Easter Adjournment

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to talk about something serious: the lack of a maritime patrol aircraft for our country. The Nimrod MRA4 was scrapped in 2010. We had squandered £4 billion on it and it was a total write-off. In fact, it was cut up. Four years on, we still have no maritime patrol aircraft for our country. The United Kingdom is a maritime nation. We are surrounded on all sides by seas. Others, arguably less maritime than our nation—France, Spain and Portugal—all have a maritime patrol aircraft capability.

The UK has clear international obligations to have oversight of adjacent oceans and seas, as laid out in four conventions: the international convention for safety of life at sea, the international convention on maritime search and rescue, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the convention on international civil aviation.

What are our responsibilities under those conventions? In essence, we are required—and we have agreed—to have oversight of 1.25 million square nautical miles of the Atlantic and North sea. We are required to maintain an operational search and rescue capability over that area. In rough terms, we have to look after up to 1,200 nautical miles of the Atlantic up to Iceland, but we are not able to do it. We use our search and rescue helicopters and surface vessels, sometimes with dunking helicopters, but helicopters can reach only up to 240 nautical miles. They have no linger time at that distance and have to come back and, frankly, surface vessels using helicopters cannot do the job because even then there is a gap of 1,000 nautical miles that we just cannot supervise. Therefore, we have to get allies such as the French, with their Breguet Atlantic maritime patrol aircraft, or the Spanish or the Portuguese to help us. That is fine, in a way, but not great, given that we should have responsibility for our own seas.

The fact is that maritime patrol aircraft look not just over but under the seas. The invulnerability of our SSBNs—our nuclear submarines, which have a deterrent on board—is threatened by the inability to see exactly what is following them. We can hardly ask our allies to do that for us. I will not go further into that.

We definitely need a squadron of maritime patrol aircraft. I declare an interest, because my brother, ex-Wing Commander Andy Stewart, was commanding officer of 201 Squadron—the Nimrod squadron—and flew Nimrods throughout his career. He is on my back about this all the time, so I hope the House will forgive me for continuing to ask questions about maritime patrol aircraft and for taking up its time on the subject this afternoon. However, this is terribly important to our country. We cannot guarantee the security of the waters around us, but we should be able to do that, especially given the increasing incursions of Russian aircraft and naval vessels around our northern waters.

According to the Defence Committee, the Ministry of Defence gave back about £2 billion in underspend to the Treasury last year, and there is likely to be another underspend this year. That is great—we all want that—but I wonder whether it could be used to start ordering something crucial. This is the biggest military capability gap in our armed forces.

Perhaps we could afford to start the process of getting a maritime patrol aircraft before the next strategic defence and security review. There are two obvious options for off-the-shelf buy. The first is the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, which is probably the leading contender and which operates in the United States. The second is the Orion maritime patrol aircraft from Lockheed Martin, which operates in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

At the moment in the southern Indian ocean, Poseidons operated by the United States and Orions from New Zealand or Australia are combing the waters to try to find the remains of an aircraft that, frankly, has just disappeared. Australia, New Zealand and the United States can do that, but what would happen if one of our aircraft or an aircraft flying over British territory disappeared 900 miles out into the Atlantic? We do not have anything that could get there quickly or could search like a maritime patrol aircraft, which is something we desperately need. We should seriously consider restoring a maritime patrol aircraft capability to our country as soon as possible. We should start moving towards that even before the next SDSR, which will presumably be after the election, perhaps in 2015 or 2016.

I seem to be the last Back-Bench speaker this afternoon. I thank all hon. Members who have stayed here to listen to me. I thank the staff of the House of Commons for being such decent people—kind, hard working and always up to help. I end by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. God bless everyone, and happy Easter.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

It is a continuing affront to our democracy, and I hope that Ministers—and future Ministers—will take this to heart and consider how the process of effectively scrutinising legislation can be amended.

I will now advertise another report by my Committee on the quality of legislation. It suggests, for example, mandatory pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills, apart from emergency ones. That is not from a desire to delay any legislation. I believe that in our form of democracy, the Government should get their business through. The contribution that Parliament makes is to ensure that legislation is more effective. Otherwise, we have to come back until we get it right—in this case, after the next general election. It does not save time to keep coming back to the House, as we did—infamously—on criminal justice Bills under the last Government, tinkering year after year and with Ministers getting the prestige of having a Bill before the House. Instead, Governments should listen to the House and get legislation closer to being right.

I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that pressure from Back Benchers on both sides of the House will force our Front Benchers to agree a better process of involving Parliament in partnership with the Executive.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, whom I consider to be my friend, although technically he is not so in this House. I am grateful for all the work he, his Committee and the Clerks have done and the briefings they have sent us. I, too, am concerned about the shortage of time. How long does the hon. Gentleman think we should have had between the other place considering this matter and it coming before us?

[Mr Allen]

Given that the Government want to get the Bill implemented in order to influence the expenditure limits in the next general election, I do not maintain that it should be held over for months and months. Hon. Members may wish to read the report from my Select Committee, which we produced last night, starting at 6.30 pm, and which I delivered by e-mail to every Member just before midnight. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are prepared to say, “These guys are serious, and we should at least have a look at their report”, I suggest that we should have at least two days to read the papers and to table measured amendments.

Thanks to the great assistance of the Clerks, I was able to table several amendments on behalf of my Committee last night, but I imagine that few hon. Members know their way around the Order Paper well enough to do that. The Table Office was open until 10 this morning, which means about two working hours for colleagues to read the report, listen to the Government, read the proceedings in the other place and decide whether to support an all-party view—as expressed in the report—and to table, as some have managed to do, their own amendments. The way we conduct our business helps us to get better law. It means that what we produce will stand the test of time, rather than need reviewing or stitching back together when the gaps appear over the next few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Does the raised amount include staff costs?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. The registration threshold is the threshold of expenditure at which one is required to register, and all the limits for the registration threshold and the total spending limits are in relation to the definition of controlled expenditure which includes staffing costs for third parties.

Lords amendment 20 increases the spending limits—not the registration thresholds—for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by £20,000 each. This is an increase from the levels set in the Bill when it went to the Lords. The new limits will be £55,400 for Scotland, £44,000 for Wales and £30,800 for Northern Ireland. Campaigners have argued that the spending limits for those parts of the United Kingdom were disproportionately low—so low in fact, that they might force campaigners to step aside and not participate in elections. It has never been our intention to prevent third parties from campaigning altogether. They are a key aspect of the democratic process and, to ensure they remain so, the spending limits have been raised to more suitable amounts.

Lords amendment 18 relates to coalitions. It is important to recognise that the Bill did not change the regulatory regime for coalitions, but the debate on the Bill has enabled us to identify a change that will help campaigners that do incur small amounts of expenditure. The Government received many representations on the existing PPERA regime on coalitions. The concern was that the Bill’s provisions would put onerous reporting burdens on them. This fear was particularly pronounced in relation to those who often campaign as part of a coalition.

This new procedure introduces a new framework. A third party may participate in as many coalitions as it wishes. When it takes part in this procedure, it will not have to report for its expenditure, provided it does not incur total spend above the registration threshold—the numbers to which I just referred. The third party would take on the status of a “minor campaigner”. Another third party who agrees to act as a “lead campaigner” in the coalition’s common plan would instead report the expenditure it and the minor campaigner had both incurred. As with the registration thresholds, this provision is also intended to reassure small spending campaigners that new burdens will not be imposed upon them. Indeed, it will reduce the burden compared with the regime in the 2000 Act.

Lords amendment 28 removes the post-dissolution constituency limit of £5,850. Campaigners may now spend the entire constituency limit of £9,750 at any time during the regulated period, or just in the last few weeks before the election if they so wish. That makes it less restrictive and easier to comply with.

Lords amendments 91, 94 and 96 shorten the length of the regulated period for third parties. The regulated period is the time before an election within which only limited expenditure can be incurred, and certain campaigning rules must be observed. Reports must be submitted to the regulator. The regulator, the Electoral Commission and campaigners have argued that they need more time than the Bill would otherwise allow to understand fully the new rules and their responsibilities under them. The Government agree about the need to ensure suitable guidance is in place for campaigners. If the Electoral Commission needs further time to produce this guidance, and ensure it is relevant, clear and useful, the regulated period can be shortened to facilitate that. That is why the regulated period for third parties, for the purposes of the 2015 parliamentary general election only, will be reduced to seven and a half months—starting immediately after the Scottish referendum—instead of the usual twelve months.

Let me stress that the regulated period for political parties is not being similarly reduced.

The Lords have also introduced amendments to allow royal chartered bodies, charitable incorporated organisations, Scottish charitable incorporated organisations and Scottish partnerships to register as a recognised third party. This reflects the fact that the list of bodies that can register as a third party has not been updated since 2000.

The Lords have made further amendments that seek to reduce unnecessary burdens on recognised third parties. As a result, recognised third parties will have to provide a donations report to the Electoral Commission only when they receive a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. There will no longer be a requirement to provide nil reports. In addition, a recognised third party will no longer have to provide a spending return or statement of accounts if it only incurs controlled expenditure below the necessary registration threshold. When a recognised third party has to provide a statement of accounts, this can be sent to the Electoral Commission in a longer time frame—within nine months of the end of the regulated period, if they do not have to be audited, or 12 months, if they do have to be audited.

On non-party campaigning, in order to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are subject to review, Lords amendment 88 stipulates that the Government must, within twelve months of Royal Assent, appoint a person to review the operation of the PPERA provisions, as amended by this Bill, at the next general election. The findings of that review must be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the next general election—that is, by November 2016. The review will provide a unique real-time opportunity to assess how the new regulatory regime is operating, in good time for the 2020 general election.

Lords amendment 87 is not about non-party campaigning. It introduces a new measure to ensure that candidates’ personal expenses will be excluded from counting towards their election expenses limits at local elections in England and Wales. This change will harmonise those arrangements with the existing situation for parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections and Greater London authority elections, at which personal expenses are already excluded from candidates’ expenses limits.

This change has been brought about principally so that disabled candidates are not unfairly penalised for incurring disability-related costs, which can often be quite high. The need for the change became apparent following the creation of the access to elected office for disabled people fund. The fund was established by this Government to provide grants to disabled people who are, or who go on to become, candidates at elections. The fund provides grants to help candidates to overcome any barriers to elected office that might arise as a result of their disability. However, electoral law considered those grants to be personal expenses and therefore deductable from candidates’ election expenses limits at local elections—the one poll where personal expenses counted towards a candidate’s expenses limit.

Lords amendment 87 therefore brings the treatment of personal expenses at local elections into line with the arrangements for other polls where they are already exempt. It would be particularly unfair to penalise disabled candidates standing at local elections for accepting fund grants or even incurring their own disability-related costs. The amendment does not as yet extend to local elections in Northern Ireland or Scotland, as those polls are devolved. However, we will work with the respective Governments to ensure that there is consistency.

Much work has been done in this House, in the Lords and with external stakeholders to ensure that the Bill meets the principle of enhanced transparency for third parties who want to influence the outcome of elections, while preserving the essential freedom to speak out on issues. I should like to thank those who have contributed to the debates, and I reiterate my thanks to my noble Friends in the House of Lords. As has been said many times before, the purpose of the Bill is to bring greater awareness and clarity to campaigning activity. I believe that, through these amendments, that is what we can achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I will take the Leader of the House at his word. Let me say “the relevant amendment”. I believe this relevant amendment is modest. It is primarily about not the costs themselves but the additional bureaucracy that this would involve. For many smaller charities, it would be incredibly difficult to differentiate the amount of time that the staff member spends on these activities from the time they spend on other activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned Lord Harries of Pentregarth. What he said in the other place is worth considering. It is easy to assess the amount of money that one will spend on hiring the hall for a public rally, because there is an invoice. However, there is no invoice for a member of staff or for the 10% of the time spent over four weeks carrying out the work.

[Bob Stewart]

Small charities will get nowhere near their limits, even if they put in all their staff costs. I suspect that charities will not have any problems with the limits whatsoever.

[Stephen Twigg]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have already said that we welcome some of the changes to the registration and threshold levels, but there is still concern among charities about the impact this change could have and the Lords amendment simply clarifies and improves that element of the Bill.

There is no desire in this House to create a regulatory system that is impossible to abide by. We do not want to stifle charities or the other voluntary and citizens’ organisations that are often the bedrock of our communities with further unnecessary red tape and changes to their accountancy structure. Many such organisations rely on volunteers, but they have to try to cost the time of their volunteers.

I believe that the Lords amendment is a compromise. The Opposition share the preference that the Electoral Commission has expressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us earlier, the Electoral Commission said that for the 2015 election it would prefer all staff costs to be removed. The amendment does not go as far as that recommendation, as it would merely count for background staff costs in relation to certain activities that are being brought into regulation.

It is clear that some costs should be accounted for, such as those with an indirect relation to the canvassing of voters. It seems to me that it would not be very difficult to identify those costs, but organising a meeting, travelling to a venue or setting up a press conference might take merely a few minutes and it would be absurd to expect small and medium-sized organisations to have to account for that time, too. We see the amendment as a tidying up exercise that could save valuable time and money for charities and voluntary organisations while maintaining the purpose of transparency and accountability for those activities that relate directly to elections.

When the amendment was considered in the other place, only three peers who were not from the Government Benches voted against it. The Government were defeated, and on that basis I urge them to listen. Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat peer and a former long-standing Member of this House, made a powerful case, saying:

“Bluntly, I do not think that anyone cares if a policy officer, whose job for the rest of the year is something completely different, spends a little time booking a room for an election rally, or incurs costs travelling to it…if the regulations go through without us thinking about the implications, they could unnecessarily tie up campaigners in accounting for their time—and, worse still, could deter some from campaigning at all.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 280.]

Christmas Adjournment

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Amess]

The hon. Gentleman and I celebrated West Ham beating Tottenham 2-1 last night and I absolutely agree with him. I hope that a number of us will persuade the Government to support a new crossing.

The nice thing about cars running on gases is that they offer the motorist a cheaper and cleaner alternative. The autumn statement contained a 10-year pledge to keep stable the advantage of certain road fuel gases over conventional fuels. That is all to the good, but the road fuel gases that are being given that boost are used not in ordinary vehicles, but only in heavier or commercial vehicles. The only fuel to receive a knock in the statement was autogas—or liquefied petroleum gas—which is another road fuel gas used by 160,000 British motorists, so they have been put on the trajectory of a gradually reducing benefit from running cleaner cars. It seems an oversight to discriminate in favour of some fuel gases, so I hope the Treasury will look at that issue.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) is the secretary of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue and I am its chairman. He and I know that it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are not learning many lessons from serious fire incidents. If we look at the causes of major incidents over the past few decades, we will see that there are many common features and similarities. One example is the 2009 Lakanal House tower block fire, in which six people were killed and 20 injured. Many of the causes of that fire, as well as other, more recent fires, were the same as the Summerland fire 40 years ago. The Summerland inquiry recommended that architectural training should include a much extended study of fire protection and precautions. Yet 40 years later, what on earth has happened? I believe that many lives are being lost unnecessarily because we are not implementing that advice. I hope the Government will do something about it.

I am also worried about the Disclosure and Barring Service, previously known as the Criminal Records Bureau. A number of my constituents have had issues with it and one constituent in particular—a young man with Asperger’s—is finding it very hard to find employment because of it. A DBS certificate is now needed before people can apply for many jobs, including in schools and even cleaning positions, but my constituent is not able to obtain such a certificate, because it has to go through a recognised organisation. Given that the certificate is required before people can start jobs, my constituent is in a very difficult position.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the new system forbid me from taking my children and other children to a cricket match when it is a school event, or has that silliness been sorted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce). If he wishes, I invite him to my constituency, because South Staffordshire and Shropshire mental health care trust has an excellent unit dealing precisely with eating disorders. I had the pleasure of visiting it a few months ago, at the invitation of Sarah Robertson, a constituent of mine. He is most welcome to come and see the excellent work it does and find out more about it.

I wish to remember the men and women of 3 Mercian who are currently serving in Afghanistan. It is one of the regiments due to be disbanded, but I am glad that the name of the Staffords will be remembered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will know, it will be combined—we hope—with the names of the Cheshires and the Sherwood Foresters.

[Bob Stewart]

It is definite that the Staffordshire regiment will live on in the Mercian regiment. It must do. It is a great regiment. It will combine with the Cheshires and the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters. From my point of view, as an ex-Cheshire officer, we will get a huge number of Victoria Crosses when the Staffords join us; my regiment only has two.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We all share his sentiments, and our thoughts and prayers are with 3 Mercian and the other regiments and units serving in Afghanistan, including the tactical supply wing of the RAF, which is also based in my constituency.

I want to dwell for a moment on the report of the trust special administrators on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which came out yesterday. There are a number of good things in the report. Within the remit they were given—I think that that will need to be considered by this House because it needs quite a lot of change—they have done some good things. Those include recommending a merger of the University Hospital of North Staffordshire with the Stafford element of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. They have also recommended that Cannock hospital goes to the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals Trust. For Stafford, that is a good thing. We will become part of a large university hospital trust and be able to share services across a wider area. In addition to the excellent staff that we already have, we will be able to attract high-quality staff from across the country.

We are also retaining our accident and emergency department. At the moment, it is open for only 14 hours a day, but that is better than the nothing that was proposed earlier this year. However, I still believe that we need a 24/7 A and E department. Perhaps our use of the current department will reveal the need for an increase in hours, but at least we have retained the department and we can build on it in the future.

We have also retained acute services. At the start of the year, it was thought that Stafford would become a community hospital—not an acute hospital. I am glad to say that those fears have not been realised. The recommendations also include, for the first time, provision for a frail elderly unit, which is incredibly important as it builds on the work of the Cure the NHS group, founded by Julie Bailey, and the Francis report that came out as a result of that. I hope it will be a beacon for the care of elderly people across the country. It will show that in Stafford we can do such things to the highest standards. We will also have a large range of other services. The trust special administrators have said that 90% or more of current attendees at Stafford and Cannock will be able to continue to use those services. Cannock hospital has also been retained. In fact, more work will go on at Cannock, 60% of which has been unused for many years. I welcome that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley).

A lot of good things are going on in Stafford, and I welcome that. However—and this is a big however—there are things that I oppose and will continue to oppose, the most important of which revolves around paediatric services. Yes, there will be a paediatric assessment unit, but it will be linked with A and E and, therefore, open for only 14 hours a day. That means that children who get sick overnight will have to travel 20 or more miles to the nearest unit. That is not acceptable for my constituents or indeed for the constituents of surrounding constituencies. In addition, it will not be a consultant-led paediatric unit, and it will have no in-patient beds for children. That is a problem for children who turn up at night with serious illnesses, or perhaps a very high temperature. Their parents will be extremely worried and will want their child to be taken in and observed for perhaps a day or two before they return home. If the child’s condition is more serious, they will want them sent to a major unit such as in Stoke or Birmingham.

Provision for those who need in-patient child and adolescent mental health services in Staffordshire—indeed, throughout the country—is not nearly sufficient. Our general hospital in Stafford takes in a number of such young people, some of whom are suicidal. It should not have to do that, but it takes them in because there is nowhere else for them to go. I do not believe that the administrators’ proposals take that into account, although the issue was raised in the consultation.

The original proposals said that no women could give birth in Stafford, unless they were having a home delivery, but I am glad to say that the administrators have listened to the people and have recommended that we should have a midwife-led maternity unit. However, that is still not enough, because we need a consultant-led unit. With our growing town, the Army coming in and the number of houses being built, we will get up to the 2,500 to 3,000 births a year in the coming year, and that will justify such provision, networked together with the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. I will continue to make that case to Monitor and to the Secretary of State.

The question of the critical care unit was also raised. I am glad to say that the administrators accepted the need for a level 3 critical care unit at Stafford, but we need to look at the details in the report, because I want to ensure that the unit is robust and will be maintained and sustained. There are question marks over that, but as I am not an expert on the matter, I will have to wait for the consultants and clinicians in my constituency to get back to me with the details.

I pay tribute to the community in Stafford, Cannock and the surrounding areas who have shown such resilience. When downgrading the hospital to a community hospital was first proposed, they showed tremendous support for its work. As is well known, the hospital has been greatly troubled over the years, but it has come on tremendously in the past two or three years. Only two weeks ago Stafford had the best hospital standardised mortality ratio in the whole of the west midlands. That is a far cry from where it was four or five years ago. I pay great tribute to the community for coming together in marches of up to 50,000 people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has entertained us with a very thoughtful speech this afternoon. I am going to follow up the health theme, but my discussion of it is going to be a little more graphic. If any hon. Ladies or hon. Gentlemen wish to leave, I shall not take it as a personal affront. They might find it more comfortable to go off and get a cup of tea.

I want to talk about hysteroscopy, particularly when undertaken without anaesthetic. This topic was brought to my attention by my constituent, Debbie, who lives in Plaistow. She was diagnosed with womb cancer or uterine cancer last year. She contacted me because the process of diagnosis, rather than the cancer itself, caused her

“the most distressing and painful experience”

of her life. Debbie underwent a procedure called hysteroscopy, which looks inside a patient’s uterus and is used to investigate symptoms such as pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding and infertility. Biopsies are often taken and tissue is often removed. The patient’s vagina is opened with a speculum, as during a cervical smear test, and a hysteroscope is inserted. A hysteroscope is a thin tube with a light and camera on the end, as well as any other instruments that might be needed. As I am sure I need hardly point out, this procedure is highly uncomfortable and clearly has the potential to be very painful indeed.

At present, the NHS Choices website explains

“a hysteroscopy should not hurt, but women may want to take a pain killer such as ibuprofen beforehand”.

As well as a hysteroscopy being an out-patient procedure, the NHS website says that

“the procedure can also be carried out under general anaesthetic, which may be recommended if your surgeon expects to do extensive treatment at the same time or if you request it.”

So far, this sounds fairly reasonable: it will not necessarily be pleasant, but there are options and the procedure can be carried out with or without pain relief and with or without local or general anaesthetic.

Let me tell Debbie’s story in more detail. Through Debbie, I have also heard stories from other women across the country. Debbie told me:

“I was in absolute agony. The consultant who performed my procedure knew I was in pain but carried on regardless. A nurse had to push me back down on the bed as I stiffened like a board. She had to hold me there and had hold of my hands too as I was trying to reach down and stop the procedure. All I could think was that if I made the consultant stop, I would have to come back and endure the whole thing again. This procedure, without anaesthesia, is barbaric. It is absolute torture. It needs to be stopped. At the very least, the patient should be informed that it could be extremely painful and have options explained and open for her. That way, she can make an informed decision as to whether to go ahead without anaesthesia.”

[Bob Stewart]

That sounds absolutely horrific. The hon. Lady did not explain whether Debbie was asked whether she would like a general anaesthetic. I presume that she was not asked and that the procedure went ahead without it.

[Lyn Brown]

Her very next sentence explains that:

“I was given no options. I have complained to the PALS department and to be quite honest I am not happy with their reply. At one point it mentions that the hospital gets more money for the procedure to be done as an outpatient! Is this what it boils down to? Money? Disgusting!”

Jan from Cheshire said:

“I had a hysteroscopy in Cheshire. This hospital is a private hospital but I was there as an NHS patient, as it was the hospital that my doctor could get me into the quickest, for investigations into abnormal bleeding. I saw the consultant in September of 2011, and was given an evening appointment to attend for a hysteroscopy, and was told that the procedure would be done under local anaesthetic. At the evening appointment, I was given a local anaesthetic, but after several attempts at performing the hysteroscopy, the consultant apologised and said that she was unable to perform the procedure and did not want to attempt it again under a local anaesthetic as, in her words, ‘it would be inhumane to continue under a local’. I was sent home and told to take co-codamol for pain relief, and that I was to return the next day for the procedure to be done under a general anaesthetic. I have got to say that even though I had a local anaesthetic”—

if Members have been paying attention, they will know that my constituent Debbie was not offered that—

“the procedure was still very uncomfortable and painful. I have to say that I think offering a hysteroscopy without any form of anaesthetic is barbaric.”

Jo from Chesterfield said:

“I had already had biopsies done in clinic with no anaesthetic, done like a smear with swabs but going through the cervix. I had found this painful but nothing prepared me for what was to come. I had been given a leaflet to outline the procedure but it mentioned nothing about pain or discomfort. I was asked to go behind a make-shift cubicle in the corner, take everything off and put on a gown. I was then asked to sit in a contraption that looked like some Victorian birthing chair, it was very uncomfortable and awkward to sit in. I felt so undignified…I have never felt such pain. I felt like my whole abdomen had been blown up, the pressure was so intense, then sharp prodding pains, I had tears in my eyes, the nurse did come and hold my hand. I just looked at the ceiling and held my breath, praying for it to be over.

When he’d done, the doctor asked ‘did you find that a bit painful?’. I replied ‘no it was excruciating’, he just remarked that most women are fine with it but perhaps I had a low pain threshold and that if I were to need further treatment I would need a General Anaesthetic as I was sensitive. I was quite gob smacked and in so much pain I didn’t really reply. I struggled to my car and drove home, I was in agony for days. I felt almost like I’d been violated, like a piece of meat, but thought perhaps it was just me, perhaps I was being a wuss. It wasn’t till I spoke to other ladies that I discovered it needn’t have been this way. My treatment on a whole I feel was done very wrongly, cutting corners and saving money, at my expense. The hysteroscopy should not have been done this way, it’s almost inhumane.”

Katharine from Bath said:

“My GP referred me for day-case hysteroscopy under local anaesthetic…He told me to pay for a course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to lower my Blood Pressure to qualify me for NHS day-care surgery as opposed to more expensive NHS inpatient surgery. During the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy the psychologist told me to go straight to the gynae-oncology surgeon at the hospital and have my persistent inter-menstrual bleeding properly investigated. My GP was furious at this suggestion but eventually gave in. The gynae-oncology surgeon told me that ‘you’ve had it for so long it won’t be anything sinister’. He eventually agreed to an inpatient hysteroscopy under General anaesthetic. I waited months for the operation. It showed late stage womb cancer which had spread to the lymph nodes. I had a radical hysterectomy and a long course of external radiotherapy”.

Jenny from Barnsley said:

“I went into the clinic and was given an ultrasound and very quickly was approached by a senior registrar who said I had a very thick womb but they could do a biopsy there and then.

My GP had mentioned that this procedure can be difficult but they would give me a local anaesthetic.

To be honest I was in such shock. I was led into a room where there was a very nice sister and nurse. I sat in a chair and the senior registrar began by filling my womb with water.

Then the hell began when they inserted whatever and did the biopsy. I have not experienced such pain even in childbirth and I told her so. I also said my GP had said they would give me some local anaesthetic and then she asked if I wanted some. Rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. It was too late then as they were in there.

The sister told me she nearly stopped the doctor. They were very caring then but only offered me one paracetamol. They said to me don’t let the woman who is waiting outside see you or it might put her off.”

The 21-year-old sister of Michelle, from Scotland, went for a hysteroscopy after noticing some bleeding after intercourse. The gynaecologist asked a nurse to assist while he proceeded to perform a rather forceful examination, and then carried out the hysteroscopy with no warning or pain relief. Michelle received a phone call from her distraught sister, who had gone into shock in the car park, had passed out next to her car, and was bleeding.

Gillian in Leeds said:

“Before the procedure, I received a leaflet with my appointment letter—no mention of any general or local anaesthetic, but after what the doctor had told me I wasn’t expecting it to be too bad”.

She said that the nurse

“managed to get the hysteroscope through my cervical opening…when she took each sample—6 in total—my pain level shot through the roof.

“What...infuriates me most is the fact that SOME people are given pain relief as a matter of course at their hospitals…why the hell should I, and others, have to suffer just because of which hospital we went to?”

Patricia from Fife said:

“I was offered no pain relief and the Dr. who did it didn’t get enough in the end so I had to go under general anaesthetic to get it done again.”

The procedure that she experienced, while conscious,

“was very traumatic and painful…I felt them cutting away the biopsy inside…afterwards the nurse who had held me down said to me ‘I wouldn’t have let them do that to me without a general anaesthetic’ so why did she let me go through it?’”

Maureen from Norwich said:

“The letter…advised I took either ibuprofen, or paracetamol about two hours before the appointment. The scan showed something abnormal, so I waited and then saw a very nice lady doctor. I then went on to endure the procedure, it took about fifteen minutes and it was certainly a lot more than uncomfortable.”

She felt very sick, and was in pain, but

“the nurse who was there kept saying how well I was doing. I was at the limit of my endurance, only the thought of having to go back again stopped me from asking the procedure to be stopped.”

I have received so much correspondence about this issue, via my friend Debbie, that I could speak at length and give many more examples, because what I wanted to do today was give those women a voice. However, I think that the House will understand the direction in which I am going.

Some women have received no pain treatment at all—no anaesthetic to dull the pain. Some have received a local anaesthetic, but, given the severity of their conditions, a number of them have found that that is not enough. Others have received a general anaesthetic, either on request or because their doctors were aware that the procedure involved might be more extensive than had been expected. A study of a group of women conducted over five years in Melbourne established that over 10% of the group would not accept a local anaesthetic again, because of the pain and the need for the procedure to be repeated owing to a failure to secure a biopsy sample.

I have found it difficult to obtain information about this issue, but I think that certain facts are clear. Some women are being given no pain relief options at all. That aspect is not being explained to them by the doctor when they get to the hospital. Some feel that they are not being treated with compassion and respect, and that very little or no consideration is given to their dignity or their well-being. Some are experiencing a procedure that fails and needs to be repeated. One has to ask how often that happens, and what the cost is to the NHS.

Some women are clearly receiving treatment that is not in line with the guidelines issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which acknowledges that

“outpatient hysteroscopy can be associated with significant pain, anxiety and embarrassment”.

While the RCOG’s guidelines emphasise throughout that it is possible for women to have an acceptable out-patient experience, and some women do, there is clearly a serious problem, in that the current standard practice is failing a significant group of women very badly. It is appalling that, in some cases, no pain relief is even offered. I have read a range of the information leaflets that various hospitals offer to support their hysteroscopy out-patient clinics, and I am glad to note that local anaesthetic is mentioned in almost all of them, but they are not open enough about the pain that women may experience during and after the procedure, and there is inadequate reference to the option of undergoing the procedure with a general anaesthetic.

[Bob Stewart]

May I ask what percentage of women feel no pain whatsoever? Is there such a percentage, or does everyone experience pain—in which case, we must sort the matter out?

[Lyn Brown]

I honestly cannot answer that question, although I can say that at the different times in my life when I have had internal examinations the pain has varied, and that as I have got older, the examinations have become more painful. I have been told by some women who have had babies—which, sadly, I have failed to do—that they have found the examinations less painful after their pregnancies. However, some have told me that they become more painful with the menopause. Indeed, when my mother had a similar examination, she told me that it had been excruciating, and that was when she was quite old.

I am not sure that there are any research findings out there that would answer the hon. Gentleman’s very sympathetic question—certainly I have not found any—and I think that this is something that we need to know more about. However, a study published by the British Medical Journal in 2009 concluded that a local anaesthetic injection was the best method of pain control for women undergoing hysteroscopies as out-patients.

I have struggled to decide what I need to ask the Government to do in order to ensure that women receive the best possible care and treatment while undergoing this procedure. It is difficult for me to know that, because I am not a medic. However, I do think it is reasonable to ask the Government to use all the influence they have over policy in this area to require the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to work with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to issue authoritative guidelines. I also think the Care Quality Commission may well have a role to play in ensuring that best practice is delivered locally at each hospital.

Business without Debate

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

In the circumstances, I think it appropriate to make a few points. First, this motion will allow us to resolve not to sit in Westminster Hall tomorrow. This follows the decision of the International Development Committee, many of whose members one assumes will want to attend tomorrow’s events in Westminster Hall to commemorate Nelson Mandela, not to proceed with its business, as agreed by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who intervened a few minutes ago to confirm that.

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) made a number of alternative proposals about the timing, for example, although I do not know whether the International Development Committee considered that because I was not party to the discussions. If we do not proceed with this motion, the impact would be that the business would still appear on the Order Paper and a Chair, Clerks and Doorkeepers would need to be on a rota to attend tomorrow’s business even though it was not taking place. On that basis, it seems sensible to ask the House to resolve the matter in order to clarify the position to the public, and for the convenience of everyone else.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the public. Given the importance of the Westminster Hall debates, some members of the public may have made arrangements to come to London specifically to attend them, so we are probably inconveniencing members of the public as well.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend has made a telling point. I cannot disagree with him: some people may indeed have been inconvenienced as a result of this decision. I therefore hope that the alternative dates will be widely publicised to enable them—we hope—to attend the debate in future. I also hope that they will take account of the fact that there was a strong demand for this event, and the fact that, because of the way in which things happened, it was not possible to predict that it would clash with a debate initiated by the International Development Committee that they had wished to attend.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a serious issue and it is the Government’s view that the discrimination faced by UK and foreign national lecturers in Italy is not only unacceptable, but illegal. We have been pressing the Italian authorities to find a solution and the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Universities and Science met the Italian Education Minister on 5 October and raised the problems faced by foreign lecturers working in Italy. He received assurances that the Italians are actively looking into a solution over the next year.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what I think is the case that someone from my constituency of Beckenham who happens to be a Scotsman and wants to go to university in Scotland has to pay tuition fees, whereas someone who lives in Scotland who happens to be an Englishman does not and someone who comes from France, Germany, Italy or Spain does not, either? It seems extraordinary.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. He will be aware that higher education is a devolved matter for Scotland and that under EU law member states cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality against people from other member states in the conditions of access to vocational training, which includes higher education. Where certain residency and nationality conditions are met, EU nationals and their family members will qualify for home fee status and will therefore be treated the same with regard to tuition fees as UK nationals who also satisfy the residency conditions.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman imply that perhaps the Bill will not be ready by May 2015 and should, if necessary, be pushed beyond that date?

[Wayne David]

If necessary, yes. In all fairness I cannot believe that the Government would seek to soldier on with a piece of legislation when all objective evidence shows that the time scale is so tight, and the difficulties to be faced so enormous, that it cannot be introduced effectively in time for the run-up to the next election. I stress the run-up because we must not talk only about the general election but the period before it. If the new clause is accepted by the Government—I genuinely hope it will be—it would be part of the legislative base. As a consequence, if the objective information is provided, the Government will do what is necessary to prevent a ridiculous and farcical situation from developing. Such a situation would harm not the Conservative or Labour parties but democracy itself, and it would further undermine people’s support, involvement and engagement in our democratic process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

In a perfect world, how much extra time does the hon. Lady think would be required for a consultation?

Business of the House

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the experience of Members across the country, who are seeing an increase in employment. There has been a 1.4 million increase in people in employment in the private sector, which is very encouraging. There are more women in employment than ever before, and the proportion of households in which nobody is in work has been reduced to the lowest we have seen. That is encouraging progress. It inevitably varies across the country, but the regional growth fund and the efforts we are making will make a big difference. I know how much he will also look forward to High Speed 2 enabling growth in the regions of the United Kingdom through access to markets and opportunities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Next week, a group of parliamentarians from this House and the other place is to visit Gibraltar for the national day celebrations. May we have a statement from my right hon. Friend sending greetings to the people of Gibraltar on that important event?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to send my personal greetings if he will be kind enough to convey them along with his colleagues—I assume that he is taking part. I also send greetings on behalf of the many colleagues throughout the House who support and appreciate the allegiance of the people of Gibraltar to the British Crown.

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that, as he knows, not least from what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at questions earlier in the week, we remain concerned by the action being taken by the Government of Spain at the border with Gibraltar. We have responded robustly, in partnership with the Government of Gibraltar, and we welcomed the Prime Minister of Gibraltar here last week. We have made it clear to the Spanish Government that their unlawful actions are disproportionate and unacceptable. We have repeatedly expressed our desire to find a diplomatic solution that is acceptable to Spain while reaffirming, as we do from the Dispatch Box repeatedly, our commitment to upholding the rights and interests of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I want to read out something that the Leader of the House said about introducing legislation on lobbying in an Opposition day debate in June:

“The other way forward is to be clear about the standards expected, based on the Nolan principles, and to ensure that all those who exercise responsibilities—and all those who seek to influence them—are subject to the necessary transparency in their actions and contacts, and held accountable for their actions, so that we can see who is doing what, and why. For those who seek to influence the political system without the necessary transparency, there will be clear sanctions available.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 175.]

That is beautifully put, but it is not what the Bill does. If it were what the Bill did, most hon. Members would support it.

On lobbying, we all agree that transparency is absolutely important, but so is the need to raise standards in the lobbying industry and to make those rules apply equally and fairly to everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) just pointed out, 97% of lobbying activity will not be captured by the Bill. The way to improve things would be to ensure that everyone is captured by it and that they abide by an industry code, to make sure that we raise standards and that they apply to absolutely everyone.

The worrying thing is that, instead of doing that, the Bill will limit what civil society organisations do in campaigning on policies in which they have a legitimate interest, because Governments of any persuasion do not like effective campaigns against them. Whether from business, charities or trade unions, the Government find them embarrassing, and they would much rather silence them. Sometimes, as with the Bill, a Government need to be embarrassed into not doing what is wrong.

For instance, we might not like what Guido writes about us on his blog, but we should fight any legislation that would curb his ability to do so. It is salient to think how many people are members of the organisation, 38 Degrees: 1.7 million members subscribe to 38 Degrees. For us as political organisations, we collectively do not add up to that many people. For us to dismiss 38 Degrees as an organisation where people press the send button and something inconveniently pops up in our inbox is to dismiss those people who we represent in our constituencies who are legitimately engaged in political activity at a time when we are complaining about how people are disengaging from the political process.

We need to consider something that Len McCluskey said recently: the combined membership of Unite also adds up to far more than the combined memberships of all registered political parties, and they pay an awful lot more to be members of Unite.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I understand it, 38 Degrees was invited to be briefed by the Government on the Bill but did not turn up, which is sad.

[Natascha Engel]

I do not see the relevance of 38 Degrees not turning up to a briefing, which would almost certainly have been largely pointless as the Bill would gag the activities that 38 Degrees legitimately wants to undertake in the run-up to a general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the Electoral Commission has expressed concerns and when the Bill goes through its Committee stage, I am absolutely certain that further clarity will be provided and the commission will be in a better position to provide the guidance it is required to give in order to ensure that charities understand the basis on which we are proceeding.

[Bob Stewart]

As I understand it, on 18 July the Leader of the House gave a timetable for this Bill and there was no objection to it.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Summer Adjournment

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I rise to draw attention to an issue to which I drew attention in the last debate on matters to be raised before the Adjournment, which took place on 26 March. On that occasion I drew the House’s attention to concerns about the consequence of an EU directive on people’s ability to continue to use what was then, and still is, a relatively new product, namely electronic or e-cigarettes. Members will remember that an e-cigarette is an alternative to a conventional tobacco cigarette and consists of an electronic inhaler that vaporises a liquid into an aerosol mist, enabling the user to enjoy nicotine in a far safer form.

I return to this topic because, in addition to the EU legislation, there is a now a proposal by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for e-cigarettes to be considered as medicinal products. The EU directive seeks to lay down a legislative framework for the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. However, e-cigarettes are not tobacco products. Bringing them into line with their more dangerous counter- parts—standard cigarettes—will see the consumption of e-cigarettes drop. That means that people who currently use them safely will no longer be able to do so. If the MHRA’s proposal goes through, e-cigarettes will have to go through an expensive and time-consuming procedure to be approved as medicines. If that procedure makes them more difficult to obtain, smokers will simply continue to smoke tobacco.

It is important to remember that e-cigarettes were not developed as a medicinal product. Indeed, I heard them described at a seminar the other day as simply an “enjoyable consumer product”. However, their regulation as medicinal products would raise costs, reduce the diversity of products available, slow down innovation and inhibit creativity, and, in doing so, make them less appealing to the very people hoping to switch to them. These are by-products of the law of unintended consequences. More people will revert to tobacco.

Beyond that, the MHRA recommendation is for people “not to use”—that is its advice—the current generation of e-cigarettes available on the market. Its group manager of vigilance and risk management of medicines told a press conference held to announce the MHRA’s recommendations:

“We can’t recommend these products because their safety and quality is not assured, and so we will recommend that people don’t use them”.

However, that was despite the MHRA’s impact assessment giving no evidence of any harm caused by the use of e-cigarettes. In fact, Professor Robert West of University college London says that for current e-cigarettes “the risk is negligible”. Indeed, the NHS’s website states that their toxicity is one thousandth that of tobacco cigarettes.

One consequence of the MHRA’s recommendation has been that a major supermarket chain removed e-cigarettes from its pharmacy shelves, while a survey of 700 pharmacists has shown that 99.5% are declining to stock e-cigarettes because of the announcement. There is an emerging industry manufacturing e-cigarettes, which predicts that the reduction in their use caused by the MHRA’s recommendation will cost the NHS £2.5 billion, owing to fewer people giving up smoking tobacco. E-Lites, the largest producer of e-cigarettes, now forecasts a substantial reduction in the growth of the market. On its figures, 390,000 fewer people will be using e-cigarettes by the end of the year, compared with what would have happened without the MHRA’s recommendation.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Someone has to regulate e-cigarettes, but if they are not regulated as a medicine or cigarettes, who will do it?

[Mark Pawsey]

E-cigarettes are currently regulated in the same way as standard consumer products, and are subject to local authorities, trade descriptions and so on.

Users are concerned that it will become harder for them to access e-cigarettes in their bid to wean themselves off smoking, as the alternative of e-cigarettes will simply be more expensive. The directive is also of great concern to a number of small businesses, in particular a business based in my constituency called Smoke No Smoke, to which I referred when I last spoke on this issue. Its entrepreneurial owner, Jim Lacey, is facing a threat to the future of the business that he has worked so hard to build up. The feedback from his customers is that they will be unable to access the product. There is a danger that that will force the e-cigarette trade underground. If e-cigarettes were produced in an illegal market, it would be difficult for people to know where they had come from.

This is not the time to introduce these regulations. I urge the Government to look more closely at what they can do to avoid the implementation of the directive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

If people are still looking for a book to read during the summer recess, I would recommend “You Can’t Hide the Sun” by the Beirut hostage, John McCarthy. He provides a very disturbing and worrying account of life for Palestinians post-1948. He pulls back the curtains, goes behind the scenery and reveals what is really going on in that troubled part of the world.

By the time we return to Parliament in September, it is quite possible that a serious situation will have got even worse. The Israeli Parliament has voted for what can be described only as ethnically cleansing between 40,000 and 60,000 Bedouin. Clearly, the removal of such a large number of humanity will be undertaken only at the point of a gun. If ethnic cleansing were going on anywhere else in the world, the world’s leaders would be voicing outrage. The national and international media would have television cameras there reporting this crime against humanity, yet we have a deafening silence from political leaders in this country and in the United States of America.

It is the Americans who allow this sort of thing to go on, as they have since 1948. President Obama has failed to ensure that ethnic cleansing does not take place by the Israelis and the Israeli Parliament against the Bedouin. It is, of course, a track record that goes back over many years. The illegal occupation of the west bank and East Jerusalem; the obvious apartheid legislation of the Israeli Government; the ignoring of countless United Nations resolutions, the Geneva convention and international law: these are everyday occurrences for Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Our Government have been silent. Two weeks ago, in this very Chamber, when I invited the Foreign Secretary to condemn Israel for the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouins, he declined to do so, and I therefore asked him a parliamentary question on 11 July.

[Bob Stewart]

I want to place on record that I personally condemn what is happening to the Bedu. I used to live in the area. I think it is disgraceful that there are two kinds of people—Israelis and the others—on the west bank, and that the law is different for each of them. It is appalling.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, because he brings to the Chamber a very distinguished military record. He is a soldier whose reputation is such that he would never find himself up before the International Court of Justice. I am bound to say that some of the military leaders and Israeli political leaders would face the Court for what they have done, and for what they are doing.

In my parliamentary question, I asked the Foreign Secretary

“how many representations he has received in opposition to proposals by the government of Israel to forcibly remove 40,000 Bedouin from their historic lands.”

In fact, the figure may be 60,000 by now. A Minister replied:

“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received over 600 representations from members of the public on this issue.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 355.]

I will not be silenced on the issue. I am speaking here on behalf of the 600 or more people who have written to our Government, and I am speaking, I hope, with the blessing of all people of all faiths around the world who deplore what is being done. I want specifically to praise the work of the American-based organisation Jewish Voice for Peace, because, like that organisation, I want to see peace in the Holy Land. I want to see people of all faiths and religions and of none living in harmony. I am bound to observe, however, that the actions, past and present, of the Israeli Parliament are more akin to what went on in apartheid South Africa. The world did not like what went on in apartheid South Africa, but the world is silent about what is going on in Israel/ Palestine.

Where are the words of opposition from President Obama and the United States Administration? There are none. Where are the words of opposition from the Government of the United Kingdom? There are none. What is the European Union doing, other than having friendly trade relations with Israel? Earlier this year, there was the extraordinary situation of an international European football tournament taking place in Israel. The last time I looked at the map of the world, Israel was not in Europe.

I hope that, out there, President Obama, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, our Prime Minister or whoever will prevail on the Israeli Parliament. It must be made clear that the forcible removal of up to 60,000 Bedouins—in addition to everything else that has been done over the years—does not bring forward peace in the middle east, but sets it back. I want to see a peaceful Holy Land, but I think that leaders must speak up.

I hope that, if nothing else, I have drawn attention to what is happening to the Bedouins. The BBC is not covering it, our national newspapers are not covering it, ITV is not covering it, Sky News is not covering it, Channel 4 is not covering it. If 60,000 people were being subjected to ethnic cleansing in any other country in the world, it would be the lead news. Shame on our national media for pulling a curtain across the stage so that people do not know what is going on.

I ask Members please to acquire a copy of “You Can’t Hide the Sun” by John McCarthy, and to read it and find out what is going on in that part of the world. They will not find that out through the British media.

HEALTH

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your now traditional role of the Speaker’s version of Santa Claus, giving presents to the Back Benchers. I hope that next year we will see you enter into the spirit a little more, with something less sombre than your morning suit—perhaps a pair of antlers, a red nose or some such. We look forward to that with great expectation.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who uses these debates in the way they should be used by Back Benchers. He had great support in all parts of the House as he spoke. We commend him on the resilience he has shown in looking after the interests of the children from Chernobyl. In a way, that shows the value of these debates and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee, which some colleagues who are new to the House might rather take for granted. Those of us who have been here a little longer know what a hard fought campaign it was—including on our side of the House, through those on our own Front Bench—to get the Backbench Business Committee and give Back Benchers the voice they deserve in their own legislature. I hope we will soon add the other half of the brace that was recommended by the Wright Committee, which is to have a House business committee—the promise is to do that this year—which will allow this Chamber some measure of participation in setting the business of the whole legislature, rather than leaving it entirely to the Government. I hope that colleagues will join together in progressing that over the next year.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for announcing yesterday that medals will be awarded not only to Bomber Command, but to the Arctic convoys. I have followed this issue for the best part of two decades. If I can be blunt, I think it was a stain on the record of the last Government that so many of us had to work so hard—and fruitlessly—and that by the time the Prime Minister announced this recognition yesterday, so many of the brave men and women who fought in the Arctic convoys, Bomber Command or elsewhere had sadly passed away. Only their families will now have the honour and admiration from all of us for the sacrifices those men and women made. I hope that the Ministry of Defence, which is notorious for its bureaucratic ways and failing to recognise the sacrifice of service people, will have learnt a lesson and will now act expeditiously where the needs of servicemen are raised by colleagues in this House, from whichever part of the House they come.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

- Hansard -

My understanding is that those in Bomber Command are getting a clasp to an existing medal, probably the Europe Star, that says “Bomber Command”—I hope not, but that is my understanding. I would like to see a medal, just like for those in the Arctic convoys.

Mr Allen

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is important for those who served in Bomber Command and survived—it had the highest attrition rate of any theatre of combat in the second world war—get the full recognition they deserve. Finally the Arctic convoy veterans have got it. They have been honoured effusively in the former Soviet Union—what is now Russia—and indeed continue to be, in a way that we had to struggle for in our own country.

Having said that these are valuable moments for Back Benchers, let me raise a number of constituency and Back-Bench issues that are sadly all too familiar in my constituency. The first concerns the treatment of disabled people in my constituency. Many who are applying for incapacity benefit have to go through work capacity assessments with the Department for Work and Pensions through its stand-in, the French firm Atos, which colleagues in all parts of the House will have had experience of.

The waiting time for a disabled person in my constituency to be refused what they regard as their rightful entitlement because of their incapacity is 57 weeks, in some cases. It is unacceptable in a civilised society that they should have to wait that long for a decision on appeal. That is not the way we should treat our disabled people. It would not be good if it happened to just one person, or even if it happened to 10% of the people who appeal and who get what they deserve at the end of the day, but in fact, one in three cases are overturned on appeal. Those people need their incapacity benefit to live their lives effectively. The situation is unacceptable, and I have recently written to the Justice Secretary to express my concern. I was assured, in a letter from him dated 5 December, that extra resources were being brought in to press the numbers down and to enable the cases to be dealt with more expeditiously. I am very grateful for that but, sadly, two days later I received a letter from the Tribunals Service saying that the waiting times had gone up, and that it was now taking an average of 57 weeks for these cases to be dealt with.

I have a constituent named Susan Goldsmith who had her assessment in August 2011. She heard in October that she had failed. She felt aggrieved and immediately appealed. She lodged her appeal with the Tribunals Service in November and, following interventions by me, her appeal was finally heard this month. The judge took only a few minutes to decide to allow her appeal and to dismiss the opinion of Atos. My constituent, who needs her incapacity benefit, had experienced a delay of 54 weeks. I have had many similar cases, as have colleagues throughout the House. The system is a shambles, and I hope that colleagues will continue to write in about it until we get this right and start to treat our disabled people with the respect they deserve and to deal with their cases in a timely manner.

There are more than 500 young children in Nottinghamshire who are deaf or have a degree of deafness, and the National Deaf Children’s Society has asked me to raise a specific issue that is pertinent to them. I am going to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and ask him to look again at the personal independence payment that will replace the disability living allowance on 26 April next year. I am afraid that the change could result in a step backwards for many of those deaf young people. Following the abolition of the bottom rate of DLA, all those affected will have to apply for the bottom rate of the personal independence payment but, inexplicably, that will not be available to deaf young people unless they use sign language. In other words, those who use lip-reading or some other means of communication will fail to qualify for those payments, despite having previously been entitled to DLA. Only 10% of deaf young people use sign language, which means that 90% of them will not be entitled to apply for the PIP. I hope that that is simply an unintended consequence, and that my writing to the Secretary of State will result in his looking at the regulations and putting this right, so that all those deaf young people will not be hit disproportionately by this measure.

Another group that I would like to talk about came to visit us some time ago—

--- Later in debate ---

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who spoke so eloquently about issues relating to the Border Agency.

I would like, if I may, to raise four issues before the House rises. The first is about a constituent who was recently subjected to a serious assault in his own home. There had been a dispute between neighbours and the perpetrator came round and head-butted and assaulted my constituent, leaving him with a broken nose and requiring ongoing treatment for post-traumatic stress. He obviously had to have his broken nose repaired, but he also had to attend a head injury clinic.

It is regrettable, to say the least, that as a result of the changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, my constituent is no longer eligible for compensation, despite all the trauma he has suffered. It is worth pointing out that under Scots law, the serious assault charge brought against his neighbour is the second most serious of all after attempted murder. I hope the Minister will say whether the Government will reconsider such important cases.

Secondly, it is right that we have heard such eloquent words across the House about the Arctic convoy and Bomber Command. Some men and women will not be spending their Christmas with their families and their loved ones because they are serving our nation, often in very difficult and dangerous places. Not the least of those places is Afghanistan, but we have personnel around the world who are away from home in Germany, Cyprus, the Falklands and elsewhere.

Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of the financial challenges that many of those personnel face. I shall use the example of one of my constituents who is posted in Germany. This soldier is now a sergeant, and she has been in the Army for going on 20 years. When she was first deployed to Germany in 2009, she received £650 a month from the living overseas allowance. At that time, she was mother to one child. While she was a single parent, she received the married/accompanied plus one child element and one “get yourself home” claim for her and her child each year, amounting to £180 for a flight or a ferry. As a result of changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence in the last year, she now receives just £350 a month in allowances, although she now has two children and is married. She is more than £300 a month worse off.

Frankly, there is little difference between the rate of support my constituent receives in comparison with what a single soldier receives. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the Government view that as entirely equitable. She receives slightly more in travel allowances with three “get yourself home” payments, but each one has dropped in value. Rather than getting £180 for her and her children, she gets £150, which anyone travelling will know does not really cover the cost of travel from Germany back to Scotland. As she rightly points out, this makes it difficult for service personnel to serve our country overseas. It is particularly difficult for those with young families to volunteer for service in places such as Germany.

On the issue of housing for ex-service personnel, we greatly welcome the military covenant as a step in the right direction. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, which took the legislation through the House of Commons. I welcome the fact that many local authorities are now doing more to support service personnel who are leaving the military. I would like to praise Councillor David Ross, convener of housing in Fife council, as he has taken a particular interest in this matter.

We have a problem, however, in that someone from Scotland whose last posting was in England, Northern Ireland or Germany, will not, on leaving the Army or the other two services, go to the top of the housing register. Such people are effectively at the very bottom. Despite giving perhaps 18 or 22 years of service to this country, such people are treated iniquitously. I hope the Minister will talk to his Ministry of Defence colleagues and write to let me know whether the MOD is going to work with English local authorities and the three devolved Administrations to ensure that, no matter where someone’s last posting is—in the UK or overseas—they will receive equal treatment for housing. That is the least we can do for our servicemen and women.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of the regulation of postal services. The Royal Mail continues to be regulated by Ofcom, as you will be aware, yet its rival services do not have the same level of regulation. Local representatives of the Communication Workers Union have met me, as they have done right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to flag up this concern. The current position allows a firm such as TNT to cherry-pick its services. Whereas Royal Mail has to deliver on six days a week, come wind, rain or—certainly in Scotland—a bit of snow, other companies are not subject to such regulations. The CWU has therefore rightly asked Ofcom to consider taking on a regulatory responsibility for the rival services. They should not be subject to any additional burdens, but they should have the same level of regulation as Royal Mail. Will the Minister write to me, outlining what he is doing to correct this anomaly?

Finally, may I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your colleagues and the whole House a very safe and prosperous Christmas and new year, and may I also thank all those who support us, including the Hansard writers who turn our utterances into something a bit more coherent, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and in particular those in the private office of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House, who do so much good work on our behalf, and who have helped the Deputy Leader in getting his responses right for today?

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

- Hansard -

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). He talked about the military covenant and, as it is Christmas time, I wish to carry on that theme and remind Members of what is happening to our soldiers in Afghanistan. I shall talk about current operations there. We have lost 438 people so far, while 2,000-plus have been very seriously injured, and a considerable proportion of them are triple or double amputees. This year alone, we have lost 43 men killed in action.

The enemy in Afghanistan—the Taliban—is deadly and skilful. When we first went into Helmand in 2006, the enemy took us on very strongly. The Taliban tried to take us on conventionally, face to face. We had our troops in what were called platoon houses, which were isolated and unsupported. That was a mistake. The Taliban surrounded them and tried to take them out in bitter slugging matches. Some of our troops had to spend very long periods in stand-to positions—their sentry positions—and even had to sleep in those positions. In the case of several platoon houses, it was touch and go whether they would be taken out, and only massive bombardment—which was not good, as it destroyed so much around the bases—prevented that. In the end, however, through the long summer of 2006, the Taliban were defeated.

The Taliban then changed their tactics. They turned to improvised explosive devices and hit-and-run tactics—guerrilla tactics. That proved devastating, because our vehicles were not equipped to take hits from land mines. More important, we did not have the helicopters to fly in and get our men when they were hurt or resupply troops. After a while, however, we again got our response right: we got better vehicles and more helicopters.

The Taliban’s tactics therefore changed again. Now they are coming in close to us, using uniformed Afghan national security forces personnel, some of whom are Taliban, but others might just be people with grudges. They are coming in close to our soldiers, who are trying to mentor the Afghan forces to get them as good as possible, so that when we leave they will be in a great position to carry on and secure their country, which is in our interests. Nine of the 43 men killed in action this year were victims of what is called insider murders or, euphemistically, green on blue attacks. We are paying a very high blood price, therefore, and the people responsible are hiding among our friends.

The situation is very difficult for our soldiers, but they have an incredible generosity of spirit. I have spoken to a number of them and the vast majority say, “We can’t do anything else, because if we don’t mentor and keep close to the Afghan national army and police, we will not be doing our duty by them and we will not be supporting our friends, because the majority of the people who come to kill us are not the people we work with. They are usually strangers—strangers in uniform.” Most of our soldiers say, “We’ve got to continue with this dangerous activity. The dilemma is that if we stay close to the Afghan army and police to mentor them, we stand a much greater risk of being killed, but if we leave them, they will think we are deserting them, and we will fail in our objective, which is to help the Afghan national security forces get up to speed.”

Thomas Docherty

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have the privilege of serving on the Defence Committee with the hon. Gentleman. On the issue he is discussing, I recently had some correspondence with the Minister for the Armed Forces and I would be happy to share that with the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that those responsible for these attacks are a tiny minority of the population. Does he agree that we should recognise the incredible bravery of the men of the Afghan national forces, as many of them face intimidation for having joined up?

Bob Stewart

- Hansard -

Yes, I agree. In the last month, some 700 members of the Afghan national security forces have been dismissed as they are considered unreliable, and the Afghan forces are taking a very high casualty rate, which is greater than our own.

It is extremely tricky to withdraw from a military operation. There are two years to go now, and I am sure our Army will be up to it, because we are good at tricky operations. I want our soldiers to leave with their heads held high, feeling that at least some of the sacrifice has been worth it.

When we went into Afghanistan in 2001 and again in 2003, the mission was simple: to stop the threat that emanated from that country against our country and our allies. Other missions that have been talked about—bringing democracy, countering drugs, improving the lot of women, education—are extremely laudable, but they were not the mission our soldiers were sent into Afghanistan to achieve.

I want us to leave Afghanistan having got it into a condition whereby it will never hurt our country or our allies again. That is the mission I want us to achieve by the time our soldiers leave. If we do that, we will have achieved something. If we do that, at least it will be some compensation to those 438 families who have lost their loved ones. If we do not succeed in doing that, it will not be the fault of our courageous and gallant sailors, airmen and soldiers who have fought this bitter conflict for 11 years. We must not blame them if we do not succeed.

I want to end by sending my personal best wishes to our soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting at the moment. On behalf of everyone in this House, I wish them the very best at Christmas. When we go on recess, their job does not change. They are still mentoring the Afghan national police and Afghan national army, they are still patrolling and they are still putting their lives at risk. I spare a thought also for the families at home who remain terrified that the people from their family who have been sent, at our behest, to do their duty in Afghanistan might not come back or might be hurt. God bless them all, and merry Christmas to them.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and say to him how much he epitomises the benefits to the House of having people with so much experience and so much to contribute to our understanding of military matters?

I wish to talk about the economic situation of my constituency. Some 100 years ago, the north-east was the main driver of economic development not just in this country, but in the whole of the British empire. Today, the north-east is still the most successful exporting region outside London. That is because it has the largest car plant in Europe; it has the largest chemical plant in the UK; it is leading in electric vehicle manufacturing; it is at the centre of sustainable energy innovation; and it can lead in the new industry of offshore wind. So I wish to pose the question: in this Government’s quest to restart growth, why do they not look to the north-east?

In order fully to develop the north-east’s potential, we need a region-wide approach that brings together the public and private sectors; concentration on those industrial clusters where the region’s university research and development can be translated into innovation; skills and retraining for adults and young people, so that people losing jobs in public administration can reasonably take up new opportunities in the private sector and so that young people are given a fair chance; a fair share of the Government’s infrastructure spend, particularly to improve transport and connectivity; and investment in housing and place making.

Unfortunately, what the Government have delivered to the north-east is massive cuts. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the scale of the cuts in 2010 was huge—in 2010 it came to £2.8 billion, which was 7% of the value of the regional economy. The cuts were also unfair; the cuts to the north-east’s local authorities were three times the scale of those in the south-east. In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took £1,000 from every man, woman and child in the region. The cuts in the north-east are even larger than the cuts being faced by the Spanish people.

I had some new analysis undertaken by Oxford Economics on the second-round effects—the knock-on effects on the private sector—to see why we have such a high level of shop closures on the high streets in our region. Its analysis showed that there had been a further £1 billion in lost output; that is a 10% drop in the size of the regional economy. If the International Monetary Fund is right, the second-round effects are even greater, at £3.5 billion.