European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Paul Blomfield

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

I do not think that anyone can doubt my credentials as someone who is concerned about and opposed to no deal, but the hon. Member’s remarks would have greater validity if new clause 4 allowed for the potential of a very short extension necessary for the conclusion of a future relationship, as I think he was beginning to say, rather than a completely open-ended extension, which is unsurprisingly being described as an extension to Brexit. If he had wanted to stop no deal, he should have voted for a deal, and he should do that now.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not question the hon. Member’s credentials in terms of his concern about our leaving without a deal, but I ask him to look carefully at new clause 4. The framing of the new clause in relation to two years builds on the provisions of the withdrawal agreement to which the Government have signed up but includes the capacity for a much shorter transitional period if the Government are successful in concluding a deal or if this House agrees. Our proposal very much addresses the point that he makes. I will come to that in more detail, and he might want to intervene again.

It was because of the risks of a disorderly departure that we were first to argue—it seems like a very long time ago now—for a transition period, which at that stage the Government opposed. We were raising the voice of business and of the trade unions, and we were pleased when the Government accepted that principle, although they saved face by renaming it an implementation period. When the end of the transition was originally set for December 2020, it was on the assumption that we would have left the EU on 29 March last year, leaving 21 months—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union asks, “Why didn’t we?” He could ask that of a number of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister. That would have left 21 months to negotiate our new relationships on trade and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, on security in particular. Twenty-one months was seen as ambitious. Many in the Government sitting around the Cabinet table doubted its deliverability. That is why there was a provision to extend it. But now there is only 11 months, and in trade negotiation terms 11 months is unbelievably short.

The Government say that they want an ambitious, best-in-class free trade agreement. They talk about CETA as a model, but not about the time taken to negotiate CETA, of which they are well aware. They say that it will be easy to negotiate, because we start from the unique position in trade talks of existing alignment; the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is nodding. But it is the Government’s objective to diverge from that alignment, to seek a deal that allows the UK to race to the bottom, undercutting the EU on obligations and regulations and stepping off the level playing field. That will be uniquely difficult to negotiate, and any deal secured in 11 months is highly likely not to be a good deal for the UK.

Nursing: Higher Education Investment

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Paul Blomfield

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

I will talk about that issue in more depth later, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me, I will look at her constituent’s case. I will point out that the learning support fund already offers a number of opportunities, including child dependants allowance, travel costs and an exceptional hardship allowance. I hope her constituent knows about and is taking advantage of those opportunities.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked whether the Government will publish an update on the impact of the reforms. That is currently being worked on with education and health organisations and stakeholders. We will look at the most appropriate way of making sure that, following receipt of the proposals by the RCN, and in the context of the long-term plan and the chapter on workforce planning, the higher education funding review takes place and feeds into that update. We will set that position out in due course—I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and I will debate it in due course as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) described what an excellent training scheme should look like, which was very helpful and powerful. My hon. Friend’s experience as a clinician is invaluable, and hopefully my speech will address a number of the points that she raised. I listened carefully to the asks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). Some are in my power and some are not, but she made a point about mature students, and the Government recognise that the number of mature student applications has dropped across the wider higher education sector as well as in nursing. We are working with organisations in the sector to see how we can attract more mature students and whether specific funding can be targeted more effectively towards those students via the learning support fund.

It does not really need saying that, at the national level, the Government understand how important nurses are. We are committed to making sure that the nursing workforce are properly supported and funded. In her contribution, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made the point that funding to the NHS is increasing: by 2023-24, it will receive £20.5 billion a year more than it currently does, and the Government expect the long-term plan to set out a strategy for the NHS to ensure a sustainable supply of nurses, rolling that supply across the whole range of pathways. We expect NHS England to clearly set out its commitment to the nursing workforce in the long-term plan, and ensure that there is a clear way for that plan to be implemented. A number of significant interventions are already in place to boost the supply of nurses, including training more nurses, offering new routes and enhancing reward packages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, there are over 11,900 more nurses on our wards than there were in May 2010.

However, the Government, and I as the new Minister for Health, should never be complacent, so I will set out a few other things that I regard as priorities. Our priority is to get more nurses on to our wards. As has been referred to, the education funding reforms, which moved student nurse funding into the student loans system, were introduced to unlock the cap that constrained the number of pre-registration nursing training places. Those reforms allow more students to gain access to nurse degree training courses. We have announced funding for 5,000 more clinical training places to make sure that those placements can be put in place. We have also increased midwifery training places by more than 3,000 over the next four years, and in 2017, there were 22,575 acceptances—the second-largest number since nursing became a degree-only profession.

It is also important to note that the loans system gives more cash when compared with the bursary system—effectively, up to 25% more. A mature student with two children will receive up to an extra £7,500 a year. I recognise that a number of other things need to be, and should be, put in place and known about more widely. The Government have also targeted support for healthcare students on courses through the learning support fund, which provides additional non-repayable grants. Up to £1,000 is available for eligible students in childcare allowances and hardship funding provisions. None of that, of course, was available under the bursary scheme. More nurses are in training, and the Government are working with Health Education England and the university sector to ensure that students continue to apply for nursing courses up to the end of clearing this year. I am pleased to say that, this year, we have seen a 6% increase in the number of 18-year-olds applying for courses and being accepted.

As an hon. Friend pointed out, there continues to be strong demand, specifically for younger people. I have made the point that we need to address the issues faced by more mature students who wish to enter, or re-enter, the profession. That should be a key priority in the long-term plan. The Government, and I as the new Minister, recognise that we need to do much more to continue to encourage people to apply for nursing courses, particularly more mature students. Therefore, my officials are actively engaging with the Royal College of Nursing, the Council of Deans of Health, and Universities UK—all of those organisations have a role to play. The Government will be consulting on the detailed proposals on future funding for higher education that the RCN has put forward today. I said this earlier, but I want to recommit and make it clear that we regard those as serious proposals, and will be writing to the RCN to engage on those proposals. We will start that work straightaway.

[Paul Blomfield]

I appreciate that the Minister is new to his post, and that it may be more appropriate for him to write to me in response to this point. I wonder whether he will address the attrition rates question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). There is a relationship between the falling number of applications, the funding regime, and the higher attrition rates. Does the Minister have numbers on that, and what consideration are the Government giving to it?

[Stephen Hammond]

Inspiration has just reached me. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Health Education England recently published a report on attrition rates on nursing courses—I made the point earlier that the rate of attrition among all people applying for university places has gone down. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The report published by Health Education England describes how attrition rates on those courses have fallen considerably over the past few years, but I will write to him to be absolutely clear. He may then choose to make that letter available.

Managed Motorway Scheme (South Yorkshire)

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Paul Blomfield

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

There is no evidence that that experience is often seen on the M42. I will look at that point again and consult officials on the experience of others, and I will write to the hon. Lady.

Variable speed limits do not only allow faster traffic flows; they allow the smoothing of traffic flows, thereby making journeys more reliable. Variable speed limits also allow the eradication of the stop-start effect, and smoothing means that traffic sometimes moves more regularly without the speed that the hon. Lady describes.

When the M42 pilot scheme was designed, the target was to ensure that there was no worsening of safety as a result of implementing the active traffic management pilot. There was a three-year safety report and trial on the M42, although I accept that the hon. Lady will want to point out that there are differences. The pilot showed considerable improvement in safety—accidents involving personal injury were reduced by some 55%—and that was with hard shoulder running. Overall, there was a reduction in the severity of accidents, with no fatalities and fewer serious injuries, so to suggest that a move to managed motorways, or indeed to hard shoulder running, necessarily represents a decline in safety is not shown by the evidence.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister respond to the point I made in my intervention? The Highways Agency’s website states that refuge areas provide “relative safety.” Relative to what? Are we not seeking maximum safety on our motorways, rather than making the sort of compromise implied even by the agency’s website?

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. There are two ways of answering it. There can never be total safety. As to whether or not we describe refuge areas as being as safe as possible, let us not play with semantics. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that anywhere on a working motorway is totally safe; even motorway service areas can never be totally safe. I am not sure that it would be right for the agency to say, “This is a totally safe area.” We can play around with that. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the words, we can look at the description, but if I were to suggest that the proposed refuge areas are totally safe, I am sure he would attack me because I cannot possibly give that guarantee. I understand his point, but I hope he agrees that it is sensible to indicate that even in the refuge areas there is an element of risk.

[Paul Blomfield]

I framed my comments in the context of remarks by Chief Inspector Stuart Walne, head of roads policing in South Yorkshire. He talked about fundamental operational difficulties and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) said, about lives being at risk. The problem is that the scheme, as proposed, will be relatively less safe than the current arrangements.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that the Highways Agency met South Yorkshire police in several workshops, the most recent being on 5 February. My understanding is that the police at senior level and the Safer Roads Partnership are no longer opposed to the proposal in principle, and they are now working with the agency to find ways of operation.