Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to bring some positive news and, I hope, some reasonable asks to the Minister regarding Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust. May I first declare an interest as a practising psychiatrist? I do not work for the trust, but I think it important to bring the House’s attention to that point.

Over the past few years, we have had many debates in this place and many meetings with Ministers about Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust. The good news is that in the last few days, the trust has been taken off special measures and is no longer rated “inadequate”. The tremendous effort of the board and the staff has paid off, and, as a result, we have seen in the latest Care Quality Commission report a considerable improvement in the quality of patient care.

The background is, as we know, that Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust, which serves roughly 1.6 million people across Norfolk and Suffolk, and has about 87,000 patient contacts a year, has been in difficulties for a number of years. Over the past eight years, the trust has been rated “inadequate” four times, which I think probably places it not just as an outlier but as historically the worst-performing trust in the country for both physical and mental health.

A tremendous amount of work has needed to be put in to turn things around. I am optimistic that the new leadership team at the trust, the board and the staff have done the necessary work and that they will now continue that work to ensure that the people of Norfolk and Suffolk with mental ill health receive the improved care that they need.

In its most recent inspection, the CQC conducted an unannounced comprehensive inspection of two core services: child and adolescent mental health wards and community-based mental health wards. That inspection took place towards the end of last year. The CQC highlighted in its report, which was published on 24 February, a number of areas of improvement. It awarded NSFT an improved overall rating. It still requires improvement as a trust, but that is much better than being inadequate. The trust is now rated “requires improvement” rather than “inadequate” across all CQC domains, with the exception of the caring domain, in which the trust continues to be rated “good”. On individual services, 60% of those inspected are now rated “good”, and the trust no longer has a legal warning notice relating to concerns about the quality and safety of its patient care.

The CQC reported:

“The trust has moved at pace to make the necessary changes and significant improvements could be seen at all levels”.

It also described largely positive feedback from patients and service users, who said that they

“felt safe and well cared for...staff were supportive of their needs and friendly and approachable…staff were kind, they felt listened to…staff helped them when they needed it”

and that

“they were fully involved in their care”.

That is positive feedback from patients.

Key areas of good care highlighted by the CQC included the NSFT’s child and adolescent mental health ward, Dragonfly, which achieved a significantly improved overall rating of “good”; acute wards and community-based mental health services, which support working-age adults and achieved positive improvements in overall ratings; and the community-based mental health services for adults of working age, whose Bury St Edmunds pilot programme for dialectical behavioural therapy—a type of therapy generally provided to people with personality disorders—was recognised for outstanding practice.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He mentioned improvements on the acute wards, and I wanted to highlight that a recurring theme of my 13 years as an MP has been the lack of acute beds in the region, and how for so many people with real challenges beds have to be sourced out of region, which causes them a lot of stress and their families a great deal of anguish as well. I am aware that the trust has plans to address the deficit, but does he agree that this issue must be addressed as a high priority?

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been a strong advocate for patients in his constituency receiving the care they need locally, which is something we all want for mental health patients. The trust has identified that out-of-area placements have been a problem, which is now being addressed at board level and throughout all services. Part of that work will be about improving and developing the mental health estate, improving the in-patient facilities available locally in Norfolk and Suffolk, and part of it will be about transforming the model of care, moving away from inappropriate in-patient admissions where people can be better cared for in the community. I will return to that subject, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the trust must continue to focus on reducing out-of-area placement, which is not good for patients or for their families, who want to support them while they are being cared for in hospital.

A key point that the CQC highlighted was strengthened leadership across the organisation, in individual services and particularly at board level. That was reflected in the trust now having a rate of mandatory training compliance among staff of at least 90%, and the trust rolling out accredited training in the prevention and management of violence and aggression, following a case in which restraint had been carried out incorrectly.

There has been significant change at board level, which I believe has been vital in driving the improvements in the quality of patient care. There has been a number of new appointments: trust chair Zoe Billingham, non-executive directors Dr Roger Hall and Sally Hardy, chief executive Stuart Richardson, deputy chief executive and chief people officer Cath Byford, chief medical officer Dr Alex Lewis, who is particularly impressive, and chief operating officer Thandie Matambanadzo have all brought significant experience and qualifications to the trust. It is by bringing in that external expertise that the trust has been able to understand what good looks like, and to begin to transform services and patient care.

The trust’s clinical and other governance processes have been strengthened. The number of board sub-committees has been reduced to streamline systems of assurance. External stakeholders have become more active participants through committee memberships. An evidence assurance group has been introduced to ensure that progress-monitoring data is accurate. The strengthening of a ward visit quality assurance team has also been important to driving up standards; this team carried out 100 comprehensive visits between March and October 2022. The introduction of a new digitised and simple method of completing clinical audits is another key element of driving up standards at the trust.

NHS Dentistry in England

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing the debate. Access to NHS dentistry remains an enormous problem right across England, from his constituency, which is the most westerly, to the Waveney constituency that I represent, which is the most easterly. There is not only a so-called perfect storm, but also a perfect symmetry, which hits the most vulnerable hardest.

The Government have brought in measures to address this crisis, which have had some partial success; but what is needed is a long-term strategic plan for NHS dentistry, which I would suggest should meet the following criteria. First, a secure long-term funding stream. Secondly, a strategic approach to recruitment and retention. Thirdly, replacement of the dysfunctional NHS dental contract. Fourthly, a prevention policy, promoting personal oral healthcare. And fifthly and finally, transparency and full accountability, through the new emerging integrated care systems.

The issue on which I wish to focus falls in the last of those categories. It is the procurement of NHS dentistry, which at present is opaque and has, over a long period, led to some outcomes that are not in the best interests of local residents and do not meet the standards of probity that one is entitled to expect in the award of public contracts.

In 2009, the late Dr David Johnson, a much-loved local dentist with a thriving practice in the high street of Lowestoft, was refused a contract to continue to offer a service that he had provided to the local community for many years. That happened in highly unsatisfactory circumstances, which caused much personal upset and ultimately led to units of dental activity being taken away from Lowestoft, where they were much needed, and reallocated elsewhere.

More recently, approximately two years ago, a contract was awarded for the out-of-hours service in Norfolk. The company that won the contract still does not have either regular dentists or premises, and does not work anywhere near the hours stipulated in the contract.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he speaks of the challenges that patients face throughout Suffolk in accessing NHS dentistry. Does he agree that there is availability of emergency out-of-hours dentistry, but that some companies are not taking the correct steps to provide it—and that some dentists are not opening up the number of slots that they are contractually obliged to, to provide it?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. He is correct, and the example I have just provided illustrates that point.

On the issues with the probity of procurement arrangements, I will move forward to the present. It is welcome that a new, long-term NHS dentistry contract has been awarded for the Lowestoft area, and the locally based Dental Design Studio will deliver the contract to a high standard for the benefit of local people. However, before DDS was awarded the contract, it was initially won by a limited company with no local presence, no dentists and no premises. That company then offered the contract to local practices, seeking bids, initially of £400,000, which it then reduced to £250,000. When it was unable to sell on the contract, it withdrew from the process.

Procurement arrangements that allow such blatant profiteering are quite clearly not fit for purpose. There is also a worry that the process is skewed against partnerships, which have been the traditional means of providing primary healthcare in local communities. Only single legal entities and limited companies are able to tender for NHS dental contracts, with partnerships excluded from doing so. The feedback that I am receiving is that the tender documents are far from straightforward and discourage some local NHS dentists who remain in practice from bidding for contracts.

The transfer of responsibility from NHS England to the new integrated care systems, which will start operating in just over a week’s time, provides an opportunity to carry out root-and-branch reform of the procurement and oversight arrangements for NHS dentistry. We need to ensure that they are fair, transparent and in the best interests of local people. It is vital that we seize this opportunity.

Lowestoft Tidal Flood Barrier

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

As I will highlight, we must not forget that some coastal areas face devastating flood risk problems too. They might not emerge quite as often as fluvial floods, but their impact on communities is very real. I will highlight the 1953 flood, which is still remembered vividly right along the East Anglian coast.

The second point the National Infrastructure Commission raised was that the existing catchment flood management plans and shoreline management plans should be updated to take into account the commission’s new standards and should set out long-term plans for flood risk management. Thirdly, it argued that currently—at the beginning of 2020—the Government should be putting in place a rolling six-year funding programme in line with the funding profile the commission set out. This would enable the efficient delivery of projects addressing the risks from all sources of flooding. It is vital that when these improvements to the country’s flood defences are made—this comes back to the point the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised—coastal communities are not overlooked. Storm surges, such as those in 1953 along the East Anglian coast and more recently in 2013, have a terrible impact from which it can take communities a long time to recover—some never do.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I commend, as always, my hon. Friend’s tremendous advocacy for his constituents, and I am delighted that that was so well reflected in the election result in his constituency. Does he agree that the wider economic damage done by the tidal surges in East Anglia can be felt for many years and have an economic impact on businesses in his constituency, many of which have employees who live in central Suffolk and elsewhere? It is particularly important that the Government take note of this as they seek to support economic growth in and protect the economy of the east of England and Lowestoft.

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend is right that these storms can have a devastating impact on homeowners and businesses, but that the supply chains of those businesses extend far outside Lowestoft into places such as his constituency.

The 1953 floods caused devastation and loss of life all the way down the east coast—not least in Lowestoft, where the Beach Village, known locally as the Grit, ultimately had to be pulled down and made way for industrial development. Hundreds of families lost not only their homes, but their families’ fishing heritage. The 2013 storm surge, which I shall describe in more detail shortly, thankfully did not have the same impact, primarily because we have better defences than we did 60 years ago, and because we were warned. However, there is a sense in Lowestoft that we “escaped by the skin of our teeth”, and that next time we will not be so lucky.

The needs of coastal communities have been highlighted by the Committee on Climate Change. It has pointed out that coastal communities, infrastructure and landscapes in England are already under considerable pressure from flooding and erosion; that 520,000 properties in England are located in areas that are at risk of damage from coastal flooding; that damages as a result of flooding and erosion amount to an average of more than £260 million per year; and that coastal management around the country is covered by patchwork legislation. In short, we need to do better.

On 5 December 2013, a storm surge caused havoc down the east coast. Lowestoft was one of the worst-affected communities, as I highlighted in another Adjournment debate in the Chamber later that month. In the Lowestoft and Oulton Broad area, 158 residential and 233 commercial properties were flooded, including 90 residential and 143 commercial properties in the low-lying central area of Lowestoft. In addition, tidal flooding resulted in the closure of key transportation links, including Lowestoft railway station, the A47 through Lowestoft and the A12 to the south. Lowestoft was essentially cut off.

The impact on many people and their properties was dramatic. In Levington Court, which provides housing and care for vulnerable older people, 19 flats on the ground floor were evacuated. Residents’ possessions were lost, and they did not return to their homes until several months later. In the nearby Fyffe Centre, which provides accommodation for the homeless, 27 people had to leave. Again, it took many months to refurbish and repair the property.

In adjoining residential areas, including St John’s Road and Marine Parade, many properties were hard hit, including homes in the rental sector. Some people lost all their possessions, which in many cases were not insured. The community rallied round superbly to support them, but full compensation—and I do not mean just financial compensation—can never be provided for the loss of belongings and possessions that can mean so much personally.

Businesses were badly hit, including the Ling’s car showroom, East Coast Cinema—Britain’s most easterly cinema—and Buyaparcel. Wetherspoons’ Joseph Conrad pub in Station Square was badly damaged, and traders in Bevan Street East, close to the town centre, were dealt particularly savage blows. The doctor’s surgery in Marine Parade had to move, and has never returned.

The challenges of rising sea levels and climate change mean that such events will take place more frequently. Sea levels along the Suffolk coast have been rising by 2.4 mm per annum since the 1950s. In Lowestoft, research carried out by Halcrow and BAM Nuttall concluded that a 1953-type flood, which was previously considered to be a one-in-1,000-years event, would now take place every 20 years. There is thus a need to move quickly, and to put proper and full flood defences in place as soon as possible. As climate change continues to drive an increase in severe weather events, significant investment in Lowestoft’s infrastructure is required to provide resilience, to facilitate regeneration plans, and to encourage businesses both to grow and to move into the area.

If—although I should say “when”—we get another storm surge, similar to those of 1953 and 2013, the impact on the town could be profound and far-reaching. Not only could many homes and businesses be badly damaged, but vital infrastructure could, in effect, be taken out. That could include 38 electricity substations, three water-pumping stations, one gas facility, and multiple telecommunications and IT assets.

Transport infrastructure could also be impacted, including Lowestoft railway station again. Up to a mile and a quarter of rail track and signals would be submerged, the bascule bridge across the port could be seriously damaged, and two and a half miles of A roads and 30 miles of minor roads could be affected. In addition, vital community assets would be impacted, including three doctors surgeries, two Government buildings, three community centres and facilities, and up to eight schools and colleges. The results would be devastating and people would quite rightly be very angry, pointing a finger at the council, at the Government and at me, saying, “You had advance warning in 2013, why have you not done anything?”

Actually, since 2013, the council has been proactive. It has acquired temporary barriers that have been deployed on two occasions, when thankfully they were not really tested. It has also been hard at work on preparing a scheme that provides Lowestoft, its residents and businesses with the protection and peace of mind they are entitled to expect. The scheme is oven ready and ready to go, but funding has not yet been obtained for its final phase, the provision of the tidal flood barrier. That gap now needs to be filled.

East Suffolk Council, along with Suffolk County Council, Associated British Ports, the Environment Agency and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership have developed a comprehensive flood protection scheme that brings together tidal, fluvial and pluvial flood risks under one umbrella. The project includes the tidal barrier in the outer harbour to the east of the bascule bridge, with tidal walls to the north and south of the barrier. It also includes separate but equally important work to protect a number of properties that have experienced significant flooding, especially in periods of heavy rainfall, along Kirkley stream, in Aldwyck Way and on Long Road. The project will protect vulnerable parts of the town and has strong political and community support.

The Port of Lowestoft is owned by Associated British Ports and this includes the outer harbour. The port is undergoing a period of expansion, primarily as a result of the large number of wind farms either in operation, being constructed or being planned off the East Anglian coast. There is also the exciting prospect, post-Brexit, of a revival of the fishing industry. Lowestoft used to be the fishing capital of the southern North sea—a crown that I hope it will acquire again. The port is strategically well placed to serve the wind farms, both for project management during their construction and for their subsequent operations and maintenance. The port is the main base for the Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm and the East Anglia Array. Last year, Scottish Power opened its new £25 million operations and maintenance base in the Hamilton dock.

The original programme for the construction of the tidal barrier envisaged the port closing for up to six months. It has subsequently become clear that this is not practical, as it would make the port unattractive to current and future wind energy companies and business would be lost that we would never be able to get back. The programme for building the barrier has thus been amended to enable it to be constructed over three short windows each winter, without the necessity of closing the port for any significant period. These plans are now fully developed, but the cost of amending the design and elongating the programme has resulted in the cost of the project rising from approximately £30 million to approximately £70 million. This is the funding gap that now needs to be filled.

There are now three phases to the project. Work on the first two phases—the fluvial and pluvial works, and the tidal walls—will start this year, and the final phase of the flood barrier will be carried out once funding is in place. The project has three particular advantages. First, it is highly innovative. It involves a tidal barrier that will be installed while still accommodating a 24/7 operational port, and it will not impact on the port’s activities. Its delivery will still enable the port to attract new business that will help revitalise the town by bringing new jobs to the area.

Secondly, the need to be low carbon is ingrained in the project’s DNA. East Suffolk Council has made a commitment to carbon neutrality in its procurement procedures and, as such, its existing and future procurement arrangements will reduce the carbon footprint of all new council development. Moreover, the scheme will help to promote the offshore wind industry, which is so important in reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

Finally, there will be a high level of local and UK content. Local businesses have been involved at the design stage, and their participation will be strongly encouraged and promoted during construction. Moreover, once completed, those businesses will be able to grow as part of the offshore renewables sector.

The construction of the Lowestoft flood barrier will be a catalyst for the regeneration of the town, not only for the offshore energy sector but in fishing through the REAF—Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—budget. This is not just a barrier in name, but in its impact: it removes barriers to growth. The overall benefits of the barrier to the town are significant, as the protection provided will remove the risk of flooding, which will allow much-needed regeneration and redevelopment projects to proceed. In the town centre, it will allow new commercial and residential development, which is currently held back due to the risk of flooding.

A study carried out by Mott MacDonald showed that 71% of the current economic value in the town is at risk due to flooding—a significant barrier to jobs and growth creation. The flood defence project reduces the risk to 3% over five years. The Mott MacDonald study also shows that the scheme will support the generation of 3,500 additional direct jobs locally and 8,000 indirect and induced jobs nationally. It will generate an additional £195 million per annum of gross value added. In summary, the barrier will remove barriers to the regeneration of growth in the UK’s most easterly town.

While Lowestoft and the surrounding area are benefiting from the emergence of the offshore wind sector, the opportunity to raise funds from the many developments taking place off the East Anglian coast to improve infrastructure is currently constrained. The coastal communities fund, which is financed by money received by the Treasury from the Crown Estate out of royalties received from the granting of licences for the wind farms, runs until 2021. In reviewing the fund, I ask the Government to consider targeting projects directly related to the offshore wind industry, such as the Lowestoft flood barrier, that will have a significant economic impact.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I have nearly finished.

The Lowestoft tidal flood barrier provides the town’s residents and businesses with the protection and peace of mind that they are entitled to expect. It is also the key to unlocking many great opportunities for the town. I have sought to highlight some of them, and I ask the Minister to set out the pathway that East Suffolk Council and I should pursue to ensure the project secures full funding as soon as practically possible and that we build the Lowestoft tidal flood barrier without delay.

Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries Study

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall cover a lot of the issues that he has raised in my speech, but I will highlight two things immediately. First, he is correct to say that, with the opportunity to land more fish in UK ports, the whole of the country and particularly our coastal communities could benefit. Secondly, the point I will be making is that although the REAF report is very much bespoke to the East Anglian area, there is no reason why similar reports could not be produced for other regions, such as the one that he represents.

The total reported value of the catch of commercial species from the southern North sea has in recent years varied between £190 million and £260 million, and only between 7% and 8% is landed by the UK fleet. Most fin fish are currently landed overseas, in ports in the Netherlands and France, with shellfish landings taking place off the west Norfolk coast and in the Essex estuaries. A varying but low number of UK-registered offshore vessels are operating in the southern North sea, but the vessels land only low values into regional ports because of their foreign ownership. The Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation lands its fish in the Netherlands, not in Lowestoft.

The specialist modern vessels represent a substantial investment, made possible by access to UK waters under the common fisheries policy and through the purchase of access to UK quotas. They are said to comply with the CFP’s economic link obligation, mostly by gifting some quota to the UK. However, although East Anglia sits next to one of the richest fishing fields in Europe, very little local benefit is in practice currently derived from it.

Some Dutch demersal trawlers have used pulse fishing, which employs electric currents to force fish from the seabed—a technique that the European Parliament voted to ban with effect from January of this year, although 5% of the fleet of the North sea is permitted to continue for scientific purposes until 2021.

At present, we have a system that not only brings very little benefit to the East Anglian fishing industry, but is extremely environmentally damaging. This study’s main finding is that the UK’s departure from the CFP provides a remarkable opportunity to bring about a renaissance of East Anglian fisheries. However, that will be achieved only if our leaving the EU is accompanied by well-designed national policy and regulation that provide the framework for regional strategies such as REAF.

The report concludes that there is the opportunity to increase UK vessel quota catch in the southern North sea by seven times its value and UK vessel non-quota catch by 25%. That will together add 25 or more vessels to the UK fleet, creating jobs both offshore and onshore. Up to 13,300 additional tonnes per year of allowed catch will become available to UK-registered vessels in the southern North sea, potentially being able to be landed and processed in the UK. That will come about through a change in the way the fishing opportunity in the North sea is allocated between countries as we move to a geographic area allocation under the international law of the sea, known as zonal attachment, replacing the current basis for fish catches, known as the relative stability rule of the common fisheries policy. It is vital that zonal attachment and a requirement to land fish in the UK are the basis of any future agreement with the EU. Such a change would allocate the aforementioned sevenfold greater catch of quota stock value to the UK from the southern North sea; it would be worth approximately £28 million to £34 million at the quayside. That includes an eightfold volume increase in sole, a tenfold increase in herring and an elevenfold increase in plaice.

In addition, the economic link rule, which the UK uses to regulate the activities of vessels fishing UK fish stocks, should be strengthened so as to promote the landing of fish in UK ports. The potential benefits could increase further as fish stocks improve through effective management and as the regional fleet becomes more competitive and more efficient. In addition, there may be more opportunities to start harvesting crabs further offshore and to expand oyster cultivation.

To realise that opportunity, the REAF strategy makes 11 recommendations, which I will briefly outline. They fall into three categories of change. The first is economic change, bringing potentially rewarding and well-paid jobs to the East Anglian coast for not just the catch sector, but the whole length of the supply chain, from the net to the plate.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s strong advocacy for his fishing fleets in Lowestoft, which he has always demonstrated in his time as the Member of Parliament for Waveney. In East Anglia, we are proud of our food and drink produce. Does he agree that the opportunities he has just outlined would have an impact in constituencies further inland, such as mine, where we have the UK’s biggest producer of sushi, Ichiban, which produces 60% of the UK’s sushi?

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right. While I concentrated on the coast, where my constituency is located, the supply chain goes much further inland in East Anglia, into those constituencies, such as his, which are landlocked—for example, the merchants and the type of processing industry he highlighted. The tentacles of the industry’s supply chain extend a long way.

The second category into which the recommendations fall is environmental—the importance of promoting sustainable fishing, helping to avoid the overfishing mistakes of the past, so that we leave our fisheries to the next generation in a better state than we inherited them. The third category, linked to that second objective, is regulatory change, putting in place a local, bespoke system of management, which includes fishermen, and which avoids the past mistakes of the common fisheries policy, which was too centralised and distant at times.

In brief, the 11 recommendations can be summarised quickly as follows: introducing a new system of control in the inshore fleet through hours-at-sea restrictions and the use of gear; requiring the offshore fleet to land its catch in the UK and restricting it from fishing within 12 nautical miles of the coast; considering restricting offshore vessels to 500 hp and banning beam trawling; investing in a regional hub fishing port in Lowestoft; providing access to finance for the scaling-up and automation of the processing sector; upgrading the control regime for anglers; removing barriers to aquaculture expansion by de-risking developments and improving access to finance; setting up an apprenticeship scheme; combining the two inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the Marine Management Organisation into a new single East Anglia regional fisheries authority; managing fishing stocks as a mixed fishery and introducing more effective controls over fishing mortality; and, finally, making more use of data to manage potential conflicts between fishermen and other marine activities, such as wind farms and dredging.

The REAF study is very much a living document. It is not a piece of academic research purely designed to provoke contemplation and debate. It sets out a range of practical recommendations that, if implemented, could bring significant benefits to local people, communities and businesses. Brexit on its own is not a magic wand that will revitalise our fishing industry, but it gives us the opportunity to start again with a clean sheet of paper, to pursue innovative and radical policies that can bring real benefits to East Anglian coastal communities. We need to get Brexit done, so that we can get on with putting in place strategies such as REAF.

So that East Anglia can get on with this work, I ask the Minister in his response to confirm support for the following first steps. First, it would be appreciated if he could ask his officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—who have been extremely helpful in this process—to continue to work with the REAF team, so that a strategy can be agreed for starting work on implementing the study’s recommendations. This regional approach to fisheries management will help to secure the Brexit dividend, and REAF provides a blueprint that could be used elsewhere around the UK coast.

Secondly, seedcorn funding should be provided, so that REAF can carry on into its next phase. East Suffolk Council has confirmed that it is prepared to continue to offer support and host meetings. It will convene a new REAF group and oversee the preparation of the first year’s programme of works. However, it does not have a budget to fund anything more than basic secretarial support. To take the project forward, there is a need for a full-time outreach worker, a liaison officer, who will foster, galvanise, encourage, interpret and explain. This person would spend the first six months of their time visiting ports and landing places, working with fishermen, talking to processors and hauliers, and generally obtaining further background information. This person will play a crucial role in advising the steering group about the practicalities of what is or is not happening on the ground. They will feed back to the different sectors of the industry and ensure that they continue to be fully supportive of the project. This will mean constantly getting out and about at times that suit the industry, not standard office hours. They will be the linchpin of the project. A dedicated project manager and administrative backup are also required, as well as a modest level of specialist consultancy support.

Thirdly, we need to promote a new approach to managing mixed fisheries by controlling the inshore fleet through hours-at-sea restrictions. The Minister has previously indicated that the Government will carry out an hours-at-sea pilot; we ask for that pilot to take place in East Anglia.

Fourthly, it is important that we put in place an apprenticeship scheme for those wanting to pursue a career in the industry. That will include establishing an apprenticeship training programme for future skippers, funded by the national apprenticeship levy; preparing a careers in fishing brochure to accompany the scheme; and making available finance for graduates from the scheme, to support them in acquiring a vessel and a licence. East Coast College in Lowestoft wishes to be involved in this scheme, and there is a need to forge the proposals into a deliverable project.

Fifthly, Lowestoft wants to regain its crown as the capital of the southern North sea. That will require a fishing port development study to be prepared, working in close collaboration with Associated British Ports, the owners of Lowestoft port. The scope of the project could include a new fish unloading quay, berthing and provisioning facilities, and the creation of a new fish market. This would provide the port with the capacity to handle shellfish and both inshore and offshore vessels.

Sixthly, following Brexit, there will be a need for investment in the processing sector, not just in East Anglia but nationally. A scheme needs to be set up for which East Anglian processors can apply, and it should mirror the support that Marine Scotland provides to Scottish processors. My seventh and final ask is that we start work on forming the new single East Anglia regional fisheries authority, which will provide clear and visible signs on the ground of improvement in regulatory operations.

I suspect that I have spoken for too long and I apologise. I hope that I have illustrated that we have a detailed plan for securing REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries. We now want to get on with delivering that plan, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that he supports that local ambition and that his Department will work with us to secure what I believe is a very exciting future.

Private Parking: Ports and Trading Estates

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I sought this evening’s debate to raise awareness of the unethical practice of commercial car parking firms issuing unreasonable parking and trespass enforcement notices against haulage companies in my constituency and elsewhere. I also wish to seek assistance from the Government to ensure that a proper framework is in place to properly address the unacceptable behaviour of commercial car parking enforcement companies, which are damaging the British haulage industry and threatening its profitability and jobs in Suffolk and, increasingly, elsewhere in the UK.

This issue first came to my attention when Magnus Group, a haulier based in Great Blakenham in my constituency, invited me to visit and asked for my support. Magnus Group is supported by in excess of 30 other UK road hauliers that collectively have the backing of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association. I am grateful to Magnus Group and Bartrums, another haulage company in my constituency, based in Eye, as well as Anchor Storage Solutions in Kenton and the Road Haulage Association for helping me to prepare for this debate.

I will begin with a little background for the Minister. The examples I will raise are particularly pertinent to Suffolk, and although I am raising concerns on behalf of road hauliers, my constituency being landlocked, I will give examples from the UK’s container port in Felixstowe. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) shares my concerns, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).

Felixstowe port receives in excess of 45%—close to 50%—of the UK’s container traffic, so the issues I am raising affect haulage companies not just in Suffolk but throughout the UK. Given the importance that the Government are placing on supporting UK trade as we go through the Brexit process, unethical practices that are affecting the UK haulage industry and its competitiveness must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Trinity Distribution Park in Felixstowe is owned and operated by Trinity College Cambridge and managed by Bidwells, an estate management company, which in turn employs the services of a commercial parking enforcement company called Proserve. Trinity owns much of the land around the port of Felixstowe. To date, it has failed to engage with the concerns of the road haulage industry. It is concerning that it appears to be allowing its agent, Bidwells, to employ an unregulated enforcement company which is using unreasonable practices to manage traffic on and around its property. Roads under the jurisdiction of Proserve at Trinity Distribution Park include Dooley Road, off the A154 at Walton Avenue, the BP garage on the A154 at Trinity Avenue, Blofield Road, Parker Avenue and Fagbury Road.

While the hauliers recognise the need for reasonable enforcement, they object to the unreasonable actions of Proserve, backed by Bidwells. Enforcement, when required, must be conducted in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner. Proserve’s actions include levying unreasonable charges and fines on hauliers—£180, rising to £250 if not paid within 14 days; failing to sign up to a regulated appeals procedure to monitor the appropriateness of the fines and trespass notices that it hands out; applying additional charges if and when fines and trespass notices are challenged—£37.50 per challenge; rejecting, without due process or consideration, many of the challenges to the fines and trespass notices that it hands out to hauliers; blocking in lorries and other vehicles owned by road hauliers, and using the process to issue trespass notices for each hour during which the vehicles are blocked in; and issuing trespass notices for vehicles that have stopped for only one minute, for example when conducting a parking manoeuvre such as a three-point turn.

There are a number of concerns about the legitimacy of the trespass notices themselves. For instance, Proserve has no access to the DVLA database, and notices are therefore issued to businesses on the basis of the livery of the vehicles concerned. Incorrect or no registration numbers are supplied to the hauliers on the notices. Notices and fines are sent to the wrong addresses, thus delaying their receipt by the intended recipients, who incur additional penalty charges as a consequence. There are substantial gaps between the dates recorded on notices and the dates on which they are received by haulage companies, and those delays also lead to additional penalty charges. Proserve claims on its notices that it uses the DVLA to help it to enforce trespass notices. The DVLA categorically denies that, and has advised the haulage companies affected to take the matter up directly with Suffolk Trading Standards.

There are also disturbing stories from a number of haulage companies which tell me that Proserve has told them that it will “go easy on them” if they pay it an annual fee. In effect, Proserve is asking hauliers to bribe it to stop handing out unethical fines. Companies that do not pay the fee find themselves receiving more attention from Proserve, which then increases the number of fines and trespass notices. Proserve seems to be operating what is, in effect, a mafia-style protection racket which penalises hauliers who refuse to comply. Bidwells, the managing agent, appears to stand by Proserve’s enforcement notices and practices, and Trinity College does not even want to know what is happening. It has refused to engage with hauliers who have raised concerns with it.

As I am sure the Minister will know, this practice is extremely damaging to road hauliers and their businesses when they attempt to deliver to and collect from businesses trading from Trinity Distribution Park. Many have either ceased to trade with businesses located there, or are becoming reluctant to do so because of the risk of trespass notices and fines. Felixstowe is the UK’s biggest container port, but the unethical behaviour of a parking enforcement agency is now preventing businesses from operating correctly in the port, and hauliers are finding it difficult to carry out day-to-day operations. The high risk of trespass notices means that the hauliers face having to increase their costs to their customers, pricing them out of the market and preventing them from competing fairly. The knock-on effect to business is that companies’ operations are becoming less efficient and less profitable, and there is an increased threat to local and national haulage and storage jobs.

I have also been provided with legal advice from a company in my constituency, Hemisphere Freight Ltd, which has been affected by the actions of Proserve. The advice is as follows:

“The landowner could be in breach of lease if it has authorised or permitted Proserve to cause obstruction and harassment on the estate roads.

The sub-lease provided does not support the assertion made by Proserve that there is a clause in all the leases to stop vehicles standing or permitting others to stand on any of the private estate roads. In the sub-lease provided, there is not an express clause that prohibits vehicles from queuing.

There is no contractual agreement between vehicle operators and the landowner.

The vehicle operators access the estate roads as licensees of the leaseholders of the premises visited. It is not clear that queuing on the estate roads is a trespass. The fines levied for alleged trespass are not enforceable.”

Because there is no clear legal framework or requirement for Proserve to be part of a trade body, its actions might be illegal but it can still operate in the unethical way it chooses to, and it continues to punish road haulier companies with impunity.

It is also worth reflecting on the direct experience of three companies that are being badly affected by the actions of Proserve and the inertia of both Bidwells and Trinity College Cambridge in tackling its unethical behaviour.

Magnus Group is based in Great Blakenham near Ipswich. Kevin Parker, managing director of the Magnus Group, tells me that it was formed in 1973, has gradually grown and now employs over 140 staff, but he is concerned that the damage being done to the company by the actions of Proserve might pose a serious threat to jobs in the future. Over the past six years, Magnus Group has paid in excess of £7,000 in fines issued by Proserve for both Ransomes industrial park in Ipswich and Trinity Distribution Park in Felixstowe. However, Proserve’s actions have escalated in recent weeks and months in Felixstowe.

Magnus Group has now opted to stop paying these fines after receiving a trespass notice with an unknown registration number on it. When it queried this with Bidwells, the land agent, Magnus was told it was not to be questioned and that the fine was based on the vehicle’s livery. Magnus Group has also received a fine for a vehicle that has never been registered to the company. The advice from Bidwells was that the fine was to be paid as it carried the livery of one of Magnus Group’s customers, Specialized bikes. One such trespass notice, or letter, from Proserve advised that Magnus Group’s licence to enter Trinity Distribution Park has been withdrawn by Trinity College’s agent, Bidwells. Magnus Group has never seen or received any notification of such a notice, nor the need to have a special licence. It has requested on a number of occasions to have sight of the licence, but neither Proserve nor Bidwells have complied with the request, which has thus far been ignored. Proserve’s trespass notice states that Magnus Group has 10 days from service of the notice to pay the full amount. If it does not, legal proceedings will commence in the county court. Magnus Group currently has 18 different letters for different vehicles entering the land in Felixstowe since 19 September, each notice containing a charge of £250 per incident.

The photographic evidence is not clear as to where the vehicles have been photographed. Indeed, many of them appear to be simply vehicles travelling on a tarmac road. Magnus Group has, at present, a number of fines totalling almost £6,000. Some of its vehicle fines have accrued further charges—some total £337.50 per fine and one is for £421.50. Magnus Group vehicles have been forcibly blocked by Proserve; while blocked, Proserve has taken photographs of the vehicle and used the photographs to subsequently issue fines. I am sure the Minister agrees that that is far from ethical practice and is certainly not desirable in the UK’s leading container port.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s speech. I know these roads and estates as I used to be a surveyor practising in that area, and the roads are not in the best order. Does my hon. Friend agree that this sort of practice, and the poor estate management in not keeping these roads up to standard, is undermining Felixstowe’s position as a premier container port in the UK?

[Dr Poulter]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I shall give the House one more example on exactly that point. The issue for the Government to consider is that the actions of Proserve and companies like it are not isolated to Felixstowe. This is occurring throughout the United Kingdom. Specifically in Felixstowe, however, we know that jobs are reliant not only on the port and that many other jobs in Suffolk are linked through the haulage industry. As we look towards Brexit, the position of Felixstowe as the UK’s premier container port and the importance of Britain’s trade and its exporting and importing capacity is something that the Government should take into account. The behaviour of Proserve is undermining the competitiveness of Felixstowe, and it is potentially putting jobs at risk in Suffolk and elsewhere in the UK that are linked to the port. This is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Mental Health Services (Norfolk and Suffolk)

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that intervention. I entirely agree with everything he says, although I am not sure it is quite so pioneering—I think the hospitals in London would probably disagree with that. There is a lot of good work going on in London built around exactly that sort of model of more integrated care.

One of the challenges faced by the trust in the past, and which mental health trusts in general face, is the failure of many partner organisations to properly engage on issues such as the provision of adequate social care for patients with chronic and long-term mental illness and dementia. There is also the failure of housing providers to be involved and of the police to be properly involved. There is a big overlap between some people with mental ill health and presentation to the police, when they would be better looked after by the NHS.

This project is the right way forward, with more integration of services and better integration between mental and physical health. Many patients with chronic mental health needs have physical health problems. They are sometimes a side-effect of the drugs, but are often a result of a chaotic lifestyle. Better joined-up working with the local NHS undoubtedly has to be a good thing. For that to be effective, however, as we have seen in some pilot projects in London, there needs to be the funding to deliver it. The mental health trust is not in the best financial shape—I will come on to that later—and support from the Government through funding for this innovative way of working, which I think is certainly a first in a rural area, would be very welcome. I hope the Minister may be able to provide some reassurance on that this evening.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing the debate. Before he goes on to talk about the money, which is very important, does he agree that it is very important that the trust promotes and endorses local, tailor-made initiatives such as the trauma-informed approach currently being promoted in Lowestoft by mental health champions Tod Sullivan and Paul Hammond?

[Dr Poulter]

Yes, that is absolutely the right way to provide integrated services and joined-up care, because we cannot necessarily have a one-size-fits-all approach across Suffolk or Norfolk. We need to look at the local healthcare need. That is partly about working not just with housing providers, social services providers, primary care and GPs, as I believe is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but with the voluntary sector, other third sector providers and local charities, many of which have knowledge of the needs of patients, families and carers. When we are providing joined-up, holistic mental healthcare, it is just as important to make sure that the approach is joined up and holistic in that regard, and I believe that the project in my hon. Friend’s constituency will have a very good chance of improving services for patients.

UK Decarbonisation and Carbon Capture and Storage

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

I agree that CCS has an important role to play in the regeneration of coastal communities and perhaps areas that have been forgotten over the last few years. That includes the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, many areas in Scotland and the area that I represent.

The report contains six recommendations for how CCS can perform that crucial role. I believe that we reached the right conclusions, for three reasons. First, the UK has made commitments, through the Climate Change Act 2008 and international agreements, to reduce carbon emissions. Those were most recently reconfirmed in Paris in autumn 2015. As a result, we have a duty to put in place measures that will enable us to get on with meeting those targets at the lowest possible cost to the country’s consumers and taxpayers.

It quickly became apparent to the group that we cannot get on with that without CCS. The great advantage of CCS is that it is a highly strategic technology that can deliver emissions reductions across many sectors, including, as we have heard, power generation, energy-intensive industries, heat and transport. It should also be pointed out that CCS has the potential to safely store 15% of current UK CO₂ emissions by 2030 and up to 40% by 2050.

There is a cost associated with inaction on CCS. Last summer, the Committee on Climate Change highlighted that if we take no action on CCS, the cost to UK consumers will be £1 billion to £2 billion per annum in the 2020s, rising to £4 billion to £5 billion per annum in the 2040s.

[Dr Poulter]

I endorse all my hon. Friend’s points. Does the history of renewable energy not show that those who invest early not only reduce their carbon footprint much more rapidly, but save money downstream? It will become much more difficult to invest and much more expensive to the UK taxpayer if we leave this decision for five or 10 years.

[Peter Aldous]

I agree. There is a compelling case for us to get on with this now.

The second reason why CCS is important is cost. That was why the previous pilots failed. The Oxburgh report established that the high costs revealed by earlier approaches in the UK were attributable to the design of the competitions, not the underlying costs of CCS itself. Analysis by the CCS Reduction Task Force and for the Committee on Climate Change, which was confirmed by Lord Oxburgh’s group, showed that CCS can be delivered at approximately £85 per MWh. That is competitive with other large-scale low-carbon energies such as nuclear and offshore wind.

CCS also has what I regard as a unique selling point. Some people might say, “Why us? Why the UK? Let other countries, such as Norway, do the hard legwork to get the technology off the ground. We’ll join the party later.” Such comments are wrong and misplaced, and out of context with what Britain should be doing in this post-Brexit world. The UK has a unique selling point that means that we must be pioneers in the vanguard of the CCS movement. This USP—what unites me in my Waveney constituency in East Anglia with the hon. Members from Scotland and the north-east—is the North sea, the United Kingdom continental shelf, where we have our own large safe and secure CO₂ storage vessel offshore in the rocks in this country’s territorial waters. As a result of the development of the oil and gas industry in the North sea over the past 50 years, the UK has developed an enormous expertise of experience that we can harness to deliver carbon capture and storage.

Yesterday the Government published their Green Paper, “Building our Industrial Strategy”. CCS and implementing the recommendations of the Oxburgh report fit well with the Government’s ambitions and directions of travel. When I go through the pillars underpinning the industrial strategy, CCS ticks all 10 boxes. If the Government accept the six Oxburgh recommendations, they will invest in science, research and particularly innovation. Investing in CCS goes hand in hand with developing skills, boosting science, technology, engineering and maths skills, and raising school levels and lagging areas. I could go through all 10, but I sense my time is pressing, Mr Betts, so I will cut to the chase—to the final pillar of creating the right institutions to bring together sectors and places.

The strategy states:

“We will consider the best structures to support people, industries and places.”

That is a ringing endorsement for the six Oxburgh report recommendations.

On that note, I will conclude. Lord Oxburgh has provided the right framework for an exciting new industry and now is the right time to invest in CCS.

Supported Housing

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate in the week before the start of the summer recess. While the Government are carrying out a review of supported housing, it is important both to obtain a progress report from the Minister as to how it is going and to re-emphasise the vital importance of putting the funding of supported housing on a sustainable long-term footing. It is absolutely essential that we do this, so as not to let down a very vulnerable group of people, whether they are elderly, young, have a physical disability, have suffered domestic violence or face mental health challenges. I seek to be helpful and not hostile, but those involved in the sector are very worried about the future, and it is vital that the Government know their concerns and take them fully into account in producing their proposals, which I hope will be available shortly.

The one-year exemption for supported housing from the 1% rent reduction for social housing landlords and the one-year delay in applying local housing allowance caps to residents in supported housing provide some breathing space, but the clock is ticking down to 2017, when this one-year grace period expires. It is important to have new policies in place well before then, so as not only to remove worries about the viability of existing schemes but to act as a catalyst for attracting much needed new investment in the sector.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and raising important issues about the barriers to good care that a lack of the right supported housing can lead to for people with learning disabilities and mental illness. Does he agree that on a daily basis many mental health wards struggle to find suitable step-down and community housing for patients who badly need it because, as he is outlining, this issue has not been properly gripped?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend and Suffolk neighbour for his intervention. Yes, I agree that we need to tackle this issue very quickly.

This week, I joined the National Housing Federation’s Starts at Home campaign, which aims to highlight the unique benefits of supported housing and to show why it is so important to individuals and society. It seeks to secure a commitment from the Government to ensure that everyone can have a home that meets their unique needs. Over the past three months, I have received representations from, had meetings with and visited a wide variety of organisations, national and local, all concerned about the sector’s future. As well as the National Housing Federation, these include the Home Group, Homeless Link, the Local Government Association, Suffolk County Council, the Salvation Army, Papworth Trust and Give us a Chance, which, as well as providing accommodation, helps young people into work and sustainable employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we raise our eyes and think long term, instead of just short term, savings will be produced that can deliver the far better, high-quality supported housing we need.

[Dr Poulter]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reality on the ground is that the lack of suitable supported housing is leading to hospitals and mental health wards having to discharge people either on to the streets in some cases, which is most undesirable as they will include some very vulnerable people, or into other very unsuitable housing situations? This issue needs to be addressed, and conversations need to be had with the Department of Health to make that happen.

[Peter Aldous]

I agree. It is important not to look at a specific type of housing in silos, because all types of housing are interrelated: we cause a problem in one, and it has a negative spin-off effect in another.

The prospect of the local housing allowance cap being applied to residents in supported housing after the one-year delay is causing considerable unease and concern in the sector. With housing benefit set to be abolished as part of the roll-out of universal credit, it is appropriate for the Government to review the future funding of supported housing. However, feedback from the National Housing Federation reveals that the threat of a crude LHA cap is having a detrimental effect.

Some 24% of supported housing providers have told the NHF that all their supported and sheltered housing units are at risk of becoming unviable and of closing. It is estimated that 156,000 units of existing supported and sheltered housing would become unviable and at risk of closure; that is 41% of all existing schemes. There would also be an impact on future development, with an estimated 9,270 units in the pipeline not being developed. That represents 80% of the total existing development pipeline and includes more than 8,000 specialist homes for older people and people with disabilities which were announced in last year’s comprehensive spending review.

The cap undermines several pieces of legislation introduced by the last Government. The introduction of specified accommodation in 2014 establishes a precedent of treating supported housing differently from other forms of social housing. In addition to being eligible for higher rates of housing benefit, specified accommodation has been removed from the current universal credit arrangements, and it is also exempt from the benefit cap. Failure to recognise this unique status when applying the cap is not only inconsistent with previous policy, but it also places at severe risk the step Government have already taken to protect housing for the most disadvantaged. It also threatens one of the Government’s own flagship policies, the transforming care programme, which relies on supported accommodation being available in the community.

In 2014 a rental agreement was approved by the Homes and Communities Agency that allowed registered social landlords to increase their rents by inflation plus 1% annually for the next 10 years. The purpose of the agreement was to provide RSLs with a stable base from which to invest in their services, including the provision of new supported housing. By capping social rents, the Government have removed this stability, making it virtually impossible for providers of supported housing to plan future developments. For those who have already invested in new schemes, the cap will also jeopardise their ability to meet the existing financial returns of current investments.

Broadband (Suffolk)

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to bring to the House this evening a debate on an issue that affects not just Suffolk but many rural counties in our country. I wish to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work on this issue. I know that he has worked very hard over the past five and a half years to ensure that high-speed and superfast broadband can be rolled out to Suffolk and to other counties. He has visited our county on several occasions, and he understands the challenges that we face. It is the single most important issue facing rural Suffolk and many rural businesses and homes. As my hon. Friend is aware, Suffolk has a population of about 750,000 people and there are about 350,000 premises to which we need to get superfast broadband.

The question is what would happen if the matter were left to the open market. We know that BT’s commercial deployment of fibre-based broadband reached around 50% of Suffolk’s premises, but only in parts of the major towns and cities where it was commercially viable to do so. We know that Virgin Media provides coverage to around 67 premises, which is about one in eight, but only in selective parts of Newmarket, Ipswich and Felixstowe. There are also a number of small-scale wireless broadband providers in some parts of the county, where broadband speeds over BT’s copper network remain poor.

It is not just about homes and businesses, but about other issues including how we develop better public sector services for people in rural areas. We know that delivering more integrated and joined-up healthcare, and delivering care in the homes with telehelp and telemedicine to older people are essential, and the way to do that has to be through improving our broadband and rural connectivity. We also know that education in our schools is hugely supported in today’s world by the internet and the connectivity that the internet brings, but many schools in Suffolk still have very slow broadband speeds, and a number of schools in my constituency are struggling with speeds no better than those of dial-up. This needs to change, and I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend and the Government have already provided to help address these issues.

Farming and agriculture are the backbone of our rural economy. Farmers tell me they do not have the infrastructure connections to enable fast enough broadband to comply with online Government services, including the new common agricultural policy information services, which require them to submit all information online and have an email connection for communication. This is affecting their ability to innovate and use new farm technology and software, which needs to be downloaded from the internet, and meet other Government regulations such as VAT, vehicle tax and animal tagging. Our farmers need to innovate to increase productivity in order to compete in international markets where higher broadband speeds are the norm. It is for the sake of Suffolk farmers that we talk about the last 5%, which I will speak about later. Farmers and agriculture are important drivers of the rural economy, and for their benefit we will need additional Government support to reach that last 5%—the farm at the end of the dirt track that still does not have broadband and is struggling.

Suffolk and the Broadband Delivery UK rural broadband programme has had some great success. Suffolk was one of the first two local authorities, with Norfolk, to sign a local call-off contract with BT in the first phase of the BDUK rural broadband programme in December 2012 to extend coverage by 100,000 premises to over 80% of Suffolk premises by the end of 2015. There was a grant of almost £12 million from the Government, for which we are very grateful, and that was matched by another £12 million from Suffolk county council. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) is sitting next to me, because he and I campaigned tirelessly to ensure that we got that money for Suffolk, and we are very grateful for the Government support that our county has received.

Suffolk and Norfolk worked closely with BDUK to develop the milestone-to-cash process for in-life management of local call-off contracts with BT, and helped BDUK to train other local authorities around the country. Suffolk has been the first local authority to work with BT to trial a number of new technology solutions as part of the Suffolk deployment, notably wireless to the cabinet technology, which uses a microwave point-to-point radio link, rather than optical fibre cable, to link an enabled cabinet in a village—for example, Tuddenham in my constituency—back to the network, to avoid what would otherwise have been a lengthy and disruptive road closure and high civil engineering costs.

Suffolk has also used copper re-arrangement technology to re-arrange existing exchange-only lines, and lines previously served by other cabinets, on to a cabinet that was to be upgraded with fibre to the cabinet technology. The process was first trialled in Suffolk, and is now being widely deployed across the country. Suffolk has used a number of other technologies, including fibre to the remote node technology and fibre to the distribution point technology—topics which my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to talk further about in his response.

Suffolk has led the way nationally in what we have been doing on delivering faster broadband and superfast broadband to very rural areas—areas where there would otherwise have been commercial failure, areas where operators such as BT and Virgin would not have shown any commercial interest because it was not commercially viable to take superfast broadband to the consumer. That is where the Government money is being spent, and, as a result, Suffolk was the first local authority to sign a second local call-off contract under the superfast extension programme, to extend coverage to a further 50,0000 premises, which means that over 95% of Suffolk premises will be receiving superfast broadband by 2018.

That was supported by a grant of £15 million from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, matched by another £10 million from Suffolk county council and £5 million from the New Anglia local enterprise partnership. It is an example of Government working with the county council and the local enterprise partnership for the benefit of the county, recognising the importance of supporting rural businesses in Suffolk, and making sure that schools and the health service are considered part of that rural broadband roll-out.

Suffolk has signed up to the accelerated deployment process, agreed between BDUK and BT, to bring forward the end of the second contract by six months from the end of 2018 to mid-2018, so Suffolk is ahead of schedule in the roll-out of the first contract to reach 80% of premises, and moving ahead of schedule also on the second contract. I hope that the Government will recognise and reward Suffolk’s success in rolling out superfast broadband when we come to the third roll-out to the final 5% later this year. There are still questions about how to get superfast broadband to the final 5% in some of the county’s most rural areas, where farms and rural businesses are often operating on dial-up speeds. That situation is clearly unacceptable and needs to change urgently.

Let me set out the current status of the Better Broadband for Suffolk programme. As at the end of June, Suffolk has extended coverage to 90,986 premises, against a target of 100,000, so we are on track to complete deployment under our first contract with BT by the end of September. Those premises would not have been commercially viable and would not have received superfast broadband without support from the Government or the county council. That is a tremendous achievement. Peter Ingram and the Better Broadband for Suffolk team should be commended for all that they have done.

However, there is still more to do. Concerns have been raised with me—I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Minister would address these when he responds—about the conduct of BT. In general, Suffolk has a good relationship with BT, and the first contract is on track to meet, or slightly exceed, its coverage target of 100,000 homes by the end of September 2015, and within budget, which is rare for public sector projects.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I think that he is about to move on to the nub of an issue that I want to raise. Does he agree that part of the problem in Suffolk is that for many years BT has underinvested in its commercial roll-out? That means the Government and Suffolk County Council’s resources have been diverted from tackling the real problem of getting to the hard-to-reach areas. I have in mind a case from the town of Beccles, where my constituent Mr Tony Twomey has been waiting for months to get superfast broadband.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is right to raise his constituent’s concerns and to highlight the fact that although the relationship between BT and the county council on the roll-out has generally been good, there have been concerns.

The money was originally put in place to hit those non-commercially viable areas, but not to supplement BT in activities that are commercially viable for it. Better Broadband for Suffolk has raised concerns with me about BT’s behaviour in a couple of areas, and I want to touch on those briefly. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Minister could respond to some of those concerns, because they might affect some of the contractual relations with BT, particularly with regard to the third phase of funding, which is expected later this year.

We know that BT’s claims for its commercial coverage in certain trouble spots included villages on long lines from commercially enabled cabinets that got no benefit from the upgrade, and that were excluded from Suffolk’s intervention area under the first contract. BT was slow to admit the problem, initially promising the villages that they would be upgraded commercially and then reneging on that promise. The affected areas have been included within the Suffolk intervention area under the second contract as a result, but BT has been slow to prioritise coverage of the affected areas—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has just pointed that out—which will now be delivered more than two years later than originally planned. The residents of Suffolk, our constituents, are suffering as a result.

Suffolk has had similar problems getting BT to prioritise coverage of industrial estates and business parks, which are vital to the county’s economy, particularly in rural areas. In general, BT tends to ignore Suffolk’s priorities in favour of its own, which many of my constituents find unacceptable.

HEALTH

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have very much enjoyed sitting through this debate on health. I remember that when we had the equivalent debate last year, many speakers did not have the time they wanted to make their speeches. The fact that we have had longer today has enabled many right hon. and hon. Members to make valuable contributions on a number of subjects, focusing not only on health care issues in their constituencies and on important individual cases that highlight the need for changes in the system, but on the big challenges that face the NHS in tackling long-term medical conditions.

In the time available to me, I will do my best to answer the questions and points put across by Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I have met on a number of occasions, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to talk through the challenges facing Mid Staffordshire trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has been a great advocate for, and a great support to, the patients and staff at that trust. I would like to put on record my thanks to him for all that he has done for all his constituents. His advocacy during his time in this House has been tremendous.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised some important issues. We know that it is desirable, not only because it makes good health care economics but, more importantly, because it is good patient care, to keep people well and looked after in their own communities and in their own homes. My hon. Friend threw up a legitimate challenge when he said that if we are to deliver good care in the community and in people’s homes, we need to find a way of moving from the current situation. At the moment we have a crisis management response by default, where people are rushed into A and E, and he is right to highlight the fact that some parts of the country do not have an adequate GP out-of-hours system to look after people around the clock. We need to ask how we go from a system set up around crisis management to one that is better placed to meet the future needs of preventive care and looking after people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, dementia and heart disease in their own homes and communities. The Government are taking steps to address this issue by making sure that GPs and local health care commissioners, through clinical commissioning groups at a local level, will hold a lot of the health care budget. That will ensure that the focus is on primary preventive care and on better looking after people with long-term conditions.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we need sufficient numbers of hospital beds, but as time passes there might less need for beds in some hospitals if local CCGs effectively meet the challenge of ensuring that that they invest in community and preventive care. In the interim, we need to support good commissioning of beds locally. We must have intermediate care beds available at community hospitals and in other care settings in the community for step-up care, step-down care and respite care.

On the other side of the River Thames, the clinical director of St Thomas’ hospital, Ian Abbs, is looking into year-of-care tariffs, which look after patients with long-term conditions such as diabetes and heart disease in a holistic way that enables them to be supported when they need a hospital bed and need to be looked after in the community. That has to be the right way forward. We in the Department’s ministerial team will work with clinicians, medical directors, trusts and commissioning boards to make sure that Eurocare tariffs are in place, so that we can shift the focus away from the community, but in a managed way that means that hospital beds will still be available as people require them.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) has been a strong advocate—he has raised his concerns many times—for constituents and others throughout his part of the country who are patients who need access to cancer care, cancer services, the cancer drugs fund and, indeed, high-quality radiotherapy. It is worth setting out some of the background—he outlined it himself in his speech—to the Government’s commitment to improving care for patients with cancer.

In 2011 the Government made a commitment to expand radiotherapy capacity by investing more than £150 million more over four years from 2011. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was to increase the utilisation of existing equipment, support additional services and ensure that all high-priority patients with a need for proton beam therapy get access to it. In April 2012, the then Secretary of State announced that the Department had set aside up to £250 million of public capital, to be invested by the NHS in building proton beam therapy facilities at the Christie hospital in Manchester and the University college London hospital, to treat up to 1,500 patients each year. In October we announced a £15 million radiotherapy innovation fund for 2012-13, which brings this Government’s additional investment in radiotherapy over the spending review period to more than £165 million. The fund is designed to ensure that, from April 2013, radiotherapy centres will be ready to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy to all patients who need it.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, in spite of that increased investment, there are ongoing concerns about the variability of access to radiotherapy services in the NHS. I hope that it will reassure him that, in response to the requests of radiotherapy centres to the fund, we will go beyond the original commitment and will this week notify the centres of allocations totalling almost £23 million. We have taken on board the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and are making sure that we continue to invest in high-quality radiation in the years ahead. I know that he will hold the Government to that task in the coming years.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has rightly raised issues of principle arising from the Vinny Duggan case. I want to put on record my best wishes to the family concerned. I will deal with two issues: first, the issue that arose from the way in which the trust handled the complaints procedure, and secondly, the wider point about the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

First, as the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted, the trust clearly failed to acknowledge to any adequate degree that mistakes happened and that the quality of care was not of the standard that it should have been. That much was clear in this regrettable episode in the trust’s history. Two years is an unacceptable amount of time to wait for an apology or for an adequate explanation for what went wrong. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that what patients want when things go wrong is a sincere apology and an explanation as to why things happened. We all know, no matter how good the care is in the NHS, that bad things will sometimes happen, but we need to know that that mistake has been recognised, that there has been an apology and that lessons have been learned for the future. We cannot rewrite history or always unpick mistakes, but we can learn lessons for the future and make sure that such bad things do not happen again. That is what good medicine is about. Clearly, in this case there were problems with the way in which the complaints were addressed.

Secondly, on the wider point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the NMC and the disparity between how different professional regulators approach the complaints process, he is right that the NMC can review or reopen a case only when new evidence is available. If old evidence is reconsidered or if it changes, as in this case, it is very difficult to review it. There are differences between the medical and other professional regulators with regard to how such cases are handled, and the Law Commission has rightly highlighted those inconsistencies. There needs to be more consistency throughout all parts of the medical, nursing and allied health professional groups, in order to make sure that patients know that, when complaints are made and concerns are aired, they will be looked into and, where necessary, complaints can be reopened and reinvestigated.

The Law Commission proposals are expected to be introduced to the House in 2014. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we could do anything sooner than that, but, as he will know, if we brought in a section 60 order, it would take about two years for it to get through the full parliamentary process. Given that the Law Commission proposals are holistic and apply to not just the NMC, but all health professions, we believe that the right approach is to consider those proposals in 2014. We hope that that will bring a lot more consistency, which I think we all feel is desirable, to future cases involving the professional conduct of all medical, nursing and other health care professionals.

I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for her kind comments about the work that I, other Suffolk MPs and, indeed, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), have done in relation to problems with the East of England ambulance service. People in more rural counties, particularly North Norfolk and parts of Suffolk, appear to be getting a service that is not of the standard that we would expect. We need more transparency with regard to response times, not just on a regional level, but on a county-wide level. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal asked whether there could be a breakdown by postcode. That is a little more challenging, because it is possible that, in any given month or response period, not enough people in a particular postcode will need an ambulance. There is a desire, however, for more transparency with regard to sub-geographical regions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has also taken a keen interest in the issue and has recently been out with the ambulance service on a number of evenings.

Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

- Hansard -

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)for raising the issue and to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding. Having been out with the ambulance service, I have two observations. First, does the Minister agree that we have tremendous, dedicated staff and that we owe it to them to work with the management and others to get the service right? Secondly, the problems facing the service are diverse and multiple, but they can be solved with a lot of effort. For example, on the particular problem of blocking at hospitals and handing over to them, James Paget hospital in Galston has shown that, when the hospital and ambulance service work together, the problem can be solved.

Dr Poulter

- Hansard - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I pay tribute to him for taking the time to go out with the ambulance service and see first hand the problems that have been experienced in some parts of Suffolk and Norfolk. There have been problems with the handover time at some hospitals in the east of England and that is clearly unacceptable, because if the ambulance and hospital staff are engaged in lengthy handovers, it means that other patients are not being treated and seen in a timely manner. Those issues need to be addressed by some trusts in the east of England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has written to the ambulance service and his letter was made available to my noble Friend Earl Howe. In it, he highlighted the trust’s decision to publish more performance information online from February and stated that it was important that that was done by geographical area to ensure that there is greater transparency in the quality of response data in areas such as Beccles and Bungay, relative to more urban areas such as Ipswich. That is an important point. I urge him and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal to continue pushing for transparency in the ambulance service’s data, and to continue their fight for improved response times for more rural areas of Suffolk and Norfolk. I know that my noble Friend Earl Howe would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further.

Let me turn to the issues that were raised by the other three Members. I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I take your hint. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about a number of ambulance stations, including one in Buxton. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who lives in a nearby constituency, shares those concerns. A review is currently taking place. We all welcome reviews if they are going to improve the quality of care for patients and improve ambulance response times. However, there are local concerns that the review must take into account issues such as rurality and the difficulties that patients on high land or in harder-to-access areas have in accessing all types of health care services.

I note the concerns that the review is making proposals that do not necessarily take account of those factors. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak has put those concerns on the record today. If that has happened, I echo his concerns, because it is important, in the review of any service, that issues such as rurality and difficult-to-access areas are taken fully into account. This is, of course, a local health care decision. If he wants to discuss the matter further with Ministers, we are happy to discuss it with him.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) put across his strong advocacy for Lewisham hospital. I trained in south Thames and have colleagues who work at Lewisham hospital. We all know that Lewisham faces particular challenges. It has demographic challenges, given its difficult population groups with considerable health care needs, and great health care inequalities. It has a large migrant population, which brings particular health care challenges and means that people do not always have English as a first language. Such people need to be looked after properly. It is important that those issues are taken into account during the discussions.

I take on board the concerns of local staff that they are being drawn into the big financial concerns with South London Healthcare NHS Trust. However, we also have to recognise that no one hospital operates in a vacuum. We must ensure that hospital services and the care that is provided reflect the needs of the wider geographical area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be looking into these issues.

Seagulls (Coastal Towns)

Debate between Peter Aldous and Dan Poulter

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

If the hon. Gentleman means by gull contraception something that deals with the eggs, I have considered that. If he has other proposals, it would be interesting to hear further details.

A variety of preventive measures is necessary, including regular litter-picking and road cleaning, the provision of gull-proof bins that are emptied regularly and discouraging the feeding of gulls—in some towns fines are being imposed. There is also a need, as we heard earlier, to reduce the amount of food waste and organic matter that goes to landfill sites. Commercial buildings that may be suitable for nesting and roosting should be proofed. When sites are redeveloped, preventive measures should be incorporated in redevelopment plans.

The wholesale culling of gulls is not an option and I do not advocate it. Quite apart from the logistics and questionable ethics, the European population of herring gulls is very mobile, and minor gains achieved by removing a local population will invariably be cancelled out by natural migration.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has done well to secure this debate and he is making an excellent speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) is right to point out that it is not about wide-scale culling of gulls, but about individual responsibility when people discard their rubbish. In spite of that, particularly in seaside towns such as Lowestoft, Brighton and Hove, which have active night-time economies, people will still discard their rubbish in antisocial ways. No matter how much we like or dislike it, there is an onus on councils to address that problem and ensure that rubbish and litter are collected in a timely manner to avoid the problems we are talking about.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for those observations. I agree that that is one of the ways forward that we should consider.

To address the very worst problems, where people’s lives are being made a misery, consideration should be given to changing the existing licensing controls in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to allow owners of large sites where significant numbers of birds are causing, or are likely to cause, a legal nuisance, to apply for a licence to take measures to prevent or deter the colonisation of land in their occupational control. At present, someone cannot apply for a licence to deal with a nuisance. They can apply for a licence to prevent serious damage to agriculture, to preserve public health or air safety and to conserve other birds. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether adding nuisance to that list is something that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has considered or will consider.

Consideration also needs to be given to legislation allowing local authorities to require land owners to take preventive or remedial action to deal with actual or likely noise, smell or other nuisance caused by gulls colonising land or structures in urban areas. The problem is not easy to solve. Indeed, there might be a temptation to put it to one side in the “too difficult” category, but that would be wrong. As we have heard, many thousands of people from all around the country are being affected, and we owe it to them to come up with a range of measures to make their lives more tolerable.