Current exemptions provide valuable help for those on the lowest incomes. They must always be our priority because they simply do not have the means to pay for a large number of prescriptions.

Older people generally have the greatest need for medicine, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have visited a pharmacy and seen, as I did in my constituency, the amount of medication that is often required for older people, which can be quite astronomical in size and complexity. Many older people have good, long, happy and healthy lives because of the abundance of medicines they receive, and that is one reason why we have an exemption for older people.

Although people with long-term conditions will continue to pay for their prescriptions, the prescription prepayment certificate ensures that they can pay at considerably reduced cost. By repeatedly freezing the price of a prescription prepayment certificate and introducing a direct debit payment option to spread the cost of a 12-month certificate, we ensure that those certificates are accessible to those who need multiple prescriptions.

I am happy to take an intervention, but I hope I have explained the Government’s current policy. It is right and proper for this issue to be raised, but at the moment the simple truth is—it gives no one any pleasure to say this—we simply do not have the money to do all that my hon. Friend urges on me.

Question put and agreed to.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Bob Russell

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell]

I hope that my hon. Friend is correct in his understanding, but that has to be spelt out in the Bill, because it is not my understanding. If he is right, no problem—but if I am right, there is a problem. That is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be fleshed out and firmly written down, because clause 54(3)(a) refers to cases where

“there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to restricting its movement by a fixed barrier”.

Whether the barrier is up or down is irrelevant. Currently, the local planning authority may well refuse an application to start erecting barriers in carefully designed new housing areas, with landscaped grounds and all the rest of it, but if the Bill goes ahead, they will have to erect barriers to meet the very point that has quite rightly been made. Those are the unintended consequences.

I would argue that if residents living on a private housing estate with their own private communal parking areas wish to put a wheel clamp on, why can they not do so? It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the coalition Government are putting forward a Bill with a clause that would give more rights to the illegal parker than the person who owns the land where the car is illegally parked. The notion that residents could run off to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or whoever else to get fines paid, and all the rest of it, is fanciful. Therefore, with the greatest of respect, what I would say is that more work needs to be done on that one.

The House of Commons Library has produced some excellent research—as ever, by the way—on the Bill. If Members who have the briefing would care to look at pages 26 through to 28, they will realise that the authors of the Bill need to dot a few i’s and cross a few t’s in Committee, because—I repeat—what we have at the moment is an opportunity for those who want to park illegally in other people’s private, communal, residential parking areas to do so almost with impunity. Under a heading entitled “The Bill’s provisions”, the research paper tells us:

“The Government had not previously indicated that there would be any parking-related measures in the Bill, or in fact that it was planning to make any changes to parking regulation at all.”

Therefore, those provisions have been bolted on. People who live in town centres have the advantages of the town centre, but sometimes one of the disadvantages is people coming into town, not parking where they should and abusing other people’s private parking areas. I ask the Minister to address that issue in Committee. I understand the need to tackle rogue wheel-clamping firms, but, with the greatest respect, I think that private home owners should have the right to use wheel clamps on vehicles parked on their private property, whether it is a private drive or a communal parking area.

The second unintended consequence of the Bill relates to those people whom we all love and who delight in causing problems for their neighbours by, among other things, having all-night parties. Chapter 2 of the Bill covers safeguards for certain surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I am grateful to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health for drawing my attention to the serious consequences of these provisions. There cannot be a Member here tonight who has not been contacted by constituents as a result of noisy antisocial neighbours.

As an aside, I would like to make an important observation as the former chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on noise reduction. I wish that the coalition Government would introduce regulations to require greater noise insulation in new house building. A lot of attention is paid to heat retention in such buildings, but nothing is done about noise elimination. Perhaps another Government Department could pick that one up.

It has been suggested that the Bill has been prompted by claims in the popular press of unjustified snooping by local authorities, because it contains provisions to restrict the surveillance activities of those authorities by inserting additional tests into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. One such test would require authorisations given by senior local authority officers to be approved, in addition, by a magistrate. That would make the process of authorisation more time consuming, and it would make things harder for increasingly stretched authorities—not least at night, when most complaints of this nature are made. The likely outcome of the proposal is that many fewer noise complaints would be investigated.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such matters are not the domain of local authorities? The last Government made a big mistake when they mixed up the role of the police with the civil functions of local authorities. I suggest that problems of noisy neighbours holding late-night parties are the domain of the police, not the local authority.

[Bob Russell]

I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Lady on that. We are talking about authority in its broadest sense, whether it involves the police, the local authority or whoever. The public are entitled to live in peace, and if their peace is disrupted, the matter could be dealt with by the police or by the local authority. The two working in concert would be the best way; that has always been the way in which I have approached these issues.

The Bill proposes a further test that the crime that is to be prevented or detected should carry a minimum prison sentence. Noise offences do not, however, carry custodial sentences, and the effect of the provision would be to remove that ground for authorising surveillance. This matter needs to be thrashed out in Committee, because RIPA was never intended to deal with problems such as these. At a time when local authorities are shedding significant numbers of officers, they will need to become more efficient in order to maintain services. I have no argument with that, but barriers to achieving it will need to be removed, rather than new ones being erected. When there is no evidence that noise investigations are being carried out inappropriately, additional controls are neither justified nor in the public interest. I suggest that we should take the opportunity in Committee to remove them from the ambit of RIPA altogether.

I am sure that many of us will have read the letter in The Times yesterday from Mr Howard Price, the principal policy officer of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health—[Interruption.] Well, Members are going to hear it now. It says:

“The Protection of Freedoms Bill is about to receive its second reading. It contains provisions to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act…to limit the surveillance activity of local authorities by requiring authorisations made by senior officers to be approved in addition by magistrates. Hundreds of thousands of neighbour noise complaints are made to local authorities each year. Listening to such noise in the course of investigation amounts to ‘surveillance’ under the Act and arguably requires authorisation. The Bill will make that more time-consuming and harder for authorities to obtain, especially at night when most complaints are made. Complaints will go unanswered. RIPA was never intended to apply to this activity. It will be a further unintended consequence if this Bill protects the freedom of noise-makers over that of householders wanting only a peaceful night’s sleep. Noise investigations should be excluded”—