Easter Adjournment

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to raise again the ongoing and tragic situation in Syria. Of course we want to help Syria, but equally we do not want to be dragged into another Iraq or Afghanistan situation. To date, our strategy has been carefully sculpted so as not to get committed on the ground, yet to provide help from the air and with intelligence. The stark truth is that President Bashar al-Assad, the 19th President of Syria, is going nowhere. His regime, which many predicted would topple several years ago, has been stabilised by Russian support, and the Russians are there to stay. They want to keep their port at Tartus and their airbase, Hmeimim, south-east of Latakia. Those are now strategic jewels for Russia and are unlikely to be given up easily.

Whatever we may think of the current Syrian Government, though, for many people in Syria, President Assad is their best hope, and it is all they have got. For those living in Damascus, he is their only choice. They believe that the stark option is between Assad and Daesh. In truth, such people would receive short shrift from Daesh. They also think, with good reason, that no foreign country would intervene to save them if Daesh arrived in their capital city. For them, Assad is all they have got, and they are probably right.

However, I feel that the circumstances could now allow for the establishment of a humanitarian safe zone. That would not be easy to achieve, but it is possible. If the international community was determined enough, it could happen. From what he says, President Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are now also prepared to accept the establishment of safe zones. Maybe the Russians and President Assad might also agree to it, but Daesh certainly would not. Thus, it is clear that safe zones must be positioned where the chances of interference from Daesh, or indeed al-Qaeda, are reduced to a minimum.

The easiest of such areas to establish may be in the north of Syria. The first possibility appears to be in the north-west of the country, perhaps stretching from Kilis to Aleppo, then south to Idlib and thence to the Turkish border again, near Reyhanli. Another possibility could be in north-central Syria, bounded in the west by Azaz and stretching east to the Euphrates while extending south to al-Bab.

Let me focus on the north-west zone, which is around 1,500 sq km in area—about the size of Wales. There is a little al-Qaeda activity there, which would have to be sorted out by military action, but that may not be too difficult. Importantly, Daesh does not operate there. Nor is the region of great strategic interest to Russia or, really, to President Assad. Right now it is predominantly controlled by the Free Syrian Army and other moderate groups. It already contains about 500,000 displaced persons who really need help. The British charity Syria Relief has a few functioning schools there, and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations also runs several effective hospitals and clinics nearby. Both schools and medical facilities could readily be expanded if the safe zone concept were allowed to come to fruition. Personally, I would not be averse to using British soldiers for such a purpose. In my experience, they are quite good at that sort of thing.

In conclusion on Syria, I believe that the time is right for us to be more energetic there. Can we make safe zones work there? Of course we could, if the international community really wants it. In truth, the chances of success are greater now than they have been for the last six years.

May I end by quickly mentioning that I, too, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)—who is not in his place at the moment—feel that Uber is taking the biscuit? It is under-regulated, its drivers undertrained, and it is putting very good, proper black cabbies out of work. That has got to be sorted. Perhaps Transport for London requires investigating on the matter.

I am desperately sad that Keith Palmer was killed last week—we in the House all feel that way. God bless him. God bless everyone in this House who has worked to make us safe over the last Session, and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all you and the House staff have done.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I would like to use this debate to highlight three areas where I feel our national health service might do a bit better. The first, regular attendees of this debate will not be surprised to learn, is about the medical procedure of hysteroscopy.

To refresh our memories, a hysteroscopy is when a small device, often including a camera, is inserted manually through the cervix into the womb, usually to cut a sample from the tissue or lining which can be used to help to diagnose cancers and fertility issues. It is usually performed without any anaesthetic. I am told—reassured—by medical professionals that it rarely causes discomfort. However, as we have heard before in this House, it can also be horrifically painful.

This is the fourth time I have raised the issue and when I last spoke I asked for a letter from the Minister to address the issue. I must thank those on the Government Benches for ensuring that such a response was forthcoming. Unfortunately, the response from the Department of Health was, if I can put it gently, bland in the extreme and did not really move the issue forward. I have written again, this time to the Secretary of State for Health. I have asked him or one of his Commons team to meet me and discuss this issue in person. The Secretary of State is not a bad man, so I hope that with the encouragement of the Minister on the Treasury Bench I might be successful.

Since raising this issue in December, I have been contacted by even more women. Given how short the debate is, I will mention only one story. This is from a woman in Leicester, who said:

“The prior information leaflet suggested there would be minimal pain...it was so excruciatingly painful that I began to cry out, my body went into shock and I started to sweat profusely. I came over disorientated and dizzy, I felt heavily nauseous and I began to pass out. I have never experienced agonising pain like it in all my life...when arriving home, I spent a long time crying, curled up in a ball doubled over with pain...the use of no local anaesthesia in this procedure seriously requires investigation.”

[Bob Stewart]

I have heard the hon. Lady on this subject several times before. It deeply upsets me that doctors do not recognise the pain that women undergo and apparently continue to say, “There will be mild discomfort” when women are in agony. For goodness’ sake, this has to be sorted!

[Lyn Brown]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has listened to me, wincing, through the many debates in which I have raised this issue. I know I have genuine support on both sides of the Chamber, so I am hopeful that his Secretary of State will come up with a solution that will enable us to move forward.

A colleague of ours in this place had to undergo this procedure and she was mindful of my words. She attended a central London hospital and, with no little trepidation, asked about anaesthesia. The doctor looked at her with disbelief and said, “They use anaesthesia as a matter of course, because to do anything else would be barbaric.” All we are asking for is that all women get the same care and attention whichever hospital they go to and whichever part of the country they live in.

My second issue is the speed of cancer diagnosis. West Ham has a relatively low incidence of cancer, but patients from my constituency are, unusually, likely to die within a year of being diagnosed. The essential research done by Cancer Research UK makes the primary reason for this clear: too many of my constituents die because successful diagnosis takes too long. To be honest, they also do not get to the doctors early enough to seek diagnosis. Less than half of cancers in the Newham clinical commissioning group area are diagnosed early, significantly fewer than the national average. This problem was highlighted this Wednesday by the “Today” programme on Radio 4. Currently, many patients across the country go through a drawn-out, stressful and expensive process of diagnosis. They may be referred to an oncologist for testing too late, and there is clearly a role for better and more consistently observed guidelines to prevent that.

Even when patients are referred, however, they often face a series of appointments with specialists, waiting for test results between those appointments. Many symptoms of cancer are ambiguous, especially at the essential early stages. A shift in policy towards rapid testing for multiple cancer types could be expected to improve early detection rates, giving more patients a new lease of life, saving patients and healthcare staff a great deal of stress and time, and, indeed, saving the NHS money through the adoption of a more efficient process.

I have personal reasons for raising this issue today. Had such early detection been available a few years ago, my mum might still be with me today instead of leaving us far too soon, and completely unexpectedly, on a Mothering Sunday morning. I give notice that I shall be seeking a longer debate in the House, but, in the meantime, I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would ask the Department of Health to write to inform me of its current plans to move towards faster and more joined-up cancer diagnosis.

I also have some concerns about plans for a weakening of the link between the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the availability of recommended treatments to patients. Access to treatments can already be delayed by 90 days, but under the new rules, approved treatments with a high overall cost—regardless of the cost per treatment—could be delayed by health commissioning authorities in England for at least three years, 13 times longer than is currently allowed. Colleagues in all parts of the House have argued in recent months that the right balance between affordability and equal access to effective treatments for those who need them has not yet been found. I echo that view, and I would appreciate any reassurance that the Government can offer that they are committed to re-examining these issues soon.

I, too, will be remembering Keith Palmer over the break, and I will be thinking of everyone and hoping that they are all safe. I say to all Members, and to all the members of staff who look after us so well: have a great Easter break.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on her passionate speech. She speaks with great eloquence.

Let me join other Members in paying tribute to PC Keith Palmer, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, and who tragically lost his life in the attack on Westminster last week. His death was a reminder of the vitally important and dangerous work that our police forces do every day to keep us safe. I join others, too, in sending my deepest condolences to his wife, children, family and friends, and to the wider family of the Metropolitan police.

I also pay tribute to the Serjeant at Arms for what he did during that crisis. He was so cool, and he was able to calm the nerves of so many people in the Palace. I am grateful to him for the work that he did—and, indeed, I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, who, recognising that I had diabetes, approached me several times to offer me biscuits. It was the first time that he had offered me biscuits; he usually borrows chocolate biscuits from me at Norman Shaw North. I was very grateful for the concern that he showed for Members.

Sadly, attacks on our police officers are all too common. In February, the Police Federation of England and Wales revealed that more than 6,000 officers are assaulted every day on our streets, which means that a police officer is attacked every 13 seconds. That is a staggering statistic. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for the work that she has done in raising the issue of attacks on the police force. It is important for us to recognise that they are happening on a daily basis, and I commend her campaign.

When he responds to the debate, will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what measures are being taken to reduce the number of such attacks, and to provide better protection for our police officers? He will remember all the excellent work that he did on the Home Affairs Committee when we considered these issues, but it would be good to know what the Government are doing.

[Bob Stewart]

I intervene very briefly just to remind people that nowadays some police widows lose pensions when they remarry. I think that the House should take action to deal with that, because it is totally unfair. It does not apply throughout the country—it does not apply in Northern Ireland—but we must get this right: police widows deserve justice.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman must have read my speech or hacked my emails, because he clearly knows that I am going to come on to the subject of police widows shortly, and I agree with him on that point. Let me first turn to the other issue of policing that I want to raise: the police funding formula.

Given the dangerous roles our officers play in keeping us safe, I am sad to see the damage done by reductions in police force budgets over the last few years. Of course I understand why this is happening, but it is right that we should point it out. This problem has been compounded by the continued failure of the Home Office to implement a new funding formula, something that affects every single Member of the House here today.

As a result, police forces cannot predict their future funding. At a recent meeting with the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire, Lord Bach, and Chief Constable Simon Cole, Leicestershire MPs were told that constabularies like Leicestershire have complex funding challenges, that the funding they have is inadequate for a mix of urban and rural policing, and that forces cannot adapt and keep up with modern crime issues like cybercrime unless they know what is happening in respect of their allocations.

In November 2015 the former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said the review on this was being paused until the National Police Chiefs Council carried out a capabilities review. Sara Thornton, chair of the NPCC, has said that this review does not stop the Government continuing with announcing the results of the funding formula. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House when the new funding formula arrangements will be published.

Another area that needs urgent review is police pensions—I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for raising this point, because he is right to do so—particularly in relation to how officers’ widows receive their pensions. Legislation passed in 2006 meant that the partners of any new police officers were entitled to receive a pension for life. Those falling under the 1987 regulations—the year I was elected to this House—were allowed to opt into the new scheme. However, the new rules introduced in 2015 effectively deny police widows in England and Wales who remarried before 1 April 2015 the right to move on with their lives and find happiness, as they cannot get this pension. The flip-flopping of legislation that has affected these families is totally unacceptable. How can it be fair that a widow who has remarried after 1 April 2015 can be awarded a pension for life, but one who has remarried before that date is denied that entitlement on a mere technicality?

[Bob Stewart]

And her children.

[Keith Vaz]

And, indeed, her children. There are disparities in how the pension regulations apply across the United Kingdom. The remarriage deadline applies only to England and Wales. There is no such cut-off date in Scotland. In Northern Ireland all survivors rightly keep their pensions for life, no matter how their former partner died. Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain why English and Welsh widows are treated in this way, while their Scottish, Northern Irish and other counterparts are not faced with that difficulty?

Finally, let me raise the issue of written parliamentary questions. The Deputy Leader of the House is a master at giving replies to difficult questions. I was reading a debate in which he was involved recently, and he used the following phrases when asked about the timetable for the restoration works on the House of Commons: “in due course”, “in the fullness of time”, and “shortly”. These are his favourite replies; he could star in his very own version of “Yes Minister”, playing both the Minister and Sir Humphrey.

I recently wrote to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), Chair of the Procedure Committee, to complain about the disappointing answers I had received to two written questions: from the Minister for Immigration and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). Parliamentary questions are about facts: we ask a question and we get a reply. I asked the Minister for Immigration how many entry clearance officers there were in Mumbai, and back came not a reply giving me the numbers but a press release on the wonderful work being done by entry clearance officers. I already knew about that. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union how many civil servants had been seconded to his Department, and again I got a press release. I did not get the facts and figures, which are what we need. Will the Deputy Leader of the House look into the issue of written parliamentary questions? Let us get rid of all this “in due course” and “shortly”, and concentrate instead on providing factual answers to factual questions.

I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) from beginning her speech, because it is her birthday today and I know that she wants to go off and celebrate. I cannot end, however, without wishing Members of the House, the Serjeant at Arms, the Chair and all the Officers who do such fantastic work a very happy recess. There are three supporters of Leicester City football club in the Chamber: myself, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I do not know why I always think that my hon. Friend is the Member for Skegness; it is nearby. Leicester City are the only English team remaining in the Champions League. Forget about all the others that spend billions of pounds on their players; we are in the last eight, and on 12 and 18 April, we will be playing Atlético Madrid. Easter is a Christian festival, and we believe in rebirth and in the blessings of almighty God. We hope that those blessings will be upon the Leicester City team as they undertake the most important two matches in their entire football lives. I am sure that the whole House will be with me on that.