Covid-19

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood); we share the same hospital trust and I was struck by the fact that he appears to think the diminution of staffing there somehow just happened by accident, when in fact his Government have been in power for 10 years. Throughout those years, there were cuts in our area: in the trust covering West Yorkshire, which the hon. Gentleman shares with me, there are 2,000 fewer beds in the health and care sector than there were when Labour left office.

It is probably no surprise that the chief executive has told both of us what is happening in that hospital trust: there are now 240 cases of covid in the hospitals we share, whereas there were only 170 at the height of the pandemic. The chief executive also told both of us that the trusts are now closing operating theatres, putting off operations and not allowing relatives of patients to visit. Of course covid is a problem—of course it was unexpected —but the truth is that the cuts went too deep and the NHS was left without adequate resources even in a normal year, never mind in the face of a pandemic.

The point I want to make, however, is this. I represent some of the poorest communities in our country, as many Opposition Members do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, we know that this disease affects different parts of the population in different ways. In the former mining villages that I represent, the number of people infected has increased almost threefold in the last three and a half weeks because covid attacks deprivation—that is what it does.

It is no use avoiding the central issue of the character of society that the Tories have built over the last 10 years —the cuts, the austerity, the hunger, the poverty, the polluted air that we breathe, the poor housing and so on. Here are some facts for the House to consider. The covid mortality rate among the most deprived communities is 128 per 100,000 people infected. In the least deprived communities, it is 58. This disease is attacking poverty—poverty that the Tories created, in a system subjected to the cuts that they imposed.

They cannot say that they were not aware of this. Sir Michael Marmot, a leading physiologist, wrote a report in February this year, before covid had begun to really affect us. In that report, he said to the Government that the more deprived an area, the shorter the life expectancy. What a scandal that that should be the case in Britain in 2020. He went on to say that the social gradient, which is the gradient of mortality related to poverty, “has become steeper” in the last decade—the Tory decade. He also said that there are “marked regional differences”. Of course there are, because poverty is not only stratified in socioeconomic terms; it is also geographically organised. The north, in particular, has huge areas of real deprivation.

The Government were aware—they knew what they were doing. They knew that poverty, ill health and early death were connected. Covid has revealed that in terrifying ways. The cuts, the austerity and the poverty that has been inflicted reduced not only human resilience in physiological terms; it also reduced the resilience of communities to fight this battle.

How can Conservative Members vote to deny children food during the school holidays? Is it not quite apparent that a hungry child is more likely to be susceptible to infection than a child who has been well fed? Is that not clear to everybody on both sides of the House? Yet, during the half-term, that is exactly what happened, except for one thing: communities came together in every village across this land—I saw it the most in the poorest village—and looked after each other because the Government had abandoned those children. What a disgrace! If our society has the ingenuity to find a solution to a vaccine in such a short period and a way of tracking this disease, and if our society can mobilise the resources to distribute PPE and source the ventilators we need, surely we have the capacity to tackle the underlying problems of our society that they, to their shame, have created.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party group on national parks, I do have some interest in this matter. Additionally, a third of Sheffield—the local authority in which my constituency is—is in the Peak District national park. The name “Sheffield” may conjure up past visions of lots of cutlery being produced, but much of it is very rural, very open and very beautiful.

I understand the concerns of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench about new clause 7, which is of some length and has been parachuted into the Bill right at the last minute. The Government had many opportunities to introduce it earlier, and to talk informally to my hon. Friends, which might have allayed some of their fears. In the end, though, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and probably to be very suspicious of a Government who claim they have nothing but good intentions in proposing a four-page amendment.

Of course there is some suspicion, but let us look at what the national parks have been doing. They have told us at meetings that they would welcome the extension of the general power of competence to them—perhaps it was an oversight that it was not done in the first place. As I understand it, the new clause proposes that where national parks exercise functions in a national park area that are similar in nature to those exercised by a local authority in other places the local authority has the general power of competence, but a national park does not.

Everyone gets suspicious about fracking. Many people do not trust the Government on the issue. They think that, as the Government want to go fracking all over the place and national parks do not, the Government are probably happy to do it and have rather brought those suspicions on themselves. Perhaps the Government could make an absolutely clear statement that there is no way in which this proposed new clause gives any extension of planning powers or anything else that could possibly affect fracking in national parks.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I can assure the House that we had no idea that this new clause was coming. It is almost five pages long. The nub of our argument is this: the national parks should be single-mindedly protecting our environment, but this power of general competence allows them to engage in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap that the Chancellor has left them with. Does my hon. Friend not worry that that single-minded concentration on protecting the environment might be lost in the search for additional revenue as a result of the commercial powers that are being conferred on the national parks?

[Mr Betts]

I see my hon. Friend’s concerns in that regard, but the reality is probably that many national parks do look at ways to raise revenue to help support their budgets. I share his views that national parks are subject to cuts and that they are finding it more difficult to do the job that we expect them to do with their much reduced resources. I think that they will look at other ways to raise funds. That happens anyway. I am not sure whether this new clause widens that possibility greatly. I understand that it simply puts the national parks in the same position as a local authority to try to fulfil their functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I will try to keep my comments brief, because contrasts are always a pleasant thing. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who spoke powerfully about this issue.

[Jon Trickett]

And lengthily.

[Graham Stuart]

And at length, it has to be said.

I want to tell the House about something that happened in the East Riding of Yorkshire. For many years, people who think about these things have looked at the boundary of the city of Hull and thought it is too constrained and has too little of the hinterland within it. A lot of people thought that it would make sense for it to be expanded, but East Riding of Yorkshire Council is a very successful council and the residents are relatively happy with it. The city of Hull announced that it would set up a commission to look at the boundaries—in effect, at the possibility of Hull expanding outwards. It did so with little or no involvement from East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The response of the council was to call a referendum for the surrounding communities of Hull to see what they thought. This was a one-off referendum: nothing else was going on at the same time. One might think that the arcane issue of boundaries could occasionally capture the public imagination, but generally people would just accept a sensible top-down solution given to them by leaders and Governments and so on.

We need to be careful. I do not have the figures to hand, but, off the top of my head, there was a 75% turnout and a Ceau?escu-esque election result—96% said that they did not want the expansion to go ahead. I mention that in the context of amendment 56 and the argument that, because not all councils are quite in line, perhaps all they need is a little push to get a sensible result. We should be remarkably sensitive to how strongly the population can feel about such things.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

I need to make progress as I am very conscious of the time.

I thank hon. Members for tabling amendment 59 relating to the Localism Act 2011. The amendment would not only impose a requirement to publish a report on the performance of the Act but require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the general power of competence in relation to its use by combined authorities. The amendment is not necessary.

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is making an articulate exposition of his position, for giving way. Were some districts in a county area to attach themselves to a great city, would he envisage the possibility of the county taking a different shape—in other words, Derbyshire or any other county in the same category ceasing to represent all the areas they currently do?

[James Wharton]

The intention is to deliver what local areas want, and therefore the Bill gives us the flexibility to ensure that the county would not need to be reshaped, but equally, where that was wanted, it would give us the flexibility to deliver it. That is the point of the Bill, as an enabling Bill. We want to proceed by consensus, because that is how devolution will last.

Amendment 1 would enable the Secretary of State to make provision in secondary legislation to require all local authorities in the area of a mayoral combined authority to undertake a community governance review within two years of the Act coming into force. Whatever the merits of “parishing” an area, I do not believe the amendment is necessary or appropriate. I recognise the desire for further devolution and for the devolution debate to continue, including on the role of more local decision making and parishes, but this is not the time or place to go down the route set out in the amendment. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree not to press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

The Bill is clearly a milestone in the direction of devolution, and we welcome the spirit in which the House has debated it—it was good to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. We also thank the civil servants, the staff of the House, the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, who presided over our hearings, and the councillors and Members who participated in our debates.

It is true that Ministers have sought to be consensual—mainly with their own Back Benchers, rather than with us, but we will draw a veil over that—and we have tried to be positive, but, despite the Bill being a milestone, we feel it has been scarred by timidity, and we are frustrated by the lack of ambition. It appears that much of the Bill was shaped by No. 11, rather than being created in the great cities, counties and villages of England, and it simply does not match up to our devolution achievements in Scotland, Wales and London.

I am sure we all agree that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in the world: 72% of all public expenditure is controlled directly by the Prime Minister and his Ministers, whereas Chancellor Merkel controls less than one fifth of Germany’s total budget. There is a long way to go, yet the Bill does little to challenge this major problem, which we are all trying to grapple with. I think the Minister knows that. Does anyone really think that the Government’s cuts to flood defences would have happened had the budget and decision-making powers for flood control been devolved locally? Of course not. The case for a proper, far-reaching political settlement for the devolution of power is overwhelming. It is a case based on economic and social justice as well as the more equitable distribution of political power. The case against over-centralisation is not made by the Bill, but none the less it remains a milestone in the direction we want to travel.

We have sought to engage with the Government and to improve the Bill by tabling amendments. Our amendments—for example, those decoupling a mayor from the ability to secure devolution, as well as those on finance offering stability to local councils, on multi-year funding and on the provision of greater fiscal autonomy—would have helped make local government more autonomous, more powerful and more relevant to local communities. We pressed the Government more than once on extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—no doubt, we will return to that in future years—and on Report we sought a debate on the general power of competence. After all, if local government is to govern, it has to have the competence to take action in any area relevant to its community.

We supported the Government on the amendment that gave local district councils the right to become associated with metro mayors in adjacent metropolitan areas. The truth is, however, that every single one of our amendments, which were designed to extend powers to local communities, was rejected by the Government. Not one was accepted—and that is the truth of it.

May I gently inquire—I do not suppose I will get an answer—whatever happened to the Chancellor’s plans to scrap the national Sunday trading laws? They seem to have disappeared. Will we get some kind of assurance that that is the end of it for this Parliament? It is looking that way; there is simply not a majority for such a proposal in the House.

Looking forward, as the Bill becomes an Act after consideration in the other place, it poses a dilemma for councillors and councils across the land. Should they sign up to devolution deals with the Chancellor? Should they seek the limited new powers on offer while being simultaneously aware that part of what is on offer is in effect the delegation of cuts rather than the devolution of real fiscal independence?

The Opposition will not second-guess councillors’ decisions. We will support them as they struggle to preserve vital public services at the same time as regenerating their local economies. The Bill represents one limited, top-down model of devolution because it insists on imposing a form of governance, metro mayors, on cities, even where the electorates have so recently rejected them. The fiscal/economic model on offer—the Bill seeks to encourage it—is one of cash-strapped local authorities competing with adjacent cash-strapped local authorities, probably by reducing business rates to try to attract investment. It allows for only a limited vision. In its place we would like to see a well-resourced, innovative, dynamic local state, working in partnership with business, civil society and all its citizens for the betterment of all. The Bill is silent on what has been described as double devolution, which involves empowering individuals in their often unequal struggle with state bureaucracy.

We are supporting and will support the Bill because it offers a faltering step forward, but I do not think the Chancellor’s model of devolution as outlined in it will endure in the end. Indeed, I predict it will not long outlast the right hon. Gentleman’s limited leadership ambitions. This is a view we have taken from the beginning and it was reflected in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading.

If this Parliament is serious about tackling inequality and creating a more balanced economy and society, I believe it should propose a radically different distribution of power and authority in our country, perhaps even moving towards a federal settlement. The very future of our Union may depend on such a proposal, so we will now begin our conversation with the British people about the right way forward. We will be immensely strengthened in this task by the arrival on these Benches of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). His common sense and practical socialism in action, rooted in his own community and in the best that local government has to offer, points the way forward for Britain. I very much hope that before too much time elapses, the Labour party will be in a position to legislate for real and substantial devolution in England, just as it once did for London, Scotland and Wales.

Cities and Local Government Devolution [Lords] Bill

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

Perhaps I need to be clearer about the impact of this clause. This clause would put at risk some of those deals already done. It would leave them open to legal challenge and put in jeopardy the devolution packages that those areas expect, the deals they have made with Government and the commitments that we made in our manifesto. I am in danger of repeating myself excessively, but I will again point out that no area can have a mayor or devolution forced upon it. This is enabling legislation that allows us to deliver our devolution obligations.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that he has entered into draft deals for which he has no legal powers and for which the Bill as presented on Second Reading gives him no powers? Is he also saying that without driving this amendment through this afternoon, he would not have had the legal powers to enter into the deals that he has done so far?

[James Wharton]

What I am saying is that, if this amendment is not made, deals with areas including Greater Manchester and the Sheffield city region would potentially be at risk; they would be open to legal challenge. The whole point of this Bill is to enable us to deliver on the deals that we are making with areas. That is the whole reason why we need this legislation. If we were able to deliver those deals without it, we would not be here debating it in this Committee today. I do not think that the loss of those deals is an outcome that many would wish to see. I therefore commend to the Committee the amendments that we need to make to ensure that we can deliver on our manifesto commitments and on those deals that we have made.

I now wish to consider amendment 51, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove and for Shipley (Philip Davies). It provides that a combined authority mayor can be established only after a referendum. Our manifesto commitment states that we will

“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”

We are committed to cities making the choice for a mayor, but, as I have made clear, a mayor will not be imposed anywhere. This principle of choice is a principle which I am confident that my hon. Friends accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I think between the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend, me and the Secretary of State we have probably got where we need to get to in relation to this. I wanted to make clear that there will not be a confusion of who is responsible for what; someone is ultimately responsible for each bit, but who is responsible in each particular case depends on where the breach is.

[Jon Trickett]

I want to return to the question of coterminosity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to. In west Yorkshire, which is where I am from, the local Pontefract hospital goes across from west Yorkshire as far as York, almost—into Selby. If a combined authority with an elected mayor emerges in west Yorkshire, some of the hospital services for which that person will be responsible will be provided to people who have not had the opportunity to vote for him or her as mayor or for the combined authority. Where does accountability lie? Here is a situation where somebody is responsible for services outwith the area that has elected him.

[Alistair Burt]

If the mayor was to have responsibility for the services—that is not the proposal for Greater Manchester—the mayor would only have responsibility for the services within the combined area. Anything beyond that would still fall within the remit of those who commissioned services in that area. The decision as to—[Interruption.] That is right: the hospital in that circumstance may well have two bosses because the CCG would be responsible for the whole lot and it would have to come, by agreement, to a decision as to what was being provided within the combined area as well as outside the combined area. So the CCG remains responsible for what it is delivering, but it decides as normal with those to whom it is answerable—in one area it has become a different authority and in another it remains the original one—what services they should provide. The overall security for the quality of what the CCG is providing is maintained by the national regulator, which supervises, and it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make sure the NHS guidance and duties are not breached, but it is a matter for local decision how this coterminosity is dealt with, because it will occur in more than one area. Certainly, however, I cannot see that legally a CCG outside a combined authority could have any direct line of responsibility to somebody inside the combined authority who is making decisions not about their area. That is how that would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

If there are two adjacent mayoral operations, both taking responsibility for a hospital that is crossing the mayoral boundaries—which is now quite possible it seems to me—is not that a recipe for complex management for the people managing the hospital, and how would those contradictions be resolved?

[Alistair Burt]

In the first place, they could decide not to devolve at all. Part of the process will involve those in the combined authority and in those authorities next to each other deciding how to deliver the services. There is a choice. This is all voluntary, and if people want to do it they will work out a way. It is not very different from what has driven the authorities in Greater Manchester together in the first place. These are places that work across boundaries, and agreement will have to be reached on the delivery of the services. Constituents in one area could say, “Hold on a minute! Are we going to lose out over this?” They will make their decisions collectively on what they will pool and what they want. That is no different from what will happen in the areas that will be split. If people cannot agree, there will not be an order that could possibly be signed off. This will work only when there is a conviction that people have made the appropriate decisions. That is a matter for local agreement, and that is where all of us, as local politicians, get involved. So unless people are convinced that the processes are right, there will be no point in signing anything off.

Drugs: Ultra-rare Diseases

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to drugs for ultra-rare diseases.

I am delighted to have the chance to speak on this important topic today. I was also delighted to lead and take part in the historic Twitter debate yesterday, which was a great success. On top of the very strong show of support from Members of all parties, the fact that nearly 1 million people took part in the debate yesterday shows how important the issue is.

I got involved in the issue because Katy and Simon, the parents of Sam Brown, a six-year-old boy in my constituency, came to see me. In 2009, when Sam was 16 months old, he was diagnosed with Morquio syndrome, an ultra-rare disease that 88 people in the United Kingdom have. It is a degenerative life-limiting condition with a typical life expectancy of around 25 years. It limits considerably what those suffering from it can do. All of us here can only imagine what it must feel like as a parent to receive the devastating news that your child will deteriorate before your eyes, not live to an old age, and may not even see much, if any, of their adulthood. Imagine how it feels when a nurse rings up and says, “There might be a treatment, but it is only a trial.” Of course, on hearing such news, what parent would not want to sign up for a trial for the drug Vimizim, supplied by the drug company BioMarin? That is exactly what Katy and Simon did: they signed up Sam to the trial without hesitating.

For the past three years, Sam has been doing a 100-mile trip from Otley to Manchester every Thursday to get Vimizim, his enzyme replacement therapy. Without it, Sam would see his growth stunted more than it already is, with further skeletal deformities and possible heart and vision problems. With Vimizim, Sam’s parents, and, even more importantly, Sam’s medical team, say that he is clearly physically more capable and stronger, with more stamina than ever before. To quote Katy, his mother:

“The drug has given him the freedom to be a child again.”

I ask right hon. and hon. Members to take the opportunity to share the single, “There is a Boy”, produced by the Keep Sam Smiling campaign and produced at his primary school, the Whartons in Otley, where they have shown huge support to an ordinary little lad who wants to be an ordinary boy and an ordinary man. The video for the single shows Sam being a fireman, a doctor and an astronaut, the kinds of things that he has the right to hope one day to be, but he can have that hope only if he gets treatment and is able to continue to take Vimizim.

We are here today because, after three and a half years, in just nine days’ time, Sam’s access to Vimizim looks set to be cut off.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I represent the grandmother of Sam Brown. This debate is important. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the mother has already testified to how Sam is stronger and fitter as a result of taking the medication. NICE has said that it is

“likely to provide valuable clinical benefits for certain aspects of the condition”.

Even if it does not provide a full cure, how can the treatment for that wonderful young boy be axed?

[Greg Mulholland]

The recommendation from NICE is strange—I will come on to that—given that, clearly, the drug is effective.

Sam and other children and adults with Morquio disease are not the only people being let down. There are other conditions. I have been working with Members and organisations on the mutation of Duchenne muscular dystrophy and tuberous sclerosis. We have come together to campaign as one to say that we need a better way of approving drugs for ultra-rare conditions. At the moment we have a system in this country where people with ultra-rare diseases are discriminated against, and that must stop.