NHS Long-term Workforce Plan

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. As a former Health Minister, he knows these issues extremely well. There is a requirement—this is something the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, has spoken about—for more generalist skills in the NHS, not least given that one in four adults now has two or more health conditions. We need flexibility to respond to changes not just in technology, but in service design, which will evolve as well.

My hon. Friend is also right about the wider issues of culture. I think the whole House was concerned about recent reports of sexual assaults linked to the NHS. One of the key features of the agreement we have reached with the NHS Staff Council is to work more in partnership on violence against members of NHS staff. I know there will be consensus in the House that that is unacceptable, so we are working with trade union colleagues on how we tackle it. Again, with racism, we still have too many cases of concern. There are a number of areas of culture that we are working constructively with trade union colleagues and others to address.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments about Bob Kerslake, whose spell in public service included his time as chief executive of Sheffield City Council. He continued to have many roles in the city, where he will be much missed.

After this Government’s 13 years in charge, morale in the NHS is clearly at rock bottom, with the value of pay falling, pressures increasing and a record number of staff—almost 170,000—leaving the NHS last year. The CEO of NHS Providers said that that must be reversed, but all the Secretary of State talks about is a little bit of working flexibility. Does he recognise that he has to address the crisis in morale to stem the tide of people leaving the NHS?

[Steve Barclay]

It is simply not correct to say that this is simply about flexibility—for example, look at the very significant changes made on pension tax. That was the No.1 demand of the British Medical Association consultants committee, and the Government agreed to it. A significant amount of work is going on. The NHS people plan talked about not just flexibility but some of the cultural points that are important. Some roles that have been introduced need to expand, such as some of the advanced positions like advanced clinical nurse or physician associate, where there are opportunities for people to progress their careers. It is worth pointing out that, once again, not a single Welsh Labour MP has turned up to defend their party’s record in Wales. As we set out a long-term workforce plan, we are setting out that ambition for England, but we see very little from the Labour party in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

As some students return to campus this week, those studying in Northern Ireland will each receive £500 support. The Welsh Government have provided hardship funding equivalent to £300 per student. In Scotland, it is £80. For those studying in England, hardship funds equate to just £36, so does the Chancellor not accept the case for equal support across the UK? Students have lost vital income from part-time jobs, paid rent on unused accommodation and faced other costs, so will he meet the all-party parliamentary group for students to discuss our recommendations for hardship support and funding to make up for missed learning opportunities?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss that matter in more detail. As he will recognise, one of the features of the Budget was the number of UK-wide measures, but at the same time he is quite right to point to the additional £2.4 billion of Barnett consequential funding that was allocated to the devolved Administrations, which has enabled them to apply further support as a result of the fiscal strength that is offered by the UK Treasury. I am of course happy to discuss the specific point with him in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place —it is nice to have so many hon. Friends to welcome today. I am sure that, like me, he listened to “Farming Today” this morning and heard, in relation to the Oxford conference, a debate on how important it is to maintain high animal welfare standards on imports in any future trade deals. One of the odd points about this debate is that the Government are constantly asked whether we will maintain high animal welfare standards, notwithstanding our manifesto commitments to do so, but there is very little scrutiny of those areas in Europe that have lower standards. I am sure that we will explore the issue during the negotiations.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that the EU’s groundbreaking European green deal includes many policies with which UK alignment will be straightforward. Others will be more challenging. For example, the circular economy action plan will seek to change business models and set minimum standards for producers to prevent environmentally harmful products being placed on the market. He has talked about wanting to lead on environmental issues, so will the Government commit to adopting and keeping pace with the proposed minimum standards on sustainable production?

[Steve Barclay]

We are very happy to commit to world-leading environmental standards. One of the areas where we are doing so is through our hosting of COP26 in Glasgow, which will be key, and through standards—[Interruption.] I will come on to climate change, but that is integrated in our aspiration—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away, but I will move on to that. On the specific point about the green deal, he is right that the Commission President specifically referred to the green deal in her speech at the London School of Economics yesterday, and it is something that the Prime Minister and I discussed with her in our meeting. Again, it is an area where the UK has world-leading expertise. Look at our green finance, our green investment bank and the areas where the UK is in the lead. We look forward to working with the European Union on that as we move forward.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Theresa May Government, which is a very different proposition from the one we face at the moment. We were not at that stage of agreement. If there had been the basis for an agreement, we would have seized that opportunity in the talks. Although I have sympathy with what he says, and those proposals could be part of the discussions that we need to have in the extended period that we will secure when this Bill is passed, as will the proposals that other Members across the Committee have made, we need the space to have those discussions, and we can only achieve that space by voting for the Bill.

This Bill has successfully brought Members across the House together around a single, clearly focused objective. We are united behind the need to avoid a no-deal Brexit. We need to keep our focus very narrowly on that when we vote and ensure that we achieve that objective because we know—a clear majority know; a growing majority within this House know—that if we allow ourselves to stumble into a no-deal Brexit, it will be a disaster for the country.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)]

The principle of this Bill in seeking an extension is wrong. The Government opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. Indeed, it is so flawed that we have not bothered to table amendments to it; we oppose it in all forms.

This Bill cannot be improved because it goes against the democratic wish of the British people, the vote of 17.4 million of our citizens and the strong desire of many up and down this land who want certainty and clarity and who want Brexit done so that we can get on to the wider domestic agenda, as set out by the Chancellor in the spending review earlier today: 20,000 more police officers, with recruitment starting in Yorkshire tomorrow; a record increase of £6,000 on starting salaries for teachers; levelling up opportunity for those who warrant it; and supporting the economy through the tough decisions we took in 2010, which allows the record investment in our NHS, with 20 new hospital upgrades.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke with sincerity and I do not question the spirit in which he brings new clause 1 to the Committee this evening, but he also spoke of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) correctly identified, the reality is that the hon. Member for Aberavon voted against the deal all three times—all three times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

There is nothing elusive about the text of the political declaration, which makes it clear that the Government can negotiate the benefits of a customs arrangement alongside an independent trade policy. The economic analysis shows that that is the best way forward of the options open to the Government.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Secretary of State’s two predecessors, 11 other former Cabinet Ministers and the Chair of the 1922 Committee wrote to the Prime Minister urging her

“to reject a customs union solution with Labour”.

Many Cabinet Ministers clearly agree with them. Does the Secretary of State?

[Stephen Barclay]

I have been clear throughout that we have an approach that I think is the best way forward. There are conflicting views in all the parties including, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, on his own Front Bench. We are discussing these issues with the Labour party to seek a way forward on behalf of the House that will allow us to deliver on the referendum result. If he is asking about my personal position, I have always been clear that we made a clear manifesto commitment with regards to the single market and customs union, and we are trying to look at how to deliver on the referendum result. As the shadow Secretary of State would say, those discussions are ongoing.

[Paul Blomfield]

I guess that might have come close to a suggestion that the Secretary of State does agree with those who are opposing the Prime Minister’s position. But this is, after all, a Secretary of State who voted with those two predecessors against his own Government’s proposal on extending article 50, even after he had recommended it to the House, so I think we deserve some clarity on these issues. The authors of Monday’s letter also said of any agreement that is reached:

“No leader can bind his or her successor…so the deal would likely be…at best temporary…at worse illusory.”

Does he agree with that?

[Stephen Barclay]

It is not a revelation to this House that I supported leaving in the referendum, that I still support leaving, that I have voted consistently on every occasion to leave, that I have voted against extending article 50 and that I have stood by the manifesto on which I was elected. The question for Labour Members is why they repeatedly—at every opportunity—refuse to stand by their manifesto commitment. Why will they not honour their promises to the electorate? Yes, I do support leaving. I support leaving with a deal, and I have made it clear that if we do not leave with a deal, of the two alternative options I would leave with no deal. My position has been consistent. Why hasn’t theirs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) knows, we had discussions yesterday and there will be further discussions today. I am sure that workers’ rights will be among a range of issues that we will discuss. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister has already said that she will bring forward a package of measures to strengthen enforcement of workers’ rights, and that is in part following discussions that we have had with a number of Opposition Members.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about the Government being committed to exceeding EU standards, but practice does not seem to match his words. His Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament voted against the amendment to the posting of workers directive, which strengthens workers’ rights and addresses many of the concerns expressed about freedom of movement during the referendum. He will know that our obligation to transpose it into domestic law continues as long we are EU members and during the transitional period. When are the Government going to do that?

[Stephen Barclay]

There is a real inconsistency here. Night after night we are told that we should trust the votes of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made a commitment not to lower standards below the current levels for workers’ rights and the environment, and our proposals on immigration go further than the commitments found in standard free trade agreements. It is odd that Opposition Members have so little faith in this House to protect the rights that workers need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The EU has made it clear that it wants a deal that will pass this House. It has heard the concerns about what it says is a temporary agreement—what article 50 says is temporary—and the concern expressed by the Attorney General in his legal advice that it could be indefinite. It has heard the concerns of this House. That has been very much the message that the Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have expressed in those discussions. The EU is engaging in a discussion on how we can address that.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

There is significant cross-party support to ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister promised that if her deal failed to win support by 12 March the Government would give the House a chance to reject no deal the following day. Can the Secretary of State succeed where the Minister for the Cabinet Office failed yesterday, by telling the House how the Government will vote on such a motion?

[Stephen Barclay]

I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman asked a question that has been put to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I very much echo the replies that they gave to the House. He also touches on a wider point. The positions of the parties on the winding-down arrangements in the withdrawal agreement are closer than the debate may sometimes indicate. I think that across the House we agree that we should respect our legal obligations. Across the House there is a shared commitment to avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland. As we saw yesterday over the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), there is also cross-party support to protect EU citizens’ rights and the rights of UK citizens in the EU. There is much on which we agree. The question is whether Members across the House will back the deal to end the uncertainty that businesses and citizens face.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Secretary of State is right to talk about ending the uncertainty. Frankly, this is not good enough. Business demands certainty and the country needs clarity. This House has already passed a motion expressing our opposition to a no-deal Brexit, so the Government risk being in contempt of the House. Let me give the Secretary of State one more chance: when the motion comes forward, will they vote to reject no deal—yes or no?

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman puts the same question a second time—[Interruption.] The point is that he talks about ending uncertainty, and the way to end uncertainty is for the Labour party not to go back on its manifesto and have a second referendum, because a second referendum will prolong the uncertainty. We may end up with the same result but just a further level of uncertainty as we go through a second referendum. What we need to do is back the deal, move on and give businesses—as he and I agree—the certainty they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady is correct that it was a key area of debate during the referendum, and that is why it is also one of the key wins that the Prime Minister has secured in the withdrawal agreement. She has made it clear that freedom of movement is coming to an end and that we will put in place a skills-based system, so that we can recruit on the basis of what our economy needs, whether that is in social care, health or other sectors such as fintech. We can recruit on the basis of skills, rather than nationality. It is one of the key wins secured by the Prime Minister, and that is why this is a good deal.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, those campaigning for Brexit made controlling immigration central to their case. The Government have put it top of the 40 reasons to back the Brexit deal. Yesterday was assigned for Parliament to debate the issue, but the Home Secretary was unable to give any indication of the Government’s plans. The promise to publish the White Paper before Tuesday has been broken, apparently because Ministers have deeply conflicting views and cannot agree a policy. Blindfold on our future economic relationship and blindfold on migration, how can they expect the House to support them on Tuesday?

[Stephen Barclay]

The exact opposite is the case. The clarity of the Government’s objective on immigration is signalled by the way that in the withdrawal agreement we have control of the way forward. That is why we will be able to take forward a skills-based system. It is for the Home Office to set out through the White Paper its approach. That is what it will do shortly, as I said a moment ago.

Education (Student Support)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

As a medic, my hon. Friend alights on an important point that I am happy to pick up. A number of the professions are degree entry, which precludes the further education college sector, so I will be happy to discuss that with him.

It is worth drawing to the House’s attention that it is not just universities that have been pushing for a change. Professor Dame Jessica Corner, the chair of the Council of Deans of Health, said:

“Our members report receiving a high number of good quality applications for most courses and they will continue to recruit through to the summer. Where courses have historically had a large number of applicants, fewer applicants might well not affect eventual student numbers”.

The key issue is not just how many people apply; it is ensuring that there are sufficient applicants for the places and then increasing the number of places on offer.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Barclay]

I have given way quite a lot, so I will make a little progress.

In addressing the Opposition’s points, we have moved slightly outside the scope of the SI before the House, which concerns postgraduates, into a discussion about undergraduates, and the Chair of the Health Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), made the point that the postgraduate market has certain features that are distinct from the undergraduate market. In certain disciplines, such as mental health and learning and disability, some older applicants may be more risk averse about taking on a student loan, depending on when they did their first degree. If it was before 1998, they probably will not have a student loan, but let us not forget that the Labour party introduced tuition fees, so many who studied after 1998 will have a loan.

Working in conjunction with colleagues in the Department for Education, and taking some of the lessons about targeted support that have been learned in teaching, we intend to offer £10,000 golden hellos to postgraduate students in specific hard-to-recruit disciplines—mental health, learning and disability, and district nursing—to reflect the fact that those disciplines often have particular recruitment difficulties. That £9.1 million package will be supplemented by a further £900,000 to mitigate a particular challenge with recruiting in any geographical areas. For example, if an area such as Cornwall suddenly found itself having difficulty in recruiting speech and language therapy recruits, a targeted measure—perhaps at a different quantum from £10,000—could be implemented in order to reflect those geographical issues.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will indeed bear that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will speak briefly, although I think that the issues that I wish to raise are fairly substantial. While I agree with all who have congratulated the Members on both sides of the House who have brought us to this point, I think that there is still a lack of action on key issues, and that the Bill, as it stands, falls a long way short of providing justice for victims of slavery.

There are three core gaps in the Bill. First, we need to get the definitions right, which is the aim of my new clause 24. If we do not do that, we shall risk leaving open legal loopholes that will allow traffickers to thrive. Secondly, the Bill must deliver for victims, which is the aim of new clause 21. Thirdly, there are issues in relation to prevention, which I hope to address later in the debate around new clause 1.

The definition of human trafficking was established in an internationally binding treaty and was integrated into the national laws of some 134 countries. That definition brings with it significant victim protection and a comprehensive framework for addressing trafficking, which is why I propose that we return to that in new clause 24. Unlike the international definition of trafficking, the trafficking provision in this Bill does not criminalise the “harbouring” or the “reception” or the

“exchange or transfer of control”

of victims or even the “recruitment” of victims where those acts do not involve the arrangement or facilitation of travel. We should recognise that there is a real problem in cases involving large criminal networks where different people take different roles in the trafficking process. There is also a problem where victims arrange their own travel into and around the UK and to the site of exploitation, as often occurs when individuals are deceived about work conditions or conditions deteriorate over time. The Bill’s definition, which is narrowly focused on the movement of victims, adds nothing but confusion and will let traffickers off the hook for the crimes they commit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out.

Let me turn briefly to the purpose of new clause 21. In its current form, it is hard to see what this Bill would provide for the 40 Hungarian men found last year living in squalid conditions and forced to work for less than £2 a day in a mattress factory in Dewsbury, west Yorkshire. The men were barely surviving on limited food. They were crammed into a two-bedroom flat and threatened with violence if they resisted. They were exploited by gangmasters who supplied their forced labour to a factory run by the bed manufacturer KozeeSleep, which provides its products to some of our major national retailers.

Those victims of human trafficking have a right to compensation for the appalling wrongs that have been inflicted upon them. Clauses 8 and 9 include provisions for reparation orders to be made in cases where the perpetrator is convicted and a confiscation order is made, but from 2011 to 2013 only 252 trafficking and forced labour cases were prosecuted, and just 78 of them—less than a third—resulted in convictions. Not only are conviction rates low, but compensation orders are rare. The Government do not keep statistics on this, but we know from victim support providers that they are few and far between. I have tabled new clause 21 to allow victims themselves to bring civil claims in the county court, to seek compensation directly from the trafficker—not from the public purse—in the many cases where a criminal prosecution has not been possible. A similar provision is currently in use in the US Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 2003, and is frequently used successfully to secure compensation for trafficking victims.

These steps are essential to get a Bill that makes a difference to the lives of victims. We must get the very foundations of this Bill right by aligning our definitions with international law and, where people are exploited, making absolutely sure that they are compensated for the abuse suffered. I recognise that we may not get that through agreement on these amendments today, but I hope that these issues will be addressed when the Bill is debated in another place. These measures, together with real action on prevention, can make the difference between a Bill that will deliver headlines and a Bill that will deliver justice.

[Stephen Barclay]

The official figures for this year showed that more people were trafficked for labour exploitation than for sexual exploitation. The crux of that is money, and new clause 20, which is supported by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), seeks to identify how we can make it easier to recover money from criminals and strike at the heart of what is driving this trafficking trade.

There are two reasons why at present we recover so little from this organised crime. According to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, we currently recover just 23p in every £100 that is identified as criminal assets. That has two results. First, increased pressure is placed on law enforcement agencies when, at a time of austerity and many other demands, investment in forensic investigators is often not a priority. The second reason relates to the high hurdles relating to evidence, which create a disincentive for the Crown Prosecution Service to apply for restraint orders. If there is insufficient evidence, the CPS can incur costs through losing an application. The resulting delay in freezing assets often means that they can be difficult to trace and expensive to identify. The Joint Committee has looked at this matter.

The new clause seeks to make it easier to freeze assets within the first 24 or 48 hours. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has spoken in the House previously on the merits of that, and of learning from the example in Italy. Amendment 151 seeks to achieve that in relation to the presumption about criminal assets being dissipated post-arrest. We need to give the police a clearer incentive to invest in forensic investigators. If I were a chief constable, why would I make such an investment this year if I knew that it would take several years to recover the money, and that if the money were recovered, the Home Office would take 50% of it? We need to change that. We need to overcome the objections of the Home Office and the Treasury so that those who carry out the investigations are those who benefit from the assets that are secured, once the victims have been compensated.

We also need to place a higher duty on financial advisers. At the moment—I say this having worked for such an institution—it is very easy to hide behind a suspicious activity report. In essence, that report is a defensive mechanism, and more than 350,000 are filed with the Serious Organised Crime Agency each year. At the point of an arrest following an investigation by financial investigators, a higher duty should be placed on financial institutions, should they then choose to move the assets in question. We should freeze any assets over and above those that are required for reasonable living and business costs, so that money can less easily be moved offshore. We should also require an asset declaration that could be used to demonstrate an aggravating factor, should assets that had not been declared be discovered following further investigation.

There is a suggestion from the Home Office that some of these issues will be addressed in the Serious Crime Bill, but it is clear that it will not address many of the matters that have been raised in the Joint Committee and by Members here today, so I hope that the Minister will look again at the extent to which the measures in this Bill that relate to the financial proceeds of crime can be strengthened so that we can tackle the root cause of the problem—namely, the funds.