Future of DFID

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Alex Norris

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We must ensure that aid reaches those who need it most and that it is not siphoned away by corrupt individuals in Governments, whether in Africa or in other parts of the world.

DFID is respected and admired in all the places where it operates. Wherever the UK aid logo appears, it shows the world how much the British public care. Since the passage of the International Development Act 2002, all overseas aid must be spent with the explicit purpose of reducing global poverty. That is an important piece of legislation, because it makes clear the distinction between aid and trade: one is not a quid pro quo for the other. The Pergau dam scandal showed that some aid in the 1980s and 1990s was being linked to trade deals. In that instance, despite clear objections from civil servants, there was a link between British aid for building the dam and British arms sales to Malaysia.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentions a very troubling incident and he will notice echoes of that today, with renewed calls for our aid budget to mirror trade interests. Does he agree that common global interests are what matter, rather than narrow self-interest?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, he may be telepathic, because I was just about to mention that, but I concur fully with his view.

The Pergau dam affair was declared unlawful in a landmark court case in 1994. More recently, as my hon. Friend says, fears have been raised that our aid budget has not focused solely on poverty reduction. An article in The Guardian revealed that charities such as Oxfam, Save the Children and ActionAid were deeply concerned that some of the funds were used by

“classing politically convenient projects as aid,”

rather than exclusively helping the most vulnerable. We must of course contribute vital overseas aid owing to our obligations as one the wealthiest nations in the world. I am sure that the Minister will offer warm and emollient words. She will no doubt tell us of the commitment to DFID as a Department and that the 0.7% target remains in place.

At this point, it is pertinent to pay tribute to both the former Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore, for introducing a private Member’s Bill to enshrine the 0.7% target in law, and the then Government for allowing it to become law. We should welcome the commitment in the 2017 Conservative manifesto to maintaining that 0.7% commitment, which I am sure the Minister will mention in her speech.

Why exactly should we be concerned about DFID’s future? The tectonic plates of politics have shifted in recent months and the voices that considered overseas aid a waste of money have become louder and more mainstream within the governing party—the critics are moving from the fringe to centre stage. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), seemed more aligned with the TaxPayers Alliance than with the global anti-poverty movement. She resigned after running errands for the FCO in Israel rather than running her own Department.

The previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), called the establishment of DFID in 1997 a “colossal mistake”.

This month, he endorsed a report by the Henry Jackson Society that calls for a dilution of DFID’s role in alleviating poverty, with a diversion towards broader international policies such as peacekeeping. He told the BBC’s “Today” programme:

“We could make sure that 0.7 % is spent more in line with Britain’s political commercial and diplomatic interests.”

Commercial interests? What could he possibly mean by that?

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) has made it clear that he believes this is the opening act in a move to downgrade DFID and to slash overseas aid. It is hard to disagree that that is the Secretary of State’s secret agenda.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Alex Norris

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

Liberty, Mind, the Alzheimer’s Society, the National Autistic Society, POhWER, Parkinson’s UK, the British Institute of Human Rights, Sense, Compassion in Dying, YoungMinds, Learning Disability England and Headway all say that this is “rushed, incomplete and unworkable”, and that in general they feel the whole exercise is entirely unfit. It is well within the prerogative of the Government of the day to say that they are right and that all those organisations are wrong, but it is, dare I say it, quite a brave thing to do. For the benefit of the Committee, and of everybody else who has taken an interest in these proceedings, it might be worth explaining why the Government feel that they are right and the Bill is fit for purpose, and that the new clause, which very much puts the cherry on top of the Bill, is worth standing part of it.

[Mr Dhesi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an indictment of the whole process, and of the rushed manner in which the Bill has been introduced? To have one organisation from among those 13 eminent organisations come forward in The Times today and use words such as “rushed”, “incomplete”, “unworkable”, “unfit” and “dysfunctional” would be bad enough; to have all 13 do so makes the entire process look like complete folly.

[Alex Norris]

I completely agree. To me it is a big, blinking red light that says that perhaps we need to pause and think again. Nothing typifies that more than new clause 1. It is helpful to have a definition in the Bill, and there is broad support for that. I also have some sympathy for its being exclusionary, rather than put in a positive manner, because we know, irrespective of what ends up in the Bill, that it will end up in court.

This is a hotly contested area of case law. It feels a bit like what it must be like to be an American legislator—we are almost waiting for what we do to be tested in court to see if it is okay. I have no doubt, with things as they are currently comprised, that we will be back. I do not know whether it will be a couple of months down the line or a couple of years, but if we carry on we will certainly be back.

The approach laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South is sensible and proportionate, and it might give us an opportunity to resolve the issue, by sending the new clause, which has appeared between stages, to the sector and asking, “How do you feel about this?” in order to get some engagement. That would give us more time for the lawyers to do their thing too. That seems quite sensible.

It would also give us a chance to take a breath on the whole Bill, and a little more time to see whether we can resolve some of the issues that we have discussed over the last two weeks. Many of the things we as an Opposition have put forward have had merit; perhaps our approach has not always been perfect, but to find better ways to try to address those things would be good for us all.

I will move on to my second concern. If new clause 1 becomes part of the Bill and the Bill becomes an Act, the smoke will come out of this place and send a clear signal: “We know that DoLS doesn’t work and hasn’t worked for a long time. Here is what is going to come next. Here is what we mean by ‘deprivation of liberty’ and here is what you can expect.” I maintain my anxiety that we will have only solved half of the problem, or one of two problems, because it is entirely possible for a big problem—in this case DoLS, the backlog and people’s experiences of that process—to be multifactorial.

No one has contested the fact that the DoLS system did not work and ought to be replaced, but there is a big, yawning and currently unanswered question of resources. I was concerned to hear the Minister say that they are the result of political decisions. I have been in that chair, as the local adult services lead on my council for three years, wrestling with DoLS. Is it a political decision? Yes, maybe it is, in the sense that we are basically trying to juggle whether to deal with assessing new people on their social care needs, assessing whether the needs of people currently in the social care system have gone up or down or, indeed, areas such as DoLS, all of which carry enormous risk to an individual, a local authority and a community as a whole.

In the sense that it is a political choice, it is like saying, “Your house is on fire; are you going to put out the lounge or the kitchen first?” You would just grab the bucket of water and chuck it at it, frankly. There is no political decision in that, or certainly not one of due prioritisation. Ultimately, if we are going to include this new clause in the Bill to set up the new system and legislation to set the new way, we must have absolute clarity that the finances are going to be met. Otherwise, the system will fail and we will, certainly with new clause 1, have elevated people’s expectations. At the moment people expect to be disappointed, because they know the system does not work. Now we are going to tell them that we have a new system that works, and then it will not. I suspect that is why all those eminent organisations have said that it is where it is.

On this point and on others, I feel that we on the Opposition Benches have made strong arguments about ways of improving the Bill, but it is not just us. It is not just partisan knockabout; it is not political. It is not a case where the Government say one thing so therefore the Opposition oppose. We should look at the organisations that are also saying, with flashing lights, “Please stop and have a think about this.” Otherwise, as I say, we will be back.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Alex Norris

Thursday 17th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury and for Stockton South, who made compelling arguments that I hope to add to a little.

On fluctuation, by definition we are talking about some of the most challenged individuals in society. As a result, their medication needs could be significant, and the nature of their challenges can change over time. It is not only conceivable but probable that those individuals’ needs may vary. Therefore, the protections we need to give them may have to be slightly flexible.

Behind the Cheshire West case and the television documentaries that make us all throw our hands up in the air and think, “Goodness me, how awful”, is the idea that none of us thinks that someone whose liberty needs to be taken away for their own protection should ever be put away and forgotten about. None of us wants that at all. That is in keeping with the theme of wiring into the Bill the understanding that we are talking about human beings, and that things change and their conditions change, as they do with us all. Therefore, we may need to change the way they are looked after and supported.

I reflect on the point the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis put so well; on Tuesday I was wringing my hands about my past anxieties about the lack of assessing capacity. I then put my name to an amendment that asks for greater specialism among those assessors as people who could pick up something that, as the hon. Gentleman said, was not trivial. I understand his view but do not completely share it. We want to include in the Bill the possibility that an individual’s needs may fluctuate—not how those needs will fluctuate. It would not necessarily mean that all the assessors have to have the ability to make that judgment. If the assessment says, “There is a reasonable chance that this individual’s needs may fluctuate,” that puts a “So what?” test on the responsible body, which may say, “Okay. We may therefore need to call in someone who has that specialism at an appropriate moment.” That could be covered in the code of practice. I do not think that test puts an unreasonable or unnecessary burden on the assessing capacity, which is finite.

I support the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury made. Most of this discussion has been framed around the idea that some people are deprived of their liberty because they are deemed not to have the capacity to look after themselves, but because their needs fluctuate, that may not have needed to happen. As my hon. Friend said, there is another cohort of people who are assessed not to have fallen into a deprivation situation, but that might not be safe for them either. It is important that we bring that into the discussion. This is not just about people who are deprived of their liberty when that may not need to be the case; it is also about people who, the vast majority of the time, are not in those circumstances, but in a conceivable situation relating to their personal health challenges, may need to be deprived of their liberty. That is a really important point.

Amendments 31 and 33 get to the nub of what we have been talking about for the past two and a half sittings. What are we trying to do with assessment? If the Bill tilts towards moving assessment away from local authority-hosted social work into care settings, with the people who are around the individual the most and have great familiarity with them, the Opposition have expressed some discomfort about that. Nobody is arguing for perfunctory or tick-box assessments—hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been clear about that. With amendment 33, we want to put on the face of the Bill a requirement that the people who carry out assessments have the right qualifications—I hope that will apply to pre-authorisation assessments, too—so we have the confidence to say to people, after this Bill has wended its way through Parliament, that we have not created a system that has moved away from skilled assessment, which is expensive, finite and a challenge in this country, towards unskilled assessment because it is easier or cheaper. Nobody wants that; I certainly do not. By putting that on the face of the Bill, we can give comfort to the people who observe our proceedings and those who will engage with us during the Bill’s progress that we are not seeking to do that.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. As a former trustee of Alzheimer’s & Dementia Support Services, which dealt with people with very serious vulnerabilities, I can attest to the fact that amendments 31 and 33 are entirely sensible and should be incorporated in the Bill. Not having a registered medical practitioner undertaking these assessments, especially when we are dealing with very vulnerable individuals, would be detrimental to the entire process.

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate that intervention. One of my favourite things about being in this place—certainly in Bill Committees, out of the white heat of the Chamber—is that we learn a lot that we did not know about people’s knowledge and expertise, whether it is personal experience, professional experience or experience from their spare time. It helps us all. That contribution adds to the debate, and I greatly appreciate it.

These amendments will help to give confidence that what we are all trying to achieve here will be achieved in the Bill. I would expect it to be enhanced by the code of practice, but in law and in statute, in the Bill, we in this place will have made a clear commitment about what sort of legislation we want. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Alex Norris

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I came to this place having represented my community on Nottingham City Council for six years—something that I enjoyed greatly and that was a real privilege. However, being a councillor between 2011 and 2017 was quite a difficult proposition. We saw massive real-terms decreases in our funding every year as the Government downscaled their commitment to our city. That meant service cuts, council tax increases, and business rates being increasingly vital. It meant local people paying more so that the national Government could pay less. All this in pursuit of an austerity agenda that decimated demand in our local economy, leading to a historically slow economic recovery, and is now to pay for tax cuts of little social value.

I am afraid that is the picture we see again this year: spending cuts. I used to think—I do not know if it was a naive or an optimistic view of the world—that Ministers did not understand local government and that that was why there were cuts of such a scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not in his place, said that local government has been targeted as much as anywhere else in the public sector. I thought that it was because Ministers did not understand it, and thought that the services were unimportant and wasteful. Actually, it is quite the reverse. Ministers target local government because they know exactly how it works. They know that hard-pressed councils like mine in Nottingham have to set balanced budgets, so if they pull a lever and say what the reduction is, they will get that reduction, to the penny, from local government, and they can go to their Treasury colleagues having done their job. They will have had none of the responsibility and will get all the benefit. What an easy cut to make!”

That would be bad enough, but these spending cuts have been incredibly unevenly distributed. Between 2014 and 2016—around the transition grant period—Nottingham households lost 250 quid each in spending power, while those in Windsor, to pick one area out of dozens that would fit into this category, lost just £34. But it was those very communities such as Windsor that benefited from the £300 million transition grant to help them to deal with the cuts. In Nottingham? Not a bean.

Inevitably—what else could it do?—that has led to council tax rises in my community. One of the poorest communities in the country, with the lowest discretionary spend, we will now again receive a near 6% increase in our council tax. We have a small council tax base, as others have mentioned, so that will be less helpful for us than it will be for other communities. Our gap in Nottingham starts at £33 million. The Secretary of State talks about increased spending, but the reality of the situation—I suspect it is the same for all hon. Members here today—is that my council will have to make reductions. If I tell my council leader that he has more money, he will tell me that he has to make a £33 million reduction in services. If he gets £6 million in council tax, that is still £27 million that has to come from elsewhere as we deal with the toxic combination of losing grant and having significant increases in demand.

We have heard a lot about demands in adult social care, which are important, but we should not forget children’s social care and the extraordinary pressures it creates. So for my community there will be service cuts. Lest people think that this is an efficiency issue, I want to share with the House the proposals in Nottingham—[Interruption.] I am glad the Chancellor has joined us: I will be able to make a personal plea. The proposals in Nottingham include job cuts in adult social care; reducing funding for weight management, smoking cessation and drug and alcohol services; reductions in youth services; reducing funding for the careers service; reviewing transport services for vulnerable adults; reviewing fees and charges for leisure centres and bereavement services; and increasing fares and reducing frequency on the Link bus services. We have our political differences, but I doubt that anyone would say that those are “nice to haves”.

More importantly, as well as being vital services in my community, those are all stitches in time that save nine. Every single one of those reductions will lead to an increase in spending in public services elsewhere, and that is why this settlement is an act of vandalism. It is short-sighted and ill-judged. But as we all know—and I suggest this is why the Secretary of State is so attached to the idea—my council will receive all the blame. It should not; it is doing an excellent job in impossible circumstances. The fault lies at the door of the Secretary of State.

As for the fair funding review, I have no problem with systems that are a generation old being looked at, but we should be clear when we talk about fairness. I know there is an enthusiasm for capitation, but we should be clear what that would mean for communities such as mine. I am happy to accept, and I almost hoped I would get, an intervention on that point.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that areas of high social deprivation end up bearing the brunt of cuts? In particular, in my constituency, the council has had to contend with £54 million in cuts, £12.4 million of which is to schools, thereby hampering the education of the next generation.

[Alex Norris]

I share my hon. Friend’s perspective. I know that he will work with his council to try to mitigate those cuts, but there is a point at which that becomes impossible. I am sure that in Slough, as in Nottingham—and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), in his area—they have received reductions that are significantly over the national average. The reductions are not just ill conceived, they are unfairly distributed. When we look at the fair funding formula, we must look at that.

I have heard persuasive cases from Shropshire about the needs there. That is why we should look at hard deprivation indices to make our judgments, not special pleading or bartering for votes. We need hard figures that say where the need is greatest, because that is where the funding should go.

I have not been here very long, but I have noticed a couple of curiosities that have been in full force today. Earlier in the day, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Government Back Benches erupted with stories of how great things are going in Members’ constituencies and what a wonderful job the Government are doing. Fast-forward a couple of hours to this debate and suddenly we hear how hard-pressed those communities are and how much more money they need—and need now. As I have said, this is a zero-sum game, and the money would come from poorer communities such as mine. That is one of the odd spectacles.

We also often hear from Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the answer to public service issues is not more money, and councils should not just ask for more money. But then we have had a series of speeches this afternoon asking for just that. When the challenges are in better-off communities, the answer is always more money, but it is always less money for us. I come from Robin Hood country, and it is a sort of reverse Robin Hood. It is particularly galling to have lectures on the state of local public finances from communities that never put their council tax up, use that as a political article of faith and then say, “Look at the shortfall we’ve got.” We have always had to put our council tax up, because that is the only way we can hope to stay anywhere near in line with our demands. Those are our challenges. As we move to the fairer funding review, let us use fairness in its proper and most evidence-based form.