Summer Adjournment

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Before the House rises for the summer recess, there a number of issues that I wish to raise and I will rattle through them as quickly as possible, so my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is making her debut responding to the debate, need not panic if she cannot get the answers to everything.

Terrorism is a great issue for each and every one of us to face. There are no easy solutions, but it is not helpful to keep calling the dreadful people who were responsible for the attacks in Tunisia a state or Islamic. Let us call them Daesh.

I am appalled that we have spent a huge amount of money on the Chilcot report and waited a huge amount of time for it to be published. The gentleman is paid £799 per day for his work on that. I want the report published as soon as possible because, as someone who voted for us getting involved in the war in Iraq, I want to know whether I was misled. The Independent will shortly publish an article which will highlight my concerns on that issue.

I am honoured to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Philippines. We are celebrating 70 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries. I will be attending a conference in London later this year. It is wonderful how that country has picked itself up following the devastation caused by the tsunami.

We have heard a lot about Iran. I shall not bore the House with my views on that, but recently, with a number of colleagues, I attended a conference in Paris. Those who attended it feel increasingly frustrated that the PMOI—the People’s Mojahedin of Iraq—is still, disgracefully, a proscribed organisation. That is absolutely ridiculous, and Mrs Maryam Rajavi is still not allowed to visit this country. That is crazy.

Every colleague says, “David, it’s wonderful to fly from Southend airport.” Some of my constituents experience challenges if their property is under the flight path of the aeroplanes. Owing to the formula for recompense for noise pollution, a constituent has found that he is unable to claim for 50% of the cost of insulation, despite the fact that his own readings show noise levels of 88 decibels or higher. That is much more than the statutory limits of 63 to 69 decibels. The legislation on that needs to be looked at.

On grammar school funding, we have four grammar schools in my constituency—Westcliff high school for boys, Westcliff high school for girls, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls. The funding for grammar schools is not fair. It is done on the basis of funding per pupil, rather than per qualification, which has led to great difficulties in running our grammar schools. I hope that colleagues who have grammar schools in their constituency will make sure that we get fair funding for our schools.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

We have great grammar schools in Lincolnshire as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things the Government need to do is remove the ban imposed by the Labour Government on new grammar schools opening and on existing grammar schools supporting the opening of new capacity where it is required within their own county?

[Sir David Amess]

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. As a boy supposedly born into poverty, grammar school gave me the opportunity to make the most of my life. It was a great shame that another party decided that we should not continue to support grammar schools.

On mental health, there are tremendous funding challenges and I am totally dissatisfied with mental health services in my area, so I am glad that the Care Quality Commission is carrying out an inspection. I hope that while CQC is doing so, the people running our services are not going to cook the books.

I was delighted that the Conservative party manifesto said that my party would do something about banning wild animals in circuses. That was wonderful news. When is it going to happen?

On public sector pay, I am sick to death of senior management being paid ridiculous salaries. I was appalled to discover, for instance, that my local hospital paid £343,000 for three people to walk around the hospital for three months asking people what was wrong with the hospital. Absolutely ridiculous! Given that my hospital originally had a £7.8 million deficit and now has a deficit of £9.8 million, it is not acceptable for money to be squandered in that way.

I have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him in what he is trying to do about the BBC. I read the letter that was signed by a number of people who work for the BBC—absolute icons, but they have a vested interest in that they tend to be higher earners. It is right that this House makes sure that senior management figures in the BBC do not continue to be paid the ridiculous salaries that they currently receive.

On national health service agency staff, before I became an MP I owned an employment agency, so I am not against the amount of money that employment agencies make from placing staff, but the amount of money spent on agency staff in our hospitals is ridiculous. As someone who served on the Health Committee for 10 years, where we had many inquiries, I think it is crazy that do not now have the number of permanent staff that we need.

On 9 September Her Majesty the Queen will become the longest reigning monarch ever, which we should all celebrate. I know that she does not want a fuss, but I hope that when we return in September this House will allow half an hour or an hour for us to pay our tributes.

Southend-on-Sea will be the alternative city of culture in 2017. We have a wonderful museum. I am very keen that we should have a marina. I congratulate Southend United on being promoted to league one. Southend deserves to become a city, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass that message on.

All Members of Parliament are subject to lobbying; some good and some bad. I was delighted to be lobbied recently by Results UK, which told me that our country is by far one of the most generous donors of international aid, ensuring that valuable taxpayers’ money is spent in places that truly need support. We should be proud of the money that has gone to help people in Kenya, for example.

The Optical Confederation is encouraging opticians to move outside hospitals, which can lead to tremendous savings in the work they do. I hope that colleagues will get involved in that.

I was pleased recently to meet the chief executive of Essex Community Fund. The funds are built up by philanthropic people who are unsure about whom they should donate their money to. Rather than leaving it to cats and dogs homes—there is nothing wrong with that, of course—they can leave it to Essex Community Fund, which will be delighted to receive it.

I am looking forward to attending a night shift with St Mungo’s Broadway, a charity in my constituency, although I do not think that I will be sleeping overnight on the pavement. As a party for one nation—I know that is controversial, but I think we are a one nation party—we must do all we can to show our concern for those who have fallen on hard times and to help them get back on their feet.

The National Deaf Children’s Society is a wonderful organisation. I have 104 deaf children living in my constituency, so I was interested to hear the organisation’s ideas for allocating Ofsted inspectors who have experience of the needs of deaf children. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Education should evaluate whether that proposal should be taken forward.

I recently had the privilege of meeting Lady Cobham, the chairman of VisitEngland, which used to be called the English Tourism Council. I understand that the money for tourism in Scotland is quite good, but apparently in England we are a little short of money to spend on that organisation. It is crazy that 39% of tourists come to London but only 16% go elsewhere in the UK. We should redress that balance, including by encouraging people to visit the wonderful country of Scotland.

Many countries across Europe have invested in a universal vaccine for hepatitis B, and I wonder whether the Government should consider doing the same here.

I very much support the endeavours of the Thames Estuary Partnership, because the Thames is the jewel in the crown, given everything that happens on the river.

Roche has brought to my attention its concerns about how quickly the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends medicines to be made available on the NHS. We all know that the pharmaceutical companies complain about NICE delaying matters, but I do think that it could speed things up a little.

The final issue I want to mention is a depressing one: funerals. I am a member of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement, which has existed for over a decade. As we all know, two things that are absolutely certain in life is that we are born and that we die. They are very important events. The all-party group has undertaken an inquiry into delays between death and burial or cremation, following concerns raised by our late colleague Paul Goggins. The group hopes to publish its report shortly. On funeral poverty, the social fund provides vital support to the poorest in our communities seeking to hold a decent funeral for their loved ones. However, the cap on “other funeral expenses” from the social fund has remained at £700 since 2003, which is absolutely ridiculous, because all the costs have risen.

I end my remarks by wishing Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the officers and staff of the House a very happy summer. For my own part, at the end of this debate I shall be dressing up in armour, getting on my horse and preparing for my investiture at Windsor castle tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a great honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) after such a powerful and eloquent maiden speech. I fear that she is going to have spend some of the next five years here teaching me how to pronounce all the names in her constituency. She stands in a long tradition, in that I think it took the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) at least five years before I started to get the name of his constituency right. I know that she will be a valued Member of the House, not only from that contribution, but from the fantastic work she has done in her constituency in her profession before she came into politics. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to congratulate her on such a fantastic speech.

These are, of course, the debates before the summer recess and I shall try not to detain the House for too long, but I hope I can be forgiven for making one observation about the procedure of the House. These debates previously took place in a way that permitted Ministers from across the whole of Government, by Department, to respond to the concerns of hon. Members that were raised before the long break and fell within their particular areas of ministerial responsibility. Although it is an enormous pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the Front Bench, and although he and the Deputy Leader of the House will take the concerns of the House back to each individual Department, the transition that we have made so that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the House now responds to this debate and individual Ministers do not do so is one that should be looked at by the Procedure Committee. It is, in my respectful observation, a change that does little to enable the concerns of Members to be brought to the forefront of Ministers.

I wish to detain the House briefly on two matters. The first of those is one that troubles me greatly, as my right hon. Friend knows. I have campaigned on it in the past and I intend to campaign on it in this Parliament: it is the effect of corruption across the world and what it means for the people of this country.

The House debated the matter recently in an Adjournment debate, and there have been other opportunities to raise it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that this is an issue that must be tackled not only by this Government, but by the international community. It is a fact that very many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people have their lives touched to a considerable degree, and not in a way that is good for them, by the corruption that is rife, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the developing world. The effect of that is devastating for those who live in appalling conditions, as many do in the developing world, but it also has an effect on all of us in the United Kingdom, because while that corruption takes place, our security is threatened. It is the thing that drives economic migration to Europe and drives people to take the desperate measures to try to cross the Mediterranean to look for a better life in Europe, albeit illegally. It is also the thing that runs the risk of driving the terrorist threat not only in this country but in all the countries that are allied with us. It is therefore something that the Government are rightly focusing on in this Parliament.

I wish to hear not only that this matter is a priority for the Government—the Prime Minister has rightly said that it is—but more details on the anti-corruption seminar that the Prime Minister intends to run in this country next year for all UN nations and, indeed, what is intended to be achieved by that summit. Although we have a framework that is principally centred on the UN anti-corruption convention and to which many nations are signed up, it remains the fact that very little effort goes into monitoring and enforcement. As I have said, that is something that not only affects those in the developing world—some of the most vulnerable and poor people to whom we owe a moral responsibility—but threatens our security here.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is also a very good friend, for giving way. It has always struck me in so many nations in the world that, when the leader of a country takes up the reins of power, far too many of them believe that every single thing in that country belongs to them, which leads to the suffering of the people.

[Stephen Phillips]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The trouble is that corruption permeates in many of these countries from the top to the bottom. The view that previously held sway in much of the developed world was that there was nothing that could be done about it, and that it was, if not a desirable thing, something that we had to put up with because there was no way of getting people to enter public service—given the rates of pay on offer to them—unless they could subsidise their income through corruption. I hope that that view has largely disappeared, but it is something that must be stamped on. We in the developed world need to take action and tackle this scourge of corruption throughout the developing world—and in the developed world where we see it as well—not just because it is our moral responsibility, but because it affects our own security. I hope that I will hear something on that matter from the Deputy Leader of the House.

I want to touch on a very far-flung corner of this land—perhaps not as far-flung as the constituencies of some of those on the Scottish National party Benches, although having talked to civil servants in Whitehall, I could be forgiven for holding the belief that they seem to think that the part of the country that I am about to come on to is even further away than Orkney and Shetland. I speak, of course, of God’s great county, Lincolnshire, in which my constituency lies, as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who I see is in her place.

Contrary to popular belief in Whitehall and, dare I say it, among some Ministers not only in this Government but in Governments of the past, Lincolnshire does not lie somewhere in the North sea. It is only an hour and 20 minutes or so from King’s Cross station or perhaps two hours’ drive up the A1. It would be rather nice if we could see Ministers and, perhaps more importantly, civil servants occasionally taking the trip to Lincolnshire so that they could see for themselves not only what a wonderful county it is, but quite how much we are affected by some of the spending decisions made here in London. I have in mind two particular areas that I want to focus on.

The first of those is Lincolnshire police service, which is now the poorest funded police service in the country per capita. That is notwithstanding the fact that our population is as sparse in many ways as the population in some other areas of the United Kingdom, such as those in Scotland. The result of the underfunding of Lincolnshire police, which has been going on for decades, is that the police service in Lincolnshire is now stretched so thin that no further cuts can be made other than on the front line, and if that happens, the service received by people in Lincolnshire will be even worse than it is now.

The permanent secretary in the Home Department came to the Public Accounts Committee this week and I tackled him—quite feistily, it has to be said—on the past settlements which have been made in relation to police funding in Lincolnshire. He effectively admitted what we who live in the county have all known for far too long—that we have been on the receiving end of a very unfair funding formula which, thankfully, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice is now looking at. I hope we will get a new funding formula by the end of the year.

That discrimination, which is what it is, against the rural folk of Lincolnshire has been going on for far too long. What I would like to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House is something about the timetable for the introduction of the new funding formula, even if she has to write to me about it, so that I can go back to the police commissioner and the chief constable in Lincolnshire in due course and tell them precisely when we can expect the police service in Lincolnshire to be properly funded.

It is not, of course, just the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) raised as recently as this morning in Transport questions the gross underfunding of our road network, about which the House has heard from Members on all sides during this debate. That, too, needs to be tackled.

The other area on which I want to focus is local authority funding and, in particular, the funding of Lincolnshire County Council. As matters stand, Lincolnshire County Council is facing a 55% reduction in its grant funding over the next four years. That is, in effect, a £68 million reduction for one of the largest counties in the country with one of the most difficult areas to serve because of the sparsity of its population and the fact that we have ribbon development along many of our arterial and other roads. At the same time as that reduction, budget pressures will fall on the county council, which mean that in 2015-16 alone approximately £31 million will have to be found just to cover inflation and an increase in adult social costs.

The funding formula for local government, not just for Lincolnshire but for many rural counties, has been unfair for far too long. Many of us argue in this House year after year that rural English counties need more money, yet very little ever seems to change. I hope that as a result of this debate the Deputy Leader of the House will go back to colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and make it clear that this inequity, which results in public services—which cost just as much to run in rural Lincolnshire as they do in rural Scotland—being underfunded, has to be brought to an end. Staffing numbers are already reducing, and many programmes that the county council has been running, including, for example, in relation to public health, which we all trumpet in this House, have already had to be cut. Our libraries budget has had to fall, to the great detriment of those who use them, and the same is true of children’s centres. The number of firemen on each fire engine has fallen from five to four, which I understand is the absolute minimum allowed by statute.

All these matters indicate that counties such as Lincolnshire—it is Lincolnshire that I am concentrating on, of course—have been at the thin end of the wedge for far too long. Far too much funding has gone into urban areas and perhaps, dare I say it, to the devolved regions. That has to be remedied. It has to be a task of this Government. It has to be something we tackle, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle would agree. Unless we tackle it, there will be a real problem with rural England continuing to feel that it is discriminated against at a time when more money is being ploughed into our towns and cities and to the devolved regions, and at a time when every single public service in Lincolnshire for which local authorities are responsible has been cut to the bone.