Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I am very pleased to have taken that intervention. I remember that one of the former Prime Ministers who supports us—Gordon Brown—wanted to introduce an opt-out system, but came up against a fairly immovable block in the then Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Sacks, who said then that at no cost could he commit the Jewish community to supporting it. That rather held matters up and the Government were then overtaken by other matters with that Bill, but yes, we will do that. I have been in touch, and we believe that the council itself has made an official statement supporting the Bill.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill, and I know that he has put a lot of hard work into securing it. As any Member who has dealt with a Bill in the House of Commons knows, a lot of effort goes on behind the scenes. He has given important assurances on an opt-out, particularly to communities such as the Jewish community, and it is important to convey that message across. I hope we will get further support on that basis.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my honourable colleague from our shared city—we are both immigrants to it, but we hold it very dear to our heart—and his support along those lines is most welcome. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has come in. I repeat my warm tribute to his leadership on the issue and to the tremendous help that I have received from his office in backing up the Bill. I am deeply grateful. I also took the opportunity to express a sincere thank you to the Prime Minister, who has taken a personal interest and lent her support. I know that he will welcome that, too.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate after the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who has ministerial experience in this sphere. I do not, but I have some experience in other spheres of finding money for it and I know how difficult that can be. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), Chair of the Select Committee, on her report. We in Coventry find it very timely, and we look forward in due course to the Minister’s taskforce and its report, leading, we hope, to what the hon. Lady very precisely referred to in terms of improvements to services—better services for children and adults on the ground, which is where it matters. She also said she found having to grapple with out-of-date figures—it is rather surprising that we should have them—frustrating. I therefore thought I would take part in the debate in order to bring up one or two up-to-date figures on a particular aspect of young persons’ and adolescents’ mental health that is becoming more and more prevalent, and disconcertingly and alarmingly so in Coventry: self-harm.

We have seen a terrible and frightening increase in self-harm over the past five years. The first figures we had were back in 2010 and the figures for 2014 have just come out. They show an alarming increase from 50 referrals in 2010 to over 300 in 2014. That is a terrifying rate of increase. It has been going pretty steadily at over 20% year in, year out, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) pointed out so tellingly, it points to the impact deprivation and poverty can have on children, as there is a fairly well-established causal link between pockets and areas of deprivation and poverty and the tendency among adolescents to self-harm and referrals.

Those referrals come on top of what we already know is a crisis in A and E. They are only exacerbating that, and leading to youngsters with terrible mental health problems being turned away—doors closed in their face. It is a situation that in Coventry has led to a clear and recognisable crisis, and to an emergency meeting of the scrutiny board to examine exactly what the situation is, to report on it, and to see what measures can be taken to deal with it.

It is often all too easy to blame lack of resources and the Government, but, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, there clearly is a lack of resources. Towards the end of my brief remarks, I will discuss the fact that mental health services have always been the Cinderella services of the health service. I think that is fairly well accepted both outside and within the NHS. If we are to embark on yet another reorganisation and integration of health services as a whole, I hope that the underfunding and the lack of past attention that has affected and led to the present situation in mental health services will not be overlooked. It is not as though all the services can be integrated equally or proportionately, but if certain services are not to be further damaged, they will need to receive particular recognition and get preferential priority in the integration—I do not like the word “reorganisation”—which all the parties agree needs to be done carefully. This should not be rushed. We do not want another reorganisation forced on the health service. It should be done sensibly and gradually, and with sensitivity to the individual needs of the services that are being integrated.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Caludon health centre at the University hospital Coventry does a very good job in very difficult circumstances? Yesterday, I met some young people from Coventry college who told me about the pressures that they were under. They are worried about exams and about whether they will be able to get a job after their exams, because the number of young people out of work in the west midlands is extremely high. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider all the pressures that young people face these days?

[Mr Robinson]

Yes, I do indeed. The pressure in the education system to achieve results at any cost simply adds to the problem, as do the deprivation and poverty to which other Members have referred. All those factors have resulted in a situation in which incidents of self-harm are increasing at the rate of 20% a year. Referrals in Coventry are going up, and that constitutes a crisis, given that our accident and emergency services are already overcrowded and hard pressed.

Let me explain what that crisis means in regard to the number of weeks involved. Normally, effective substantive intervention would be expected within 18 weeks, but in Coventry the average wait for a substantive intervention has been 44 weeks. That is in a sector in which early intervention is clearly the most effective route to the successful management and eventual elimination of a mental health condition. That simply is not good enough, and I put that to the Minister for consideration by his taskforce.

We have asked the local council what can be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has said, budgets have been heavily cut. According to current Government plans to reduce public expenditure to 1930s levels—from which I know the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has dissociated himself—Coventry would experience a further 50% cut over the next five years. There would be nothing left. Fortunately, however, that is unlikely to happen, as I am sure that there will be changes of one kind or another to those plans, or to those making the plans, in the very near future.

It is impossible for the councils to find more funds, because they are under tremendous pressure, but there has already been a £50 million cut in the budget for CAMHS. It has been cut from £766 million. I think that that relates to the £800 million figure quoted by my hon. Friend for Eastleigh—

Economy and City Link: Coventry

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I take back that request to the Serjeant at Arms and accept the hon. Gentleman’s apology. The mystery has been solved.

[Mr Robinson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this debate. The Minister also agreed to my taking part, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), whom I congratulate on his initiative. I also thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate.

The only mystery that remains to be solved is why exactly Jon Moulton made this acquisition in the way he did in an industry that was already in difficulty. One feared very much what the outcome would be for a company that had already experienced many years of extreme difficulty. The situation will no doubt be unfolded once the Department finishes its report and we have read its conclusions. Perhaps a further investigation will be necessary; indeed, my hon. Friend has called for one.

In the few minutes available to me, I want to address four aspects of concern. My hon. Friend has already said that we cannot be complacent in Coventry, but perhaps he will agree that the new leadership in Coventry has sent a very loud message that Coventry is open for business and to the new businesses of the 21st century. The internet and internet shopping are clearly going to generate a lot of such businesses. Indeed, we thought that that was what Mr Moulton was investing in and that there was a reasonable prospect for City Link’s future, although there was never any guarantee. It is a pity that the early venture has come to such a tragic and sad halt.

It is tremendous to see the approach being taken by Coventry’s leadership. After years of not making the progress we should have been making, the new leader, supported by her deputy, has made it plain that things have changed in Coventry’s approach to openness. We are looking to do things differently and are encouraging others to join us in a way that we might not have done in the past. It is in that spirit that we went down the City Link and other routes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

May I make it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend that in no way is this situation a reflection of the leadership of Coventry city council? I was analysing the general situation.

[Mr Robinson]

I take that point entirely and agree with my hon. Friend. Coventry has new leadership, but we have had a very bad setback. Some 400 jobs have been lost—which is a lot—on top of the other losses, to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred. We can ill afford such losses and we cannot and will not be complacent. That is why my hon. Friend wants to make sure that this has been properly handled.

I understand that Mr Jon Moulton, who guards his reputation jealousy—he has had a fairly good record up until now—is concerned that his motives be fully under- stood. The mystery is why on earth he invested to the extent he did in the first place, but that is for him to explain. He goes around saying that he has lost £20 million of his shareholders’ money—his company’s money—and £3 million of his own. That is a great pity, but he also caused the state to lose £20 million and—this is my second point, which I will come on to in a moment—1,000 drivers to lose their jobs. One can only ask: why would anyone put themselves in a position where ultimately they are held responsible for the collapse of their company? That will no doubt come out in the Department’s report.

The closure on Christmas eve was unpleasant. That is not a serious way for a businessman who guards his and his company’s reputation so jealously to run an enterprise for which planning is essential. That raises questions that should not have been raised, but Mr Moulton will now have to wait while they are investigated and we get answers.

I know that the Minister agrees with me. When we met the Business Secretary, he was very forthcoming and said that he wanted to make sure that nothing odd was going on. He was phoned on 23 December—one day before the announcement was made. The company had been trading with bad losses for months beforehand under Mr Moulton’s ownership and for years before that. What happened is hardly a surprise. The inevitable impression is that it was somehow or other contrived to be done in that way at that time. That impression will persist until we get the Department’s report in, I hope, the very near future.

If the report calls for an investigation, I know that the Minister—whom I am very pleased to see in her place—and the Secretary of State will approach it in the spirit of totally dispassionate and rigorous scrutiny. If such an investigation is needed, we shall, despite whatever embarrassment it might cause to those who agreed with Mr Moulton’s decision to make his investment, which has cost the taxpayer £20 million-plus, go to whatever lengths necessary to get to the truth of the matter. We have to do that for Coventry. We have made a new start and we are doing relatively well. We are certainly doing much better than we were. Frankly, we can do without setbacks such as this one, which came out of the blue on Christmas eve.

We look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope that she will answer the points that have been made about the report. Before I finish, I have one more important point to put to her. I am sure that everything about this incident will come out in the report, but I hope that it will also address a more general point that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South. It does not relate directly to this administration, but it does concern the 1,000 self-employed drivers. As I understand it, the drivers were self-employed but, under the terms of their contract, were not allowed to work for anybody else. They were self-employed, but they were really employed by the employer. This is a fine point of law. I am sure that the law is quite clear that the drivers were technically self-employed and that they were therefore not eligible for redundancy pay or jobseeker’s allowance, even though they had been paying in.

This is a wider point about self-employment. I know that the Treasury does not really like self-employment. It is not entirely right in that, but it is not entirely wrong either, as is always the case with the Treasury, damn it! This may be a narrow point, but the Treasury and the legal department should look at it in the context of the whole. It cannot be right that self-employed people who are making a contribution, paying their way and making no demands can end up in this situation.

There is good news about Coventry, with its new leadership. This is a setback, so we must have a report to clear it up and to see, once and for all, exactly what went on. Lastly, the position of the drivers has brought out a general point for us all to consider, and we wish to hear the Minister’s views on it.

General Practices (Coventry)

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

This debate might not be as lively as the debate on post offices in May, when we also had the pleasure and privilege to have you presiding over us, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, we have an important topic to debate and I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is ready to respond, because we have one or two questions for him. I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) would like to take part and he has my willing acquiescence. I do not intend to detain the Minister or the House for long this evening, but I wish to put to him a point that was made to me in a precise and graphic way by the local medical committee for Coventry—it is also for Rugby, but in this debate I am principally speaking as the Member of Parliament for Coventry North West.

The situation has been described as a “crisis”. A letter, almost a cri de coeur, went out from the local medical committee on behalf of GPs, issued in the name of the chairman of Coventry local medical committee, Dr Peter Whidborne. He said that,

“due to increasing workload, and decreasing resources, general practice has now reached crisis point.”

That is what triggered my interest in this matter and my concern as the local MP, and it was reinforced by many anecdotal and personal encounters with residents in my constituency—I am sure my hon. Friend will confirm the same thing for Coventry South—who said that they cannot get appointments with GPs. Patients are finding the situation increasingly frustrating, and an assiduous campaign has been waged by certain elements of the popular press against the 2004 GPs contract and all the weaknesses that we know it contained, yet there is also the reality of the pressures under which GPs operate.

The public’s general impression is that the previous Government granted GPs all too easy a deal but that GPs have not responded in kind, and that despite the general improvement in their terms and conditions, rather than improving services they have in fact responded with a decrease in the level of service provided. Many would agree that there has been such a decrease, but they would disagree that that is due entirely, or even mainly, to the 2004 contract changes. In fact, it is a reflection of the general unease throughout the whole health care service. Such unease is reflected in, among other things, reliable figures produced by the Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions, which I will refer to in a moment. On access to GPs, as with other areas of the health service such as A and E departments in the acute hospitals or services for elderly people who suffer from a chronic condition, people are finding it increasingly difficult to get the level of care required, and the resources needed to provide it, because of the stretching of health service provision at a time when resources are relatively stagnant.

Let me cite some figures that I think graphically illustrate the situation we are facing. In Coventry, the number of people emigrating from other countries is increasing and the number of GPs is decreasing—the figure from the Deloitte study is something like a 2.5% decrease in the total number of GPs over the last five years, at a time of increasing demands on them in terms of visits and patients to be seen. Let us remember that 90% of all patients are first seen in a primary practice by GPs before they access any other services offered by the NHS, including the general hospital, and that figure is increasing every year. For the first time in the NHS’s history, however, the number of GPs is shrinking. We must deal with that basic fact at a time when numbers should be increasing.

I am pleased that the Labour party has pledged—this is not a party political point—to increase the number of GPs by 8,000, and to raise the money for that and for wider £2.5 billion spending on the health service through a mansion tax and a tax on tobacco companies. I am sure that in so far as such measures have success—I have some experience of that with the windfall tax that some Members may remember—the latter idea will find widespread support throughout the House. If at the end of the day the mansion tax does not prove successful for whatever reason, the Government will have to look elsewhere, but the need for additional resources can no longer be denied.

Shortly before coming to the Chamber for the debate, I heard on the news that the Secretary of State has said that the reconfiguration involves not only integration of care for the elderly and social care with the mainstream health care services. That is important, but it also involves dealing with the divisions between the acute hospitals, which take the bulk of the spend, and GPs. The reconfiguration must mean that more is done by GPs when services can be sensibly provided by them, and that less is done in hospitals. I believe I am correct that that idea was first mooted by Lord Darzi in around 2008-09. The word used at the time was “polyclinics”, which require a lot of investment. In the interview on television news, the Secretary of State said words to the effect that we need more GPs and 15,000 more community workers in GP practice to make it a success, both of which clearly require more money.

Somehow or other, the Government must face up to the fact that, when it comes to claims for money, services to patients in Coventry and cities throughout the country must be increased. Otherwise, we will have more closures of local management committees and GP practices. Some 518 UK practices have closed in the past five years. Others have expanded, but in Coventry alone, eight major practices have closed. We have shrinkage of capacity and an increase in demand. By the definition of those two statements, we have a crisis, which is the subject of our debate.

Will the Minister tell us how far the Government have got with the pilot scheme under the clinical commissioning group in north Lancashire? The pilot intends to find out how the additional resources—£1 million has been put up—can be fed in without taking away from other parts of the health service, which it is important to emphasise. How is that working out?

That point came to my attention with the letter and prompted me to apply for the debate. The situation was highlighted in an early-day motion back in June. I did not sign it at the time but have rectified that. It was tabled by a Member who speaks for the Liberal party and seconded by two distinguished Labour Members, a former Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), a previous Labour Secretary of State for Health—he was Secretary of State in one of the earlier Labour Administrations. An amendment that I would be interested in supporting was tabled by a Government Member. He said that money was available for that pilot study. I would like to hear how it is making services more effective and providing more resources effectively for the delivery of GP services.

There is a conundrum. Why are GP practices not as attractive as they ought to be to new entrants? Fewer of those qualifying in the medical profession want to go into general practice, hence we have a net decline in the total numbers at the very time when, for all the reasons I have given, we should be increasing those numbers. Why is it so difficult? When one gets into a practice, and before becoming a partner, one gets more than £50,000 a year. Beyond that, when people become partners, they get approaching £100,000 and sometimes more, even in the initial stages. The average pay for GPs in Coventry is more than £100,000 a year.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Some months ago, I visited one or two different general practices in Coventry. The disparity in medical technology was startling. I have raised that in the House before, but I hope the Minister will touch on the reasons why we get such disparities.

[Mr Robinson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Some 10,000 GPs—I am sure these figures are well researched by Deloitte—have expressed an intention to retire in the next five years. That is 2,000 a year, and Labour is promising to increase the number of GPs by 8,000. We will therefore need considerably more than that just to remain where we are now. What are the projections for doctor qualifications and the division between secondary and primary care? Are we catering for enough or will we have a continuing crisis with people blaming the previous contract, as they do in the press all the time, when in fact there are simply not enough doctors or resources to go around?

I do not want to say that all doctors are perfect. They are no more perfect than the rest of the human race. The simple fact is that they are under strain. I could cite many instances, but I would like to mention one in particular. Dr Jamie Mcpherson, the secretary of the local medical committee in Coventry, is a very fine and dedicated GP whom I have known for years—he was one of the first people to come and see me when I was first elected—through the troubled years when Lady Thatcher’s Governments were first introducing tremendous cost pressures. When there was the idea that GPs would be budget holders of practices, he came to see me and said, “We don’t want that. We are aware we have to improve, but we want to be doctors serving the community.” That was his view. There is always a tension between the pressure to make GPs into budget holders who look at costs and the need for them to be committed to what they are really there for: serving the community as doctors.

I said I would give plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South to speak and I intend to do so. Before I sit down, however, I would like to raise a few more points. What are the Government’s plans to ensure that there are more GPs, not five years out but in the next year or two? Can we expect any net increase in resources and in the number of GPs? Do we have any plans to have 15,000 extra community care health workers? It seems to me that we have an undue concentration on the reorganisation of the secondary sector. We have always had, in this House and outside, a top-down preoccupation with the secondary sector, the acute hospital, as if we solve everything by a concentration on it.

When I received the letter from the Coventry GPs, I realised that an increasing problem relates to the place that GPs occupy within the health community. What progress is being made in north Lancashire? What are the Government’s plans in the next year or two—they must have them, because they budget over three years—for the number of GPs, increasing resources and the establishment of new buildings?

I would like to mention another point that has been brought to my attention. There has been some investment in new buildings for GP practices. Has that investment been made with a view to them becoming polyclinics and taking on more of the “routine” jobs, if we can call them that? They are still very specialist and require trained nurses, which is why Labour has plans for 20,000 more nurses—not all, perhaps, for GP surgeries—and 8,000 more doctors. They are very skilled jobs, even though they are more routine. How much of the investment in new buildings for GPs has been devoted to the provision of a wider range of care? I ask that because it is clear that the capital cost of investing in providing new premises for practices is one of the stumbling blocks to getting new entrants into GP practices.

The other point I want to draw attention to when it comes to the Government’s plans, in addition to whether there is a problem with the practices and the capital costs of buildings, relates to women GPs. Nearly half of all GPs are now women—I think it is roughly 50%—and they need to be able to work part time. We therefore need a flexible contract. Is it flexible and is flexibility encouraged? They have a tremendous and increasing role to play.

Those are the questions I wanted to put to the Minister. We are very pleased to see him in his place and I am very pleased that we are having this debate.

Passport Office (Delays)

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but sadly it is not just that line that needs to be beefed up; the whole Passport Office needs to be brought under control. This is crisis management and management by panic only, and at the moment—I will come on to some illustrations—things are totally out of control.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

When the service is up and running it is pretty good, but the problem is that the depth of the cuts has taken its toll. Although people are being brought in for a temporary period, we need to resolve the problem with a longer-term solution because this is unfair on families.

[Mr Robinson]

Exactly. My hon. Friend has similar problems in Coventry South to those in Coventry North West, although they appear to be more acute in my area. I will refer the Minister to an acute problem regarding the Durham office and child passports being issued for the first time.

Badger Cull

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I thoroughly agree and thank my hon. Friend for that apposite intervention.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who represents a farming constituency, and who indeed is a farmer himself, was right when he said that vaccination would not have been an absolute solution for mad cow disease and that it is not yet a science-based solution to this problem. I will mention in passing something I read in the March edition of a scientific journal—I do not suppose many colleagues will have heard of it. It talked about novel particulate vaccines utilising polyester nanoparticles, or bio-beads, which I assume would be ingested orally, that work rather counter-intuitively with the animals and could be a way forward. I do not know about that, but it is clear to me that much less research is now being done. Could not all the money that is being spent—wasted, frankly—on the culls be put into vaccine research? Ultimately, that is the only solution. A vaccine will not be a silver bullet, but it could be effective alongside all the measures the Government are considering, as part of a shared policy.

I will end my remarks by joining Members on both sides of the Chamber in saying how great it is that this debate has been arranged by the Backbench Business Committee. It is absolutely perfect. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds is perhaps lucky that the report is not yet out. If it had been, he might have had much less to say. He must accept that there is never a perfect time for these things. I congratulate the Committee, because I think that this has been one of the best debates.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend not think that there is sufficient evidence from Scotland showing how the vaccine worked there?

[Mr Robinson]

To be honest, I do not know. I have read as much as I can. But I do know from the evidence so far that a vaccine would be much more humane and, if we put the resources into getting it, much more likely to succeed, taken with other measures, than the culls. The culls are counter-productive, because they are spreading the disease. They are miles off their targets. I cannot imagine why farmers would want to waste more money on them. I hope that the Government and the Opposition will now get together to find a way forward, because it is urgently needed. It is a challenge, but there is no better time to get a cross-party policy on the matter.

West Midlands and Coventry

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be involved, for the first time, in a debate that you are chairing, Ms Osborne. I also take the opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for granting us the debate.

I will start with an overview of the employment situation in Coventry. Coventry suffers from high unemployment, with just less than 10,500 claimants; that is above the west midlands average, which, in turn, is well above the UK average. The public sector accounts for 23% of the total employed, which is more or less the same throughout the west midlands. In the past six months, there have been 1,648 redundancies in the public sector. Coventry was home to a number of national public bodies and has been hit harder by public sector job cuts: 155 jobs have gone at Becta, 153 at the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, with 400 more by the end of the year; and 258 at the Skills Funding Agency. Additionally, at least 620 jobs have been cut by local authorities and other public services; the main casualty so far has been Coventry city council. In the private sector in the past six months, according to Jobcentre Plus, there have been 1,237 redundancies, with 204 in the manufacturing sector and 38 in a small catering company.

Coventry is a city where many jobs can be lost and won in the space of a day. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), will no doubt be aware of the Gateway development, which was designed to create 10,000 jobs and had secured £250 million in private sector investment to develop airport infrastructure, a technology hub and a business and distribution park. However, both bids by the local enterprise partnership, for enterprise zone status and to the regional growth fund, were unsuccessful. I understand that, despite the plans to go ahead, the project could now be in jeopardy, given the Chancellor’s recent announcement of £110 million for highways infrastructure improvements. The money from the Treasury would need to be fully integrated with the Gateway scheme, which has allocated funds to a solution for the Tollbar issue—most of the Coventry and Warwickshire MPs know what I am referring to—or else the project could be scrapped. Can the Minister update us about what he understands to be the progress in that matter?

On the problems facing small businesses in particular, I have already mentioned a small business in Coventry that was forced to lay off 38 people, and there are 9,240 small businesses in Coventry, with 44,090 in Coventry and Warwickshire county. That example is symptomatic of the problems facing small businesses throughout the west midlands; 31% of them miss out on growth opportunities because they cannot get credit from the high street banks and 70% experience late payment and have cash-flow problems. Furthermore, the Government must take steps to simplify the tax system and to introduce targeted VAT cuts for key sectors, as a temporary measure. There are also problems at big companies, and we have held various meetings with the Rolls-Royce combined shop steward representatives. In particular, we have some concern about Ansty, despite the company’s assurances.

On young people’s prospects, I have heard a lot from young people in my constituency about their employment anxieties. To take one example, highly skilled medics are graduating from the universities in the Coventry area and are unable to find work. I am concerned that we are not retaining the skills in the area that are necessary to regain a balanced economy. The Minister might be aware of Coventry’s recently launched plan for 100 apprentices in 100 days, and it is hoped that 100 firms will join the scheme. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward proposals to encourage firms to take on apprentices, with a view to giving them a full-time job?

Not all is doom and gloom in the region, however. The manufacturing sector has a vital role in the recovery of the west midlands economy. The biggest recruiter has been Jaguar Land Rover, which has two bases in Coventry and is powering ahead with a multi-million pound investment; it has taken on 525 new staff throughout its businesses. The other big recruiter has been Ricoh Arena, with 86 posts, mainly in catering. The most symbolic deal for the city has been the news that car production is set to return—we hope—to the site of the former car plant at Browns Lane.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s comprehensive review of the situation in Coventry. I am pleased that he is emphasising some positive aspects; but, sadly, the return of any sort of car production to Browns Lane crashed when the Government turned down a bid from a local company under the regional development fund, with which we have so far had no success for Coventry city.

[Mr Cunningham]

I was aware of that, but there are still indications that something might happen, although the possibility is pretty remote given what my hon. Friend has said.

Dangerous Dogs

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which I think has been welcomed by all parties in the House and by areas throughout the country. For that reason, I hope we can keep the debate on the strictly all-party basis it deserves. That will certainly be the tenor of my remarks throughout.

More than 6,000 postmen a year are bitten or attacked in one form or another by dogs. There are approximately 10 attacks per constituency per year, so it is a matter in which we all have a direct and important interest. Indeed, the devolved Parliament in Scotland has legislated on the issue, and Northern Ireland is in the process of doing so.

The reason why I have called for this debate relates to a nasty incident in Coventry involving a young girl, Alicia Foskett, whose mother, Sarah, has, without a great deal of encouragement, led a campaign. Under existing law, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 excludes private property from any criminal provision, so Sarah Foskett felt that, at best, she got passive help from the police and local council. That might be understandable in the context of the present law, which I wish to address. I hope to leave as much time as I can for the Minister and other MPs to respond, but I cannot leave too much time because it is only a half hour debate. The support for Sarah Foskett seemed inadequate, so she led a strong and courageous single-woman campaign to raise the profile of the issue in Coventry and has done extremely well. I am pleased to say that the police are now giving her a lot of support in the civil action she intends to take.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is only after the event that the police are actually doing something. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pity they did not do something beforehand?

[Mr Robinson]

I agree. They should have given much more positive support beforehand, but they could not take any action under the existing legislation. I will come back to that in a moment, but it is one of the principal things that needs to be addressed. As things stand, the case is for a civil action rather than criminal proceedings.

As I have said, this is not a party political issue. Indeed, the Prime Minister in a letter to the Communication Workers Union just before the election, when he was Leader of the Opposition, made it clear that he and the Conservative party were very much in favour of the action that I wish to recommend. He wrote:

“We support extending dangerous dogs law to cover all places including private property”.

That is a clear statement from the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister. I hope that the Government can find some impetus in the light of that support.

The more general statistics are interesting, but I will not detain hon. Members with them for too long. I have already mentioned that 6,000 postal workers are injured every year. Some 2,500 adults and 2,700 children are treated for injuries every year. In the past four years, six children and two adults have been killed. The attacks seem to come in spates. The past few years have seen a further spate of attacks in London that have been so bad that the Met has set up its own special dog unit in response.

Public Spending (Coventry)

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise for having been a minute or two late, although the debate might have started early. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend make a valuable point. For a long time, the rape crisis centre in Coventry has struggled, to say the least, to get resources, and the cuts will make the situation worse. Do the figures for women who are abused or raped in Coventry—or anywhere else for that matter—not call into question the Government’s policy on cutting legal aid and funding for citizens advice bureaux, because vulnerable people, and particularly women, will often use those agencies?

[Mr Robinson]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Perhaps I may take a second to say that I think my hon. Friends want to say a word, if they are able to catch your eye, Mrs Riordan, and if we have time, about the wider aspects of the issue. After all, if more women are trapped in violent relationships there will be greater mental, physical and sexual health problems for them as a result, with an increased cost to the taxpayer. The NHS will have to cope when it is already under tremendous pressure and its budget is being dramatically cut. The issue is wider than just the reduction, although the Minister needs to explain how anyone can justify cutting the number of Coventry’s specialist domestic abuse officers from eight to two and reducing rape support resources, at the same time as other measures will clearly increase the likelihood of the problem that those staff and resources are meant to deal with. It seems crude and harsh, and we wonder whether it is strictly necessary to go along that path.

I want to mention the women’s voluntary organisations. Overall, the council, in line with other councils, faces cuts of about £38 million in its grant from central Government. A number of streams from that are for voluntary organisations, and those are due to end; some have already ended. Those voluntary organisations face increasing demand from the communities they serve, for the reasons we have been analysing. As hardship increases and cuts bite in all the areas I have mentioned, demand will increase. As resources are cut there will be greater pressures on hospital services and the police, which are also being cut. There will be a double whammy—cuts on one hand and increased need on the other.

Women’s voluntary organisations appear from the study to be particularly vulnerable, with some expecting cuts of up to 70% of their funding next year. I can inform the Minister, if she wants to deal with them individually, of the types of voluntary organisations that are particularly badly affected. Can that be looked at again? We do not expect answers to everything today, but we would like some undertaking from the Minister to check out the research funding and reconsider Government policy in the light of that. She could then tell us, “Yes, that is indeed our policy, and although we did not intend the consequences, those are the consequences and you will have to live with it.” If that is the Government’s message, they should be straightforward with the people of Coventry—the women of Coventry—and say, “This is the price that we are asking Coventry women to pay to put right the faults, and the massive irresponsible financial borrowings.” That is all, of course, in the context of reducing the deficit caused by private sector bankers.

That seems a pretty harsh message to send to the women of Coventry, and if that is the best the Government can offer, I warn them now that the people of Coventry will not be impressed. They will in due course have occasion to express their own opinion about a Government who have been as hard-hearted and indifferent to the cause of women and children as the present Government appear to be.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House recalls that the catastrophic problems of infected blood supplied by the NHS date back to the 1970s and 1980s, infecting 4,670 patients and causing what Lord Winston described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS; notes that successive administrations only very partially responded to this catastrophe by setting up and funding the MacFarlane Trust, the Skipton Fund and the Eileen Trust; regrets the past refusal to accept the principal recommendation of the Independent Public Inquiry into the supply of contaminated NHS blood to haemophilia patients, chaired by Lord Archer and established and financed by private initiative and funds, relating to compensation for the victims and set out in paragraph 6(h) of chapter 12 of the Archer Report; further notes that earlier this year the reasons for rejecting this recommendation were challenged successfully in the High Court, which quashed the decision; believes that this ruling constitutes an appropriate moment for the present Government, which bears no responsibility for the inadequate and misjudged policies of successive previous administrations, to extend an apology to the surviving 2,700 sufferers, their families and the bereaved; and calls on the Government to alleviate their intense hardship and suffering by accepting and implementing the recommendations of the Archer Report despite the intense financial pressure on the public purse at this time.

I would like to say a few things by way of preliminary background to this debate, some of which may reflect on the interchanges we have just had on the amendment. Opposition Back-Bench Members, and many Government Members, are pleased that the whole idea behind the initiative on Back-Bench business and the excellent Committee established to promote it is that Back-Bench Members should have the ability to move substantive motions on the Floor of the House on which they can vote. That is what, in effect, we have secured today. Not only would the amendment, had it been chosen, have wrecked the whole substance and heart of the motion, but it would have wrecked the intention behind the Backbench Business Committee.

I thank the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), both of whom were good enough, in their wisdom, to select the bid made initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who, of course, is now a member of the shadow Government, and is therefore unable to move the motion today. He has kindly asked me to pick up the baton, which I am honoured to do, and we therefore have the opportunity today to debate a substantive motion on the Floor of the House.

The Government have missed a huge opportunity. In drafting the motion, I placed great emphasis on making it an all-party motion reflecting the views of every Member of the House in a balanced way, and it has commanded the support of the victims of what was the “worst treatment disaster”—as it was described by Lord Winston, whose mother was, I think, terribly hurt in this way—in the history of the NHS. As the motion makes clear, the coalition Government bear no responsibility for the maladministration, the misjudgment and the inadequate judgments of previous Administrations.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does that not make it more significant that the Government, who had no responsibility for this situation, tried to move a wrecking amendment that would have totally sabotaged what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve on behalf of the people concerned?

[Mr Robinson]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. I am very pleased to welcome the Secretary of State to the debate, because it gives it prominence and substance. The Backbench Business Committee has a real role to play—we have had a good debate on Afghanistan too. However, I saw the Secretary of State shake his head to say that the amendment is not a wrecking amendment. None the less, those of us who attended a meeting yesterday with the victims of blood contamination were hoping for an amendment that we could support, and he could have done something about that.

The Secretary of State bears no responsibility for what has happened. The NHS supplied contaminated blood. I will not go into individual cases, except for one in my own constituency, which I have been following ever since the victim first approached me many years ago. This goes back to the mid-1970s, to the Callaghan and Wilson Labour Governments and to the Thatcher Government, and, of course, to the subsequent response to those ill-advised, inadequate judgments, made mostly by officials or under their strong advice—clearly that is the case in these cases—from the last Government principally, although it even pre-dates them to some extent. We are not trying to blame the present coalition Government, but there are things that they could have done, the cost of which would have fallen well short of the £3 billion that will allegedly be the cost of implementing the Archer report.

As hon. Members will recall, the Archer report was set up under the Blair Government—in 1997-98, I think—at which time I was at the Treasury. People put it to me, “You were at the Treasury at the time. Why didn’t you do something?” We did not have the report then. We had made papers available. It was a privately funded and excellent report, which I commend to all Members, but we did not know what it was going to recommend. Unfortunately, I left the Treasury before I was confronted with the implications of the report. However, under the last two Labour Administrations, there were ample opportunities for us to respond more fully, generously and comprehensively, in human terms, to the suffering of the victims.

This was an unparalleled disaster in NHS treatment history involving thoroughly blameless individuals. I met one yesterday—a gentleman from Doncaster—who had been knifed, rushed to the accident and emergency department at Rotherham and given two pints of blood, from which he subsequently contracted HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. He is now totally incapacitated, and has been asked to live, after capital payments of £25,000—of great value, of course, but not enormous—on £107 a week.

The Government could have said, “Well, we know there is a problem with, for example, the Skipton Fund, so we will take some steps to move that up towards the level of what the previous Administration made available—inadequate though it was—in respect of HIV/AIDS.”

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Geoffrey Robinson

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—I am so sorry—and other very distinguished honourable dissidents opposite, who are clearly being silenced for some reason or other; I cannot comment on why. I thought the amendment very apropos and exactly to the point in all respects. I am sure that it has not been withdrawn, so quite why it has not been chosen for debate I cannot think. It is a pity, because we could have probed even further the support of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for it and for the package as a whole, which he was trying to defend last Wednesday with as much discomfort as is evident amongst the Liberals who have not yet entirely been bought by, or who have not bought into, the so-called coalition policies.

It is very sad. There has been nothing sadder, in my opinion, than the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who is now the Business Secretary, coming around to explain why he supports the Budget. One of the two reasons that he gave was essentially that he had been, belatedly—I think his leader got there first—to see the Governor of the Bank of the England, who had assured him that a crisis was imminent, that we were going to be downgraded and that we would be in the same position as Greece, all of which would happen in a matter of days or hours, if he and the Liberal party did not agree to every measure that the coalition subsequently put forward. All of that should have been entirely predictable at any point before or during the election, even as the bond market strengthened and the UK position strengthened during the election, and even as we learned afterwards that the funding requirement is going to be £20 billion to £30 billion less than expected. Apparently, the leadership of the Liberal party fell for the oldest trick in the book, the bankers’ scare, which has gone on for centuries—classically, of course, with Montagu Norman and all the rest in the 1930s taking that party and this country to the brink of collapse.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the same Governor of the Bank of England who backed the stimulus under the previous Government is now backing the present Government’s policies—to the detriment of the public?

[Mr Robinson]

I note also that when the Governor was still an economist, before he converted to being a banker, he signed the famous letter of 364 economists, which he has now, in a piece of classic recantation, given up on.

All those considerations point to the fact that events could have been predicted and should have been accommodated. We should not have reached the situation in which we had the Business Secretary proudly telling the House—I still cannot believe this every time I read it:

“Those factors drove the economy in terms of demand”—

the factors being monetary policy and devaluation of the pound—

“and they will continue to do so.”

So, we are to have monetary easing and a continued devaluation of the pound. I do not think that either is remotely likely. He went on:

“There is a reason for believing that that is what will happen: the Governor of the Bank of England called for this Budget and has now got it, and he has every reason to understand the need for monetary policy to support recovery.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 316.]

Well, over to you, Mervyn, and good luck!

It really is absurd. It is one thing to hand over control of the money supply and monetary policy to the Governor. We did that back in 1997, and I think that was a good move. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) nods, and I know that he was in agreement with that move. However, it is quite another thing to say, “Look, we are giving up on fiscal policy too; you can have the whole of the economy.” When we did what we did, we joked amongst ourselves that we had got rid of one half of economic policy—notably the monetary side—to the Governor and that it would only be a matter of time before he laid claim to and was given the whole of it. Joke though that was, it has come to pass under this Government. That is sad and regrettable. The Work and Pensions Secretary is sincere in what he wants to do, but he has had to absorb many cuts, which will make his job much more difficult, as was brilliantly exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who spoke for the Opposition.

However, it is not just that. The only two sure things about the Budget is that it will increase unemployment and reduce growth. That we can predict, because the Office for Budget Responsibility has told us. Beyond that, the Government refuse to give any distributional analysis. Beyond the second year, we do not know what will happen, except that the OBR has pencilled in some figures for growth that it says are hazardous in the extreme.

The Budget is an enormous gamble at the great cost of the working people in this country. It is a gamble based on the assumption that the Governor will increase quantitative easing when he said he would not. Perhaps in some magical way he will take other powers to deal with the fiscal constraints imposed by the Budget, because he can do nothing else. He cannot reduce interest rates much more, unless he wants to reduce them from 0.5% to 0%, or unless he starts shelling money out, which is hardly credible. He said he would not do any of those things, so the truth is that we face a situation in which the future of the country is being gambled.

Apart from the good intentions of, and the megalomania that seems to be developing in, the Bank, that gamble rests on three factors: an increase in inventories, meaning an increase in output; an increase in investment; and an increase in private sector activity. Who really believes in their heart that any of those factors can be counted on, especially given that the Government have made the investment route highly unlikely by reducing capital allowances? They are served at the moment by a Financial Secretary who told the Committee that considered the previous Finance Bill that they would reduce such allowances—on nearly all counts, and they have been as good as if not better than their word. He could see no reason why investment should not be reduced to the cost of amortisation in manufacturing or industrial enterprises. If that is the negative, neutral view of the need for increased investment and output that infuses the Budget, and in particular the crucial elements highlighted by the OBR—it says that there is a need for greater investment and output, and to rebalance exports—we are in for a big let down on that gamble.

Let us take one other example—Sheffield Forgemasters. Anybody who has dealt with the Government knows that it is virtually impossible to get money out of a shareholder executive. It is like getting money out of a stone, but the firm reached a conditional agreement. That would have made an enormous contribution to the rebalancing of the economy, including in respect of import substitution, and now those products will come in from Japan, because the arrangement was cancelled. I am afraid that in their tone and their measures, the Government are making recovery immensely more difficult and, far from recovery, we face a further period of prolonged deflation.