National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and Oliver Heald

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today we begin to restore the sovereignty of this House over our national health service. We begin to put patients at the heart of decision making. We will restore the responsibility of the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive national health service. We will tear the heart out of the hated Health and Social Care Act 2012. We will remove the health service commissioners’ obligation to put services out to tender. We will replace the 49% private patient cap, and allow the Secretary of State to set limits. We will prevent competition authorities from interfering in mergers that are in the interests of NHS patients. We will stop the sale of assets that are in the long-term interests of patients and our national health service. We will restore the powers of the Secretary of State to direct health commissioners. We will create a framework for national health service contracts that will put the interests of patients before competition. We will protect the NHS from the imposition of competition rules by the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, and give sovereignty to this House.

Through this House, the Secretary of State will be accountable for promoting a comprehensive national health service. If any Government dare to impose competition on our national health service in the future, they will have to come before the House and repeal this Bill, if it becomes an Act. We, as Members of the House, will be accountable to our constituents for how we vote in that debate. There will be no hiding place.

Some have expressed the fear that the Bill opens the door to further privatisation. It does not. I accept that the last Labour Government unlocked the door to competition, albeit in a modest and measured way. I voted against the creation of hospital foundation trusts, which introduced legally binding contracts with NHS commissioners; in retrospect it was a mistake, because it brought procurement law into parts of the NHS.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being so lucky in the draw. He has referred to competition. Does he not accept that Labour did much more than he is suggesting? The then Secretary of State, who is now the shadow Secretary of State, privatised an entire hospital in the east of England. That is privatisation. [Interruption.]

[Clive Efford]

It is not possible to compare what went on under the last Government with what has been introduced by the raw market mechanisms of the 2012 Act.

Non-league Football

Debate between Clive Efford and Oliver Heald

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This has been an informative and enjoyable debate. Although he has not spoken, I am pleased to see the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) in his place, because he and I made our own contributions to non-league football back in the early ‘80s when we ran Pembroke House youth club football team. His administration skills are legendary.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman was, of course, a fantastic coach, and we were the best team down the Old Kent road. Does he agree that what youth football does for the youngsters who play for the teams—instilling of a bit of discipline and team spirit and so on—improves their lives? Those youngsters did not end up being Giggs or anyone like that, but they have all gone on to very satisfactory futures.

[Clive Efford]

They have indeed, and I am still in touch with some of them. Youth football certainly makes a significant contribution, as many hon. Members have said in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). This is a timely debate because it comes a couple of days before national non-league day. In this period the premier league and many football league clubs are not playing; it is an opportunity for people to support non-league sides, which we encourage them to do.

National non-league day has had a significant impact on attendance over the past couple of years. Vanarama, which—surprisingly enough—sells vans, has said that it will contribute 10p for every fan who attends a conference game this week. If the number gets above 50,000, it will double its £10,000 contribution to Prostate Cancer UK. If that does not make people go out and support their non-league side, I do not know what will. Sadly, I cannot accept the invitation from Cray Valley in my own constituency this week because I will be in central London speaking to and welcoming the Darlo Mums, who are marching down from Jarrow to save our NHS. However, I wish Cray Valley all the best against Rochester on Saturday.

The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire raised some important issues and was right to highlight the problems at Hereford United. He reminded us of the spirit of Ronnie Radford and the way in which John Motson burst on to our television screens in that famous victory against Newcastle. The fact that such a club should be brought to its knees and face extinction because of poor management is a tragedy. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted how the Football Association and the leagues have got to get their act together in deciding who is a fit and proper person to run a club. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the important point that there should be registration before ownership. We need to sharpen up that process because too many people are gaining ownership of clubs before it is completed, and that is having devastating consequences for football clubs.

Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of football in their local communities—so many that in this short time I cannot mention everyone. I, too, think it important that the premier league and the FA better support football at the lower levels. When £835 million can be spent in the transfer market, but clubs such as Salisbury City, Hereford and others can nearly go out of existence over relatively tiny sums of money, there is something seriously wrong at the heart of our game and we need to do more.

I do not think we need another division below the football league. When resources and finances are so thinly spread at that level, it does not make sense to add another division and spread them even more thinly. The document put forward by the FA and Greg Dyke recommends strategic loan agreements. I would like those examined in more detail to see if more formal arrangements can be built up between lower league clubs and clubs that enjoy the riches at the higher levels so that investment can be made not just in players on loan, but in facilities, sending coaches down, training coaches and advising clubs on physio, diet and all the sorts of things that improve the game. With such investment at the lower level, we could increase the pool of talent there, and if we can increase the number of players enjoying the best facilities at the lower end of our national game, perhaps those diamonds in the rough will come through and benefit the elite game.

Many hon. Members have spoken about how community spirit is touched by football. There are few public bodies, organisations or businesses that touch our communities like football does. It has been at the forefront of tackling many social issues, such as racism and many forms of prejudice. I would challenge anyone to find another sport that has had a greater impact than football. It has had its problems, and still has problems that need to be addressed, but it makes a huge contribution and a big difference to our communities. It is absolutely vital. The hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire said that football can change the lives of young people, and we have all seen fine examples of that in our communities.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the impact football has had in their constituencies. I wish I could have gone into that in more detail. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) came up with the ultimate anecdote of community spirit, while the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) referred to being a touchline dad and to “Cruncher Evans”. Perhaps we should bear a thought for the players who might come across “Cruncher” in future, as well as wishing him the best for his future footballing career.

Football is vital to our local communities. We have a very rich sport, but unfortunately not enough of the resources at the highest level of the game reach down to the lower levels. Only a very small amount of that money getting down to the non-league level could make a huge difference not just to those clubs, but to the contribution they make to their local communities and to the production of fine footballers for future generations. I hope that the people who operate at the top of the game are listening to today’s debate, because hon. Members have done a fine job in representing football fans and bringing attention to the issues that need to be addressed if we are to save our game for the future.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between Clive Efford and Oliver Heald

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My old friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right in one respect: there are faults in all parties in the House and successive Governments in not tackling this issue early enough. However, I completely reject his criticism of the Mayor of London, because the Mayor’s comments predate the most recent allegations.

[Clive Efford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Heald]

No, I will not, because I have so little time. That is the way it is tonight.

I shall make three points. First, people in this country have a fundamental right to live under the rule of law, but Members on both sides of the House must look back on this period and ask themselves this: did we uphold the rule of law? As the hon. Gentleman said, journalists felt that they could break the law willy-nilly, and people felt that they could talk to Select Committees about breaking the law, and nothing would happen. That is a failure of this Parliament over a period of time to uphold one of the basic rights of our people.

That is why it is right that the Prime Minister has agreed to a full, judge-led, independent inquiry, and why it is right that we have a proper police investigation under Sue Akers to go after the evidence. Our Select Committees did a good job yesterday in showing that even the most powerful people in the land, and even the world, can be questioned before a Select Committee just like anyone else. That is how it should be in our country. People should not feel that they can get away with it.

Let us ask how we got into that position. Many hon. Members have said that after 1992, Labour politicians were desperate for the good opinion of the media. They went out to the Canary Islands and all sorts of places—[Interruption.] They went to the Cayman Islands and Australia too. They were out to curry favour with the media regardless. The combination of currying favour with the media and the sofa-style government that we had under Tony Blair meant that we ended up with the sort of situation that was described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who said that the Attorney-General was told in a letter from the police that a vast quantity of private information and criminality needed investigation, but nothing happened.

How did that happen? It should not have been possible, and there should have been a report to the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that no such report ever occurred. That reminds us of what the Butler inquiry said about sofa-style government, when there are no formalities. We ended up going off to war in Iraq without members of the Cabinet seeing all the papers. That same, sloppy approach is not the way to run a country. It is right that we have the inquiries, but the House must get together to ensure the proper rule of law.

My second point is that the separation of the criminal justice system from politicians is very important. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he expected the Prime Minister to be briefed by an assistant commissioner about an ongoing police inquiry. The assistant commissioner actually offered that service to No. 10, but Edward Llewellyn was absolutely right to say no, because we want that separation. The cosiness of the police and the media, and sofa-style government, blurs the formalities that protect our constitution.

Finally, I want to mention the presumption of innocence. When in opposition, it is easy to cast stones and to rely on bits of gossip and speculation as if they are evidence, but in this country, thank goodness, we have a fair system of trial with the presumption of innocence at its core. I would not want that to change. All those who throw stones and pretend that someone is guilty just because a newspaper says so ought to think about where that leads. Let us stick up for the constitutional principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and let us ensure that we continue to have fair trials.