National Health Service

Debate between Gareth Johnson and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Although the words “shocking legacy” are ringing in my ears, I find it difficult to believe them, given Labour’s legacy on the NHS compared with what it inherited in 1997. Expenditure was increased from £30 billion in 1997 to £103 billion when we left office, and we had record patient satisfaction ratings. It beggars belief that that can be considered a shocking legacy.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will continue my introduction and give way in a moment.

I wish to recognise the contribution of the NHS staff, who are the source of great pride. They have done such a great job, and continue to do so, even in difficult circumstances, in delivering the very high levels of patient satisfaction reported in the recent surveys.

In November 2010, the Backbench Business Committee selected my application for a debate on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department of Health, the NHS and public health. So many of the issues that have been raised are implanted in my mind, not least the loss of the funding for a new hospital that would have served many of my constituents in the south of Easington. I am concerned about the particular reference that has been made to that and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or the Minister would deal with that in their closing remarks. A value-for-money assessment was made by both the Department of Health and the Treasury and it was found that the best way to take forward that proposal was with public funding, rather than through the private finance initiative route. The disingenuous position repeated by those on the Government Benches, including the charges laid against the Labour Opposition about our support for PFI, has been compounded. I remind right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches that in the case of the new hospital planned for my area we were directed to the PFI route, despite the criticism that has come from the Secretary of State and other Members on the Government Benches.

I am pleased that the motion focuses on the failed personal pledges of both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. A key promise was made to increase real-terms expenditure on the NHS, but it is another broken promise. It is probably the most fundamental one, as the NHS is such a beloved institution of the whole British public. Before the election, the Conservatives promised to protect the NHS and give it a real-terms budget increase year on year. The coalition document promised a 0.4% real-terms budget increase for the NHS over the spending review period.

I am sure that we all saw the expensive billboards before the election, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) referred. They showed the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, saying:

“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”

That was not really about rebranding the NHS; it was more an exercise in conning the British public. Whereas Labour gave a guarantee to protect the front line of the NHS, the Health Secretary, then the shadow Health Secretary, saw a cynical opportunity to give a guarantee on spending. We now know from the Treasury’s own figures that that guarantee was false: it is a promise that has been broken. It was a guarantee that went against all the Tory mantra. We are constantly told by the Conservative party that public service delivery is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it—in fact, we heard that today from the Prime Minister in relation to police numbers. However, the Tory promise was never about protecting the NHS; it was about protecting the Tory brand.

Even the Tories’ biggest backers realise that the promise to increase funding on the NHS was a con. The Secretary of State cited James Purnell a little earlier, so perhaps I might cite Fraser Nelson, who is not a well-known socialist—he writes for The Spectator and is a right-wing commentator. He says:

“It has become clear now that there was a cynical competition to dupe the British public into believing that if they voted Tory at the General Election, the NHS would be safe.”

After 13 years of unprecedented rises in the NHS budget under Labour, and efficiency measures such as those on procurement—

Volcanic Ash (Impact on Aviation)

Debate between Gareth Johnson and Grahame Morris

Thursday 10th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr. Benton, for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in Westminster Hall. The issue of the volcanic cloud emanating from Iceland caused huge problems for people travelling abroad and for those trying to get home in April. British airspace was closed for six days, but it was also significant that the disruption lasted much longer than that. The problem also compounded the difficulties that the airline industry has been suffering. The recession hit the industry hard, and the grounding of all flights for days on end simply added to those difficulties.

Estimates vary—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) quoted some relating to the airport in her constituency—but the EU estimates that the ash crisis cost the airline industry £2 billion. We can all agree that there was significant loss to the industry. We shall probably never know the true figure. About 100,000 flights were cancelled in the relevant period. The industry must accept that running any kind of business will never be risk-free, but we must also recognise that April 2010 was an exceptionally tough month. Not since 11 September 2001 has aviation faced such a challenging time. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) mentioned the surreal experience of looking up at the sky and seeing not a single aeroplane or jet engine trail, for a protracted period; I think that was only the second time that has happened in my lifetime.

I want to mention the difficulties that travellers faced. The uncertainty of the situation meant that not only could people not return home, but they did not know when they would be able to do so. There were Dartford residents who were affected by the travel disruption and could not get home or travel abroad. The ash cloud problems also coincided with the school holidays, and many people who had gone on family holidays could not return home, which had a consequential impact on them. Even my Liberal Democrat opponent in the general election, Mr. James Willis, could not get home until just before the nominations closed. Obviously, I was deeply concerned. He is a decent chap. It was sad that even in the middle of that difficult time for travellers, one airline tried to avoid liability for refunding passenger tickets, which added to the misery, uncertainty and difficulty for those travellers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned leadership, which the country looked for during that period. Clearly, safety had to be the priority for the Government. They needed to ensure that it was safe for people to fly, but we need to consider whether more information on the ash cloud could have been gathered more quickly than it was, and whether flight restrictions could have been removed earlier, reducing the impact on travellers and airlines. The then Government’s initial approach was to claim that any ash in the sky meant that flights could not take place. We now have a new approach. I welcome last month’s rule change to allow flights when there is ash in the atmosphere at the safe level of 2 mg per cubic metre. We need to ensure that that is reviewed, and to consider whether the non-aviation options were properly thought through.

We also need to see whether the contingency plans shaped up. Has the Minister been able to get to the bottom of what happened to the 100 coaches we heard so much about—which were meant to bring stranded British subjects home at the same time that coaches were being used by travel companies, and were at a high premium? As far as I can tell they never materialised, so perhaps lessons can be learned from that. We need to learn such lessons, because we must ascertain whether the decisions that were made were too cautious. I believe it is inevitable that a similar situation will happen again—probably with the same volcano, whose name I shall not even attempt to pronounce. However, we can ensure that if planes can fly safely, they are allowed to do so.

We need also to learn the lessons about the repatriation of passengers, and what practical measures might have been possible to help passengers who were stuck abroad. Will the Minister consider the possibility of temporarily—I emphasise the word “temporarily”—waiving night-time restrictions on flights, to allow people to get home should a similar situation occur in the future?

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On deregulation, I appreciate that the Conservative party is committed to the deregulation Bill, but a fundamental point of passenger safety arises and we cannot allow compromise; it must be paramount. To allow commercial interests to influence our judgment would be a terrible mistake, with potentially dangerous consequences.

It was refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) suggest that perhaps the Government at the time were not to blame. Sometimes it is easy to throw rocks, even volcanic ones, at one’s opponents—in this case, the previous Government. A new phrase to use might be “tough on volcanic ash and tough on the causes of volcanic ash”.

On working with the authorities and technical people, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) talked about the technologies—I am not sure whether they are radar or infrared technologies.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Benton; I apologise.

My point is essentially about deregulation and not allowing it to compromise passenger safety. I would hate the drive to deregulation in the broader political environment to impinge on that, because it is vital.

[Gareth Johnson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must of course ensure that safety is treated as paramount in such situations, but it is also essential to adopt a common-sense approach. We should not enter a blame game, but should learn the lessons that are there to be learned, so that if the same situation arises again, as I believe it will, we shall be better prepared to deal with it, and so that people stranded abroad can be brought home and can fly as soon as it is safe. To learn the lessons, we need to work with the airlines, the Civil Aviation Authority and all the agencies involved, so that there can be proper contingency plans.

I agree that it is easy to look back at the volcanic ash problem with 20:20 hindsight and claim that we have all the answers, and that the previous Government should have done this or that better. That would not be fair in many instances, because at the time we faced a unique situation. However, a Government’s capability can be tested in unique situations. We witness the contingency plans—where they exist—the quality of leadership, and a Government’s adaptability in unpredictable situations and how they interact with different agencies. In the light of that, I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the aviation industry will be able to contribute to the scientific and technological assessments of flying into areas where ash is present in the atmosphere. I hope the technology that some airlines are already using—an issue touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge—will be considered for use in detecting the location of ash clouds and their density. I also hope that we continue to work in partnership with the engine manufacturers, because they understand better than anyone the capabilities of their engine and the circumstances in which it would be unsafe to fly using their engine type.

Yes, ash clouds can be extremely dangerous to aircraft, and the crew and passengers of the 1982 British Airways flight over Indonesia, which was mentioned earlier, can testify to that, but we need common sense to prevail. The zero-tolerance approach was clearly wrong—we know that now—and the repatriation of passengers lacked co-ordination. We need to learn from that and ensure that when this situation happens again, we are better placed to tackle it.