Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, particularly given the background that he has touched on. I cannot promise a debate in the near future in Government time, but it strikes me as an appropriate subject for a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall. I am sure that a large number of Members on both sides of the House would like to take part in such a debate.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Having said that they would not do so, the Government adopted the previous Labour Government’s 18-week waiting time target for treatment in hospital once somebody has been referred by a GP. The number of people breaching that 18-week period has gone up by 43%. We are now told that people are being bounced off lists and left waiting once they have breached the 18-week point to hide the huge spike in the number of people who have breached it. May we have a debate to expose the Government’s appalling record on that target?

[Sir George Young]

I must gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The backlog of over-18-week waiters is going down and the figures for December were the best on record. In the broader context, the average waiting times for in-patients and out-patients before they start treatment are lower than at the time of the last election, and the number of patients waiting for more than a year is half what it was in May 2010.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes. The cost savings are considerable. The bodies both have entirely separate back-office operations, and they both live in central London offices for which they signed leases at the height of the market without any break clauses at £57 a square foot and £35 a square foot, I think. There is no co-ordination of commercial strategy to drive success at the elite end alongside the mass market and their strategies operate in completely different spheres. There are many different savings and a lot of possible synergies.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State was the shadow Secretary of State he respected the different roles of UK Sport and Sport England. In a press release that is still on the Conservative website, he said he would retain

“the current split between UK Sport and Sport England”.

He said one thing before the general election and something completely different—that these organisers should merge—after it. No one opposes economies of scale such as sharing offices and back-office services, or co-ordination where it is necessary, but these two bodies serve two very different functions. UK Sport has taken us from 36th to fourth in the Olympic medal tables. Will he say something now so that we can end the speculation about a merger of governance, not dither until after the general election and allow these organisations to get on with their jobs?

[Hugh Robertson]

Nobody has ever said that the two organisations are merging. I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is on the table—probably because the briefing has led him to do so. There has never been any question but that the new body will contain two separate organisations, one of which looks after elite and high-performance sport and one that looks after community sport. I simply want central governance arrangements over the top so that we do not end up with boards all over the place. Actually, the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when she was in the chair, was well known for having described the organisation of British sport—she will correct me if I am wrong—as a nightmare.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The fact that something is outside the area of competence of a Minister has never stopped a Minister before, but there we go.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The person who launched the school games was the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport—it was not the Department for Education. Ministers have been using the figure that one in five children are involved in inter-school competitive sport, and they will know that that figure comes from the PE and sport survey that is carried out in schools every year. That figure is measured on the basis of children taking part in nine competitive sport events against other schools in a school year. We know from what the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said in a Westminster Hall debate that that is not an ambitious target. How is the Minister going to measure the impact of the school games on increasing participation in competitive sport? Is the benchmark nine times in a school year or more?

[Hugh Robertson]

Let me answer this in two parts. First, a number of schools want to sign up, and I am delighted to say that we have got 11,000 schools signed up, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would welcome. On the part of the equation for which this Department is responsible—the cadre of people from 16 to 25—we will make an announcement in the new year.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Regardless of whether the problem is solved, I hope my hon. Friend will continue to fight a large number of elections in Banbury. He will know that one of the first actions we took was to establish the Dilnot commission, which reported in July. There is a commitment to publish a White Paper in the spring, which will outline the Government’s response to the important issues. There have been a number of debates on this important subject, but I would welcome a further one. We inherited a situation in which there were lots of White Papers but no action was taken during 13 years.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Can we have a statement from the Leader of the House—or whoever he delegates it to—on how we can hold the Government to account over participation in school sport? We put questions to the Secretary of State at DCMS Question Time this morning, but he refused to answer any about how we are going to monitor participation at school age. The Secretary of State has put £11 million into school games: it was announced by him and it is on his Department’s website, so it is not unreasonable to expect answers to DCMS questions about it. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on who is going to be accountable for answering questions on this subject in future?

[Sir George Young]

That sounds a little like unfinished business from the question and answer session that we have just had. I caught the end of DCMS questions and I thought that my right hon. and hon. Friends were answering questions with their usual competence and accuracy. I will, however, draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see whether there is anything he wishes to add to what he said a few moments ago.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, of course I can. I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman did on this during his time in office. As a result of the Select Committee report, we produced a response in September. That has set a straightforward deadline to the three football bodies—the FA, the Football League and the Premier League—to come back to us with firm proposals to address the three central tenets of that report: the FA board, the licence, and the link with the councils. I expect that work to be completed by the end of February.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In this day and age it really is not acceptable that only 13 football grounds in the country meet the minimum standards and I am sure the Minister would agree that we should be moving towards a time when people with disabilities should not be turned away from a football ground because they cannot be accommodated. In its evidence to the Select Committee, Level Playing Field highlighted a number of horror stories. Its representatives talked to me about a gentleman who had turned up on crutches and been turned away because, he was told, his crutches might be used as a weapon. What is the Minister doing actively to move the FA to improve the situation and increase the number of grounds that provide at least the minimum facilities for people with disabilities?

[Hugh Robertson]

I hope that I am not traducing him but I think the current chairman of the FA was the chairman of the National Association of Disabled Supporters beforehand.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

It is an offence to provide false information to electoral returning officers, and if that happens I hope they would pursue it. As my hon. Friend will know, we are introducing individual electoral registration, which will reduce the opportunity for fraud because people will have to provide some evidence of identity before they are added to the register. I hope that that will reduce the sort of practices to which he refers.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), we know that the moving of the elections of police commissioners to November is going to cost an enormous sum of money. May we have a statement on how the Government reached the decision to make this amendment to the proposal in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill? We are told that that was done to appease Liberal Democrat councillors. If that is how the Government are making decisions and wasting public money, is it not a matter that should be discussed on the Floor of the House?

[Sir George Young]

Of course it is. That is why the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill that will be debated on Monday.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House will want to send its sympathy to the friends and relatives of those who lost their lives in these terrorist atrocities. The Foreign Office consular team is already in Mumbai providing consular support to any British nationals who may have been caught up in these events. We are working very closely with the Indian authorities, and we are committed to working with the Indian Government and our allies to combat the threat from terrorism in all its forms.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We have only two sitting days left, and it is important that this House is reported to on the progress of the Leveson inquiry in terms of securing evidence. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on Monday, News International said that if he would give it the details of his complaint, it would investigate it. For us, that is not good enough. It is the police who should carry out that investigation, or the inquiry. All the information should be made available and secured now. We need a statement before the recess in order to understand what progress is being made on securing that evidence.

[Sir George Young]

The Prime Minister dealt with this in his statement yesterday. It is a criminal offence to destroy documents when a criminal investigation is under way.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard for last Thursday, he will see the timeline outlined by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. Ministers were told on 24 June.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have Hansard for last Thursday, and the Minister made it quite clear that the original decision was on 5 April and that a judicial review gave oral confirmation of that decision on 19 May. Can the Leader of the House say whether he was alerted, after 19 May, to the possibility of the need to legislate on the Floor of the House to reverse that decision?

[Sir George Young]

This is rehearsing to some extent the arguments that were dealt with on Thursday. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said on Thursday, we had to wait for the written judgment to follow the oral one.

Standards and Privileges

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), I have concerns about the question that the report raises of consistency in dealing with individual cases. It would be wrong if we did not raise these matters on the Floor of the House, because the concerns—certainly those of Labour Members—about how these reports are dealt with must be addressed if we are to deal with similar issues in the future. I make no criticism of the Committee, the commissioner or anyone else.

The conclusion was reached that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) had behaved in an exemplary fashion since being placed under investigation, but I hope that any Member of this House would behave in that way and co-operate fully in such circumstances. Having spoken to some hon. Members who have been under investigation, I received the impression that they did exactly that.

I have one or two questions about consistency, which is all that I am bothered about. I understand that at least one case went to the Committee with the recommendation that it be referred to the Metropolitan police. What criteria were used to reach that judgment? I do not understand that, and I want to understand, because I am concerned about how these reports are written and how different Members are dealt with. What criteria does the commissioner use when he decides whether a case should go to the Metropolitan police?

Also, how many Members have claimed expenses without submitting receipts up to the £250 limit? I understand that some Members who have been investigated by the Metropolitan police and taken to court have been prosecuted for breaching that rule. How many of them, when found to be in breach of that rule by the commissioner, have been allowed to pay the money back?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The report states that Mr Laws stopped claiming when the rules relating to the maximum amount changed. Did my hon. Friend find it strange that the reason he gave for not putting in receipts was to disguise this relationship with his landlord, even though the landlord’s name was on the tenancy agreement?

[Clive Efford]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but if he will forgive me, I do not want to get drawn into the detail of the case against the right hon. Member for Yeovil. The concerns that the report has raised for me are general ones about how we should deal with everyone who comes under investigation, because, let us face it, any of us could come under investigation if someone made a complaint against us, and we would all want to be dealt with under the same rules.

Who has been allowed to pay back money and on what criteria? On what criteria have they been referred to the Metropolitan police, and on what criteria have they been dealt with by the Committee and had a penalty imposed on them, as recommended to us today? Does the fact that Members offer to pay the money back make a difference? This report refers to the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil paid money back, which seems to have been taken in his favour. Have other Members made such offers and, if so, has that affected how they have been dealt with?

I have read the report, and I have highlighted several passages that appear to be inconsistent. I find it difficult to understand, for example, how someone can be a lodger in a house to which they have contributed £100,000 for its purchase and can then state to the Committee that they have no financial interest in that house and that the financial interests of the landlord and the lodger are completely separate. I find that sort of thing very confusing and very inconsistent, and I want to know what criteria are being applied to MPs when these matters come before the commissioner and the Committee. There are serious inconsistencies in what is happening here, and I believe that they are worthy of further investigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The reason that I pause is that I am not sure whether responsibility for salmon is a devolved matter—[Interruption.] It is devolved; I see a nod from the Opposition Benches. Sadly, therefore, I cannot organise a debate on salmon in Scotland, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to a more generic point about resources flowing from Westminster to the north. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to debate that when the Scotland Bill returns.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the coalition agreement? I think that the country has a right to know exactly what state that document is now in. The Health and Social Care Bill is now at a pausing, listening and reflecting stage, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was severely reformed by the Lords last night and, on Tuesday, we had the debacle of the statement on off-quota higher education places. If the coalition document were brought to the Floor of the House, both Government parties could table amendments to it and we could debate in public exactly what is happening to the agreement and understand it in greater detail.

[Sir George Young]

On the various issues, we had a debate on the national health service on Monday, and I indicated a few moments ago that we would be seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The coalition is in good shape; we are getting on with strong, decisive, united government, which is what this country needs.