Valedictory Debate

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

I agree partly with what my right hon. Friend says. If he does not mind, I shall say something in a few moments about the Whips Office that may or may not get his approval, but let us see.

Less than a year after I entered the House of Commons, we faced a general election. I have to say that it was an unusual election as far as West Derbyshire was concerned because two parties got what they wanted. My Liberal opponent had posters up and down the constituency saying, “100 more votes this time”. I am very glad that he got his extra 100 votes, and I was even more pleased that I got an extra 10,000. Let us leave that to the side, but we should be careful what we wish for.

In 1989, I was invited by Margaret Thatcher to join her Government, and I went as a junior Minister to the then Department of Transport. One of the first issues that landed in the area I was responsible for, within a few weeks of my being at the Department, was the terrible Marchioness disaster on the Thames. As we have done in the previous debate, dealing with people who have suffered such tragedies is one of the more difficult parts of life in government, as it is when, as Members of Parliament, we have people who are hit by tragic circumstances and incidents that often cause the loss of life and the like. I think most Members of Parliament go out of their way to do whatever they can to help.

I served in several Departments before John Major appointed me to the Whips Office in 1995. I spent 17 years there, becoming one of the most long-serving and perhaps, as far as my party is concerned, long-suffering Whips. When David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party in 2005, he made me the Opposition Chief Whip, and then he made me the Chief Whip in the coalition Government in 2010. There, I was really ably assisted by John Randall, who is now in the other place, as my Deputy Chief Whip—really a man of great and outstanding ability and high principle—and by the right Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I see in his place the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was also in the Whips Office.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I have to say that I never dreamed for one minute that I would ever serve under the right hon. Gentleman in any capacity in this place, but I found myself doing so and I found myself enjoying it and respecting his leadership, so I thank him for that.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think, with the problems we inherited, that there was a lot the coalition Government did of which we can rightly be proud.

I was Chief Whip for a considerable time, and I have to say that I was greatly assisted at the time by two people in the Whips Office to whom I want to refer—Sir Roy Stone and Mark Kelly. Roy Stone is basically the usual channels, as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is true that there have been only four people to hold the position of principal private secretary to the Chief Whip in the last 100 years, and Roy himself has been doing it since November 2000. The House, the Government and the Opposition have a great servant in Roy, and I really want to say a big thank you to him for the work he does. I think he would say that there is never a dull moment in what he does.

I would like to say a few things about the Whips Office, which I think is quite often misunderstood both inside and outside this place. Contrary to some of the wilder stories, it is the personnel department of any parliamentary party, dealing with a wide range of issues both personal and political.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I very much endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) about the nature of our political discourse and the importance of treating each other with courtesy and respect.

The right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) talked about the truths that he was told by his wife in private and the very own special relationship that he had with his wife. I want to start by thanking my partner for life, my wife Mary, and our two sons Archie and Ned for the support that they have given me throughout the 18-plus years I have been in this place. There is no doubt that the work that we do here takes its toll on our families and our loved ones. We always have to remember that and acknowledge the enormous sacrifices that loved ones make as we try to do our work here.

I also want to thank my amazing parliamentary staff, in my constituency and in Parliament, who have shown such loyalty and dedication to me over so many years. I thank the Lib Dem party activists in North Norfolk who have shown me enormous loyalty throughout the time that I have fought there. I have spent 29 years campaigning in North Norfolk because it took me 11 years to beat that lot over there to win my seat the first place. So many people have stuck with me through that period, and I am enormously grateful for it.

I thank the teams that have supported me in my role as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee and during the time that I was privileged enough to be a Minister of State in the Department of Health. Everyone will understand that, as a Liberal, I did not imagine for one minute that I would become a Minister, and then suddenly I found myself responsible for something that I cared a lot about in the Department of Health. It was the most invigorating time of my professional life, but it was made possible by amazing people who showed great dedication and commitment in supporting me through that journey.

It has been an enormous privilege to represent the Liberal tradition in this Parliament over an 18-year period, but it has also been a particular privilege to represent the people of North Norfolk. Over that period, one builds up a special bond with the people one represents. They have shown me enormous kindness and generosity of spirit, even when not voting for me, and I have appreciated that.

One of the things that has concerned me and has been an enduring thought throughout this wonderful period in Parliament is the people who come to see me with stories of how they feel that they have been ignored by faceless bureaucracies. Too often, our public organisations do not treat ordinary people with respect—do not listen to them. I have always felt that my job was to give a voice to people who have no voice and always to fight for those people. We face a profound challenge in how we get public organisations to be more responsive to ordinary people. I am always left thinking that the articulate middle classes will find their way through to achieve a result, but what about the people who do not have an articulate voice and are not able to fight the system? It is our job to make sure that we represent them individually but also try to change the system so that they are not ignored as they too often are at present.

I do not want to spend any of my time talking about things that I have done here. I just want to reflect on three causes that I have cared a lot about, continue to care a lot about, and will continue to pursue outside this place. First, there is mental health. We too often treat people as second-class citizens. We trample over their human rights, locking them up when they do not need to be locked up, shunting them around the country and using force against them. I have had the case of a teenager in North Norfolk who had to wait a year for treatment, had her treatment stopped halfway through because she hit the arbitrary age of 18, had to wait another nine months for adult services to support her, and is now told that she has to wait three years for an autism assessment. We treat people like this appallingly. We are letting down someone at the formative stage of their life in a way that will have lifelong consequences for them. The support that we provide to children and young people with mental health difficulties too often falls way short. There is still a massive challenge for us to pursue to ensure that we provide better support, to stop the deterioration of health in the first place and to provide support through periods of crisis.

The second cause is reform of our drug laws. It is an unpopular cause in this place, but out there in the country there is now support—majority support—for sensible, evidence-based reform. I argue again that we need to legalise and regulate the sale of cannabis, so that we can protect our young people better. In the states of the United States that have legalised cannabis, use by high school-age teenagers has gone down. We leave teenagers open to the most dangerous, most potent forms of drugs, bought on the streets in this very city. We do not protect our young people with the prohibitionist approach that we take, and it is high time that we reformed those laws.

The final area that I want to touch on is assisted dying. Out there in the country, there is vast support for reform, yet this House continues to resist the case for it. So many other countries have recognised that it is time to give the right to an individual, not the state, to determine when they should end their life when they face a terminal illness. Surely, it is our right to decide, not the state’s. We leave families in an invidious position of not knowing whether they will be prosecuted if they help a loved one to end their life. This is not acceptable. It is not the hallmark of a civilised society.

Let me end my comments by saying that I have found the past three years extraordinarily difficult. This debate on Brexit is one where, unless we are in one or other of the extreme tribes, we find ourselves quite isolated. I have felt for a long time that we ought to be trying to find ways to achieve common ground and compromising to find a way forward. I feel passionately that there have not been enough people in our country trying to find ways to bring our country back together again and to heal the wounds, which have become very dangerous. I think we are playing with fire if we carry on in this way. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury said, this country has a wonderful, diverse community that comes together in solidarity, but we have allowed ourselves to become divided. Now is the time to start bringing this country back together again.

Bird Nesting Sites: Protection

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will come on to those issues, but I acknowledge that, sadly, a bird died in her constituency as a result of being trapped in netting.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a recent controversy affecting my constituency, where netting was placed over cliffs before a major project called sandscaping to build up the beaches and improve coastal protection. Does he agree that it is really important that there is close collaboration on such schemes between councils and bodies such as the RSPB to ensure that everything is done absolutely properly to protect birds?

[Mike Hill]

Yes. I became aware of the Norfolk case through the Petitions Committee’s interactive work, and I was shocked that the practice extended to such schemes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point.

As we have seen in reaction to netting across the country, many of my constituents wrote to the council to protest against the installation of nets on the hedgerow in Hartlepool and its effect on wildlife and on birds’ nests. However, netting is used not just on housing developments but in all kinds of scenarios, including on major infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2.

Last month, HS2 contractors began netting hedgerows on the route near Quainton in Buckinghamshire, causing outrage among environmentalists. HS2 contends that all the work is legal, and it has employed an ecologist to monitor the site. In a statement, it said:

“The installation of this netting was carried out by HS2 contractors, as part of the pre-works for National Grid’s gas pipeline diversion scheme. This temporary netting is to discourage birds from nesting during construction and was installed before the nesting season started. The netting was installed under the direction of a suitably experienced ecologist and is monitored daily.”

Local Government and Social Care Funding

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the comments of the other two Front Benchers about the events over the weekend. I had the honour of being in Jerusalem for Easter and was shocked on Thursday and then on Sunday to hear of such horrific events. I was sitting in a site that is so precious to the three monotheistic faiths when I heard that, after the terrorist attack in New Zealand, we had had violence in Northern Ireland and then the horrific attacks in Sri Lanka.

Turning to this afternoon’s debate, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). Here we are yet again. The Green Paper that we should be debating to consider sustainable funding for social care has been kicked into the long grass five times, and there is no sign of it coming forward. Is that just because the House, the Government and the civil servants are too busy with Brexit, or is there really a lack of ideas on how to solve the situation? The problem, however, is that we should urgently be thinking about a way forward.

The NHS five year forward view was based on game-changing public health changes and funding and increased social care funding and provision, because otherwise all we will see is increased demand at the front door of the NHS and then a blockage and leakage of funds at the back end. The four-hour target that we often talk about does not just measure A&E performance; it is about the flow of patients through the system. If patients cannot get home at the other end, the system simply breaks down.

Local government in England has seen an average 28% cut in funding, and I have been shocked by some of the figures that Members have mentioned, which range from 46% to 75% to 97% cuts in central funding. Obviously, everyone has faced cuts to their budgets, but there has been only a 5% reduction in local government funding in Scotland despite a 7% cut in the resource budget. The situation has been much more protected than has been the case in England. In Wales, there has been an 11% cut.

I welcome the long-term NHS plan because it unpicks some of the damage done by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, particularly by reforming section 75, and it tries to drive integration, which I think Members on both sides of the House would recognise is the only way forward. However, it was disappointing to discover yesterday on the Health and Social Care Committee that local government was not involved, almost at all, in putting together the long-term plan, yet it will be expected to deliver more and stronger social care to relieve pressure on the NHS.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it should have been a long-term health and social care plan if we actually believe in joined-up, integrated working and that the funding settlement for the NHS, very tight as it is, simply will not work without addressing the underfunding of social care?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). He spoke about a blueprint; I have read that report and I remain unconvinced that it absolutely nails down who would pay and how much, which is of course the toughest part of these decisions. None the less, it is a very good proposal and I respect that.

Like the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the right hon. Gentleman referred to cuts in local government funding since 2010. I hate to labour the point—it is a political point—but we cannot avoid asking ourselves why those cuts were necessary. The motion mentions sustainability, as does the Independent Group’s amendment, or what we might call the TIG amendment. But the cause of our problem was unsustainability in the public finances and the economy, with a huge growth in all kinds of borrowing, including private borrowing, mortgage borrowing and public borrowing prior to the crash, and public spending commitments based on unsustainable tax income from, for example, city bonuses. That was never going to be sustained. It was always going to end in a big crash, and—guess what?—it would always fall to us to step in and fix the problem.

Labour MPs may deny that. I asked the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish whether Labour’s 2010 manifesto protected local government. As he did not answer, let me remind the House what the manifesto said:

“Labour believes we should protect frontline spending on childcare, schools, the NHS and policing, and reform our public services to put people in control.”

Note the absence of local government funding. It goes on to say—this is the key line:

“We recognise that investing more in priority areas will mean cutting back in others.”

In other words, if an area of spending was not protected, it would get a right old shellacking, which is what happened under us. We did the same thing. We had priority Departments that we protected, but at a time when the deficit is very high, if we protect some Departments—which is perfectly justified, as we did with the NHS—others will take a disproportionate hit. That would have happened under Labour. I honestly do not say that for the purpose of political point scoring. It is to underline the reality that there is no parallel universe where there would not have been a significant hit to the grant given from central Government to local authorities after 2010.

[Norman Lamb]

To go back to trying to find solutions to the problem that we face, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the joint Select Committee report. Does he agree that we need a new funding stream, as the Select Committees suggest, and that the best way to achieve a sustainable solution is to work cross-party, as the Select Committees did, to come up with a solution? Even if they do not have all the detail yet, that is clearly the right way to achieve a sustainable settlement.

[James Cartlidge]

That is a good point, and I will come to that. I make what is essentially a political point about Labour’s manifesto because we have to get into our heads the idea that there will never again be a time when local authorities do not have to make difficult decisions and look for efficiencies and innovation. The idea that there will always be a cavalry that can come over the hill and, with the wave of a magic wand, summon up central Government funding—which, by the way, does not grow on trees, but also has to come from taxpayers—is wrong.

Colleagues are right to mention good examples of best practice and innovation. In my constituency, I have two district councils and two wards of West Suffolk. West Suffolk is a newly merged council of St Edmundsbury Borough Council and Forest Heath District Council, and savings have been made through that process. Babergh district is entirely contained within South Suffolk. It is not a merged district council. There was a referendum on whether Babergh should merge with Mid Suffolk. Babergh voted to remain independent from Mid Suffolk, but they merged their back offices, and there have been huge efforts to achieve savings and efficiencies. Babergh has left its head office in Hadleigh in my constituency and is now based in Ipswich, outside the district, which has been unpopular but has saved money. It has set up a joint venture to renovate and restore its old headquarters and make them a commercial asset. The point is that those sorts of changes by district councils will always be required.

Suffolk County Council has seen huge innovation in relation to social care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who is on the Front Bench but cannot speak in the debate, will know. Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger has done great work as the cabinet member for social care in Suffolk. Through the use of technology, the council is saving money, driving down costs and improving care. For example, sensory apps are being used, so that families can know whether their loved one who is able to stay at home is moving around and mobile—in short, that he or she is well. Such technological innovations can help to reduce the cost of care and deliver better care.

On the broader question that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) raised about the sustainable funding of social care, I feel passionately about this issue. The biggest issue in British politics begins with b, and it is not Brexit by a long chalk; it is Beveridge. The welfare settlement we have in this country covers the whole of the state pension, the NHS, social care and every aspect of the contract that we all thought we had entered into, but the system is not remotely sustainable. If we look at the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts for just NHS spending 50 years from now, we see that it estimates we will be spending the same again in real terms as we do on the NHS now because of changing technology, demand and so on, so we have a huge challenge ahead of us.

On the specific point about paying for social care, I recently had a constituency surgery at which an elderly lady came to see me because her husband has a very difficult condition and she wanted to know what support was available to her. She felt she was in that category of my constituents who are neither so poor that they receive lots of help nor wealthy enough to be able to afford to fund a good lifestyle. I asked her, “What about your house? Do you have housing assets?” She said, “Yes. We have a house worth about £700,000, with no mortgage.” However, in her eyes, she has no money.

This issue of housing and assets is always going to be the most controversial point, as we discovered to our cost at the last general election. The residential housing assets of those aged over 65 is worth between £1 trillion and £1.4 trillion, depending on which estimate we look at, and that is a staggering sum. We have to accept that at the core of this issue—and this is the reason why it is so controversial—those entering the workplace today will not have occupational pensions and will not build up such a level of housing equity. That is highly unlikely because, in my view, we will not see such a period of high house price inflation again; it is not sustainable. We are reaching a point where those paying into the system are seriously questioning whether they will get the same benefit as those who retire today.

This intergenerational issue is no one’s fault; no one designed it that way. In fact, the welfare system I have mentioned, the Beveridge system, was built with the very best of intentions for a post-war country. However, the thing we need—and I will conclude with this key point—is honesty. That was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is a nurse, and I greatly respect the expertise she brings to this issue. In this populist, Trumpian era, the one thing that will make this work is all of us being open and transparent about the tough choices we are going to have to make. No one is going to have a free option. There is no free option: every option available is going to cost.

I happen to think that the best option will involve some use of housing equity, perhaps with a choice for people to pay through an alternative method if they do not want to bind themselves into that. In relation to those entering the working population, I think we should look at the success of auto-enrolment. How many people here have had emails from constituents complaining about the rise in pension contributions from their salary from auto-enrolment? I have not had a single email because people believe it is a contribution from which they will benefit. It is not like the old, pay-as-you-go system, and I think we could link the social contributions of the young generation through a premium to such a system, as the Select Committees have suggested.

It will be very difficult to come up with a solution for social care. It may take consensus, or it may take a future Government with a large majority being pretty tough and disciplined. It will take one or the other, not what we have at the moment. However, we can make a start, and we have to be open and transparent about the fact that there is no easy option, but there can be an option through which we get much better care for the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I share the hon. Lady’s view of the excellent Select Committee on which we both serve. We had a fascinating visit. Does she agree that, from what we heard this morning, there is a case not only for increasing investment in dementia research based on transforming the lives of people who currently suffer with dementia, but for investing to save? If we are to prevent the health and care system from bankrupting itself because of this increasing prevalence, we have to act now to reduce that prevalence by finding out how we can prevent dementia in future.

[Vicky Ford]

I absolutely agree. We heard it described earlier as like watching a tsunami way out to sea. People are living longer, which means that the number of people suffering from dementia around the world will increase unless we get ahead of the challenge. We cannot just keep watching it; we need to get ahead of the challenge to understand the causes. There will be cures, but only if the world continues to invest in the research. As well as investing in social care and finding a new model to help to provide it, let us keep up our world-leading research into Alzheimer’s and other dementia-causing diseases and make sure that the UK continues to lead on that challenge, and let the Government invest more and get the rest of the world to do so, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I will address most of my remarks to the issue of social care and the challenge we face, but first I want to highlight a real concern that other hon. Members have also expressed. The funding constraints on local government have had a very big impact on preventive services that are designed to stop extra costs being incurred at a later stage through a failure of the system.

I will give one or two examples. The Select Committee on Science and Technology recently conducted an inquiry into the impact of adversity in childhood, looking in particular at trauma, abuse or neglect in early years. We know that if we intervene early and follow the evidence of what is effective in stopping trauma becoming entrenched, we can not only transform lives but save a fortune further down the track.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) said something about the Conservative party being the custodians of careful finance, but we are seeing significant reductions in investment in preventive services, which end up costing the state a fortune further down the line. Too often, children who experience trauma, abuse or neglect in early years and who do not get the support they need end up being excluded from school, and the track through to the criminal justice system is all too real. Educational attainment is, therefore, often lower than it should be, and worklessness often follows. The disinvestment over the past few years in those preventive early years services, supporting parents and so on, has been a very stupid thing to do, because it will cost the state far more in years to come.

When the Chancellor launched the Budget a few weeks ago, it was encouraging to hear him say that he was willing to invest in early intervention where there was evidence of its effectiveness. Well, there is evidence of its effectiveness, so the Chancellor needs to make that investment.

[Toby Perkins]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge in this area, but he is talking about overall local government spending cuts and he was, of course, a part of the first five years of this Government. The greatest austerity and local government cuts were made under a Liberal Democrat and Tory coalition, so does he regret his part in the huge cuts made to local government between 2010 and 2015?

[Norman Lamb]

If we are honest, every Government have some responsibility. The reductions started before 2010. I absolutely accept—[Interruption.] Let me address this point; I am trying to be straight with the hon. Gentleman. I think mistakes were made by the coalition Government in terms of the hit local government took during that period. The contrast between the support for the NHS by increasing investment in real terms and the cut to social care does not make sense, but that is what happened. I recognise that. It was above my pay grade, but I do not think it was the right decision to make. I hope that that is of some help to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Change UK)]

My right hon. Friend makes some really important points about the first 1,000 days of life, but equally there are similar arguments relating to the end of life. For example, too many people who need social care end up in a much more expensive place at the end of their life—in a hospital setting, where they do not want to be—for the want of the right investment in social care. Does he agree that we should apply the principle of investing to save across the whole of life?

[Norman Lamb]

I absolutely recognise and accept that point.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) intervened to challenge the point about spending under the coalition Government. There was a crisis in public finances in 2010 which did have to be addressed, but I do accept that the balance between social care and the NHS was not optimal. I also want to address other areas where the underinvestment or disinvestment in preventive services has borne a heavy cost.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who has done very good work on youth violence—I have been part of the commission looking at that—made the point that many of the preventive services that are there, particularly during teenage years, to stop the risk of young people slipping into gang violence have been stripped away in many of the poorest communities. Again, the impact of that has, at least in part—it is very hard to judge cause and effect—been an increase in violence on our streets at the awful and dreadful cost to many of those affected by it.

I want to turn specifically to social care. It is worth reflecting on why social care is so important. It is there to give people the chance of a happy life and a good life, as far as they are able to enjoy that if they are struggling with a range of conditions. It is there to help people to remain independent in old age, to support people so that they do not end up needing the NHS, with an enormous impact on their wellbeing. One of the problems we face is that unless you or a family member experiences the need for social care, it is hidden from view. Very many families across our country simply do not see the impact of the underfunding of social care today, but it is very real. There are over 1 million older people who are not getting the care they need. As Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, has pointed out on many occasions, if people do not get social care support, that has an impact on the NHS. The funding settlement for the NHS simply will not work unless we address the under-resourcing of social care.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows more about social care than anyone else in this House—I pay him that compliment. Does he accept that one of the most unfair issues is where local authorities have moved people with learning disabilities out to cheaper parts of the country—Gloucestershire being a classic case—and their care needs get worse over time? The local authority that moved them out says, “It’s not our problem; it is the problem of the local authority to which they have moved”. Does he agree that that is why we need a national care service?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the issue of how we care for people of a younger age who have care needs, particularly those with learning disabilities and autism. What happens too often is that those people end up in institutions when they do not need to be there, often away from home and at enormous cost to the public purse. Again, the evidence from around the country shows that where this is done well and where families are supported to keep someone at home, helping them through crises, we not only reduce the cost to the public purse but have a massive impact on their wellbeing. He is also right to highlight the fact that we end up with awful disputes about who is responsible for payment as people are shunted around the country in a way that, in my view, fundamentally breaches their human rights.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about this topic. It is absolutely vital, but does he regret the extent to which the Government now seem to have abandoned the transforming care programme? There seems to be no future for it. From the time when he was a Minister, there was a programme to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) raised, but there now appears to be an abandonment of targets and an abandonment of the future of that programme, and certainly no funding to make it work.

[Norman Lamb]

I am deeply concerned about the future—or lack of a future—of the transforming care programme. One of the problems is that it is often NHS England that is funding care in an institution, and when a local authority is under financial stress, there is not much of an incentive to take that person out of the institution and make them the responsibility of the local authority. There has to be a way of funding the building of infrastructure to support people in the community. That is what has failed to happen so far.

This is not a static issue that we face. There is growing pressure. We are all living longer, often with chronic conditions that in the past used to kill us. That is a great triumph of man and womankind, but there is a cost attached, yet we have no mechanism to address the increasing funding needs of social care and, in particular, dementia.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), one of the valued members of the Science and Technology Committee, made the point that the cost to society of dementia is about £26 billion every year, but that is going to rise dramatically. Whatever we say about spending money efficiently—I completely agree about the need to spend money efficiently and to innovate and do things in a more effective way—the dramatic rise in demand inevitably means that we will have to spend more as a society on supporting people with dementia and on research to find cures for dementia.

[Tom Brake]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I will briefly, but I am having glowers directed at me by you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Tom Brake]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways of supporting people who need care, such as dementia sufferers, is to support their carers, and that there is a very important role for organisations such as the Sutton Carers Centre in providing support to the network of carers who support people with dementia and others with long-term conditions?

[Norman Lamb]

I very much agree, and those organisations do incredibly important work.

I want to mention the Care Act 2014, which I was responsible for taking through Parliament. I think it was widely regarded as good legislation, but I fear that it has been undermined by a failure to commit sufficient resources to really realise the transformation that it was designed to achieve in personalising care and putting the individual at the heart of everything that local authorities do. In particular, we legislated for a cap on care costs in that Act, but as soon as the Conservatives got rid of the Lib Dems from the coalition, that commitment was abandoned. All the work that we did in consulting and legislating for a cap on care costs to protect people from catastrophic cost has been lost. Of course, we know that in the 2017 general election the Prime Minister paid dearly for that politically, because the replacement proposal was sorely lacking and amounted, in many people’s eyes, to a tax on dementia.

I am conscious that you want me to shut up very soon, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to say something very briefly on future funding. It seems to me that if we are to achieve a sustainable settlement, we have to work on a cross-party basis and the Government have to embrace that. The motion still prompts the question of where the money is going to come from—it does not answer that question.

There are a range of solutions. My party and I have proposed a dedicated health and care tax that would appear on people’s pay packets so that everyone could see where the money was going, and which would be informed by an independent assessment, perhaps every five years, of how much the health and care system needed. It would take the politics out of the calculation of how much the care system needs. Then the parties could argue about whether they were prepared to meet those needs through an increase in that dedicated tax.

If we are to solve this, it will require political will. There has been a failure of the political class, not just in the last few years but ever since the late ’90s, when a royal commission established by the then Labour Government came up with proposals that were never implemented. It has been kicked in and out of the long grass ever since, and we are still waiting for a solution. It is time we found one, because we are letting down too many people in our country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I want to make some progress, because a number of Members have made a lot of points and I want to try to cover them, but I will come back to those who want to ask questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said, in the words of Bananarama, that “it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it”. She highlighted the innovative moves by her local council in East Sussex to look into delayed transfers of care and stepdown beds. She rightly paid tribute to the hard work of the NHS and local authority staff who do so much to stop people being trapped in hospital beds, which we know is no good for them in the long term.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) reminded us of the parlous financial situation that we inherited in 2010, and of all the difficult decisions that have had to be made across different councils and central Government as a result. He also gave some great examples of local councils that have achieved efficiencies through innovation, technology and sensible decisions, and spoke of the need for much more honesty and transparency as we try to find a solution to the problem of adult social care.

The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made a thoughtful and measured speech, focusing mainly on adult social care. She spoke a lot about the workforce issue, about which I myself am particularly passionate. In February we launched an adult social care recruitment campaign called Every Day is Different. The aim is to raise the profile of the sector, and to encourage people with the right values to apply to work in this incredibly important role. The Department of Health and Social Care also funds the Skills for Care campaign to help the sector with recruitment, retention and workforce development. That includes the distribution of £12 million a year for a workforce development fund. Providers can bid for a share of the fund to help their staff to train and gain qualifications at all levels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke passionately about carers, who have already been described as the unsung heroes of our health and care system. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) made a number of points, but, in particular, raised problems in relation to continuing care. NHS England has launched an improvement programme to help clinical commissioning groups to address variations in the assessment and granting of eligibility.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) made a thoughtful and heartfelt contribution. He talked specifically about the challenges facing coastal communities. I empathised with that, as I represent a coastal community myself. He said that Hartlepool was a vibrant and welcoming place. He is a great ambassador for his constituency—as, indeed, is my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who tells us all that her own constituency is the No. 1 place to live in the UK, and also the No. 1 hotspot for night life. I am not sure how she knows that! She spoke about the lottery of long-term care. We will seek to address the catastrophic way in which care costs can affect some individuals in the Green Paper, when it comes forward.

[Norman Lamb]

The Minister has just mentioned the Green Paper. I realise that she cannot say when it will be published, but do the Government intend it to lead to reform in the current Parliament when it is published, or are we likely to have to wait until some time in the middle of the next decade before any reform actually happens?

Grenfell Tower

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I am not conscious of his early-day motion, but I will certainly look at it in due course to see the specific point that he has made. If any issues come through, I certainly commit to write to him in respect of his early-day motion. Obviously, we continue to keep the regulations under review, and, of course, the inquiry itself will be looking at a number of these issues.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I note what the Secretary of State says about sprinkler systems in new buildings, but how can we justify protecting tenants in new tower blocks in that way while leaving vulnerable and exposed tenants in existing tower blocks? How also can we justify the difference in treatment of hotel guests who are protected in existing buildings from sprinkler systems while leaving residents in tower blocks exposed?

[James Brokenshire]

We must look at the overall position of safety in buildings. I suppose that we could point to the fact that the Hackitt report drew that out. It is for building owners to seek professional advice and to decide whether to fit sprinklers on the basis of their assessment of the particular risk in a particular building. I must point out that my Department did write to local authorities and housing associations in 2013 to ask them to consider a coroner’s report recommendation that they should consider retrofitting sprinklers in existing high-rise residential buildings. It is for them to do so. As I have said, it is about looking at all of the measures that are in place in a building to protect and guard against fire safety issues. Again, we look forward to the recommendations that the inquiry itself will make.

Building Regulations and Fire Safety

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree, which is why I made the point that there are responsibilities on all of us. I have set out a number of actions that the Government are taking but there is also a responsibility on the industry itself. Some of the very powerful comments Dame Judith makes in her report require action not just by the Government but by industry and others.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that there are effective sanctions in building regulations to make sure that those who cut corners in the pursuit of profit are held to account and to provide an effective deterrent? Will he look again at the recent London Assembly report that recommended the installation of sprinklers? It is not good enough to leave it to owners of existing buildings to determine whether to take action. Why is it right that hotel guests are protected by sprinklers, where evidence shows they can eradicate the risk of death, while high-rise occupants are not so protected?

[James Brokenshire]

I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to look at chapter two of the final report, which sets out a number of different steps on enforcement:

“Failure by relevant dutyholders to comply with either type of notice”—

there is a prohibition or stop notice and an improvement notice—

“would be a criminal offence.”

When he reads the report in detail, I think he will see the seriousness and robustness of Dame Judith’s recommendations and therefore the changes that need to happen.