High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

We started off with a figure of about £35 billion or £36 billion. The latest figure is somewhere around £55 billion. My hon. Friend and I have seen credible estimates upwards of £80 billion. Should the House not know what it is actually voting for tonight? How much will it be?

[Sir William Cash]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—a real friend, quite apart from being an hon. Friend—and I would add that we only have to look at clause 61 to realise the financial implications and how costs will be dealt with. There is talk about the overall cost being about £51 billion—there has been an upgrade in the amount of money intended to be applied to this part of the proposal. We cannot separate out the cost of distance between London and Birmingham, and then leave out Birmingham to the ultimate destination. The reality is that we are faced with a proposal under the Bill that is excessive in its totality and unjustified in the unbelievable havoc it will cause my constituents.

The other point I would make on new clause 2 relates to the compensation scheme for tenants, an idea I put forward on a number of occasions. There is no doubt that a huge number of people will be adversely affected by the scheduled works. It is not just tenants who will be affected but property owners. They will be severely damaged. Many of my constituents have been put under the most incredible stress and anxiety. There have been suggestions that some people, elderly people in particular, have been under such intense stress that they have died prematurely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Yes, I do. I think the Pendolino fleet, introduced by a previous Labour Government, has done a great job, and I am therefore very disappointed that Virgin Trains and Stagecoach are not going to be involved in the next phase of this service. In the nine years in which I have had the honour to represent my constituents in this House, I have used that service between two and four times a week, and it has been late a handful of times. It is an excellent and reliable service; others may have had different experiences, but that is my experience over the past nine years.

[Sir William Cash]

I am glad to confirm everything my hon. Friend has said, but I am a little puzzled that he left new clause 4 out of the list of amendments on which he was intending to cast a vote. I wonder if he could throw any light on that: is it because of the point that I and others have made about the report coming into effect only after the Act has received Royal Assent, or is it because of something else? Most of the measures in new clause 4(2) would give rise to the business case my hon. Friend is calling for, and with which I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Only a few days ago the Stone Railhead Crisis Group, which represents the interests of my constituents around Stone, met the regional director of Highways England and discovered that there are some very serious problems for Highways England at both Hanchurch and the proposed HS2 junction at Yarnfield Lane that really require re-evaluation, which I intend to go into a bit on Third Reading. Is my hon. Friend aware of those conversations and the fact that Highways England is in fact very concerned indeed about the situation?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I did in fact refer to junction 15, which is also known as the Hanchurch junction. It is actually a series of junctions that are critical to the national road network, not just the local road network. Junction 15 is one of the most difficult and congested junctions on the motorway network because of the topography of the area, and it finds it difficult to handle the current amount of traffic, let alone the vastly increased amount that there will be under phase 2a of HS2.

Improving Education Standards

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. I also give credit to the Minister, because I know how much she engaged with me and other colleagues on Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group earlier this year when we had a particular problem with apprenticeships, which has been largely solved thanks to the work of the colleges and the Department. I thank her for her support.

There was a survey of sixth-form colleges in October 2017. Emails from the Government to us Back Benchers say that surveys are rarely designed to be helpful. However, in this case, even if the survey is not entirely accurate it makes some extremely important points. For instance, 50% of colleges that responded said they had dropped courses in modern foreign languages. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for what he said about foreign languages, which are vital. I was not aware of the Mandarin programme, and I will have to see how many of my local schools, if any, have taken it up. I am a passionate supporter of the teaching of modern foreign languages, especially as we move into an interesting time in the coming years.

Thirty-four per cent. of respondents had dropped courses in STEM subjects, and 67% had reduced student support services, which are incredibly important, particularly for the 16 to 19 age group, in which people are under quite a lot of pressure, not least from social media. Seventy-seven per cent. were teaching students in larger classes, and I could go on. There were clearly pressures, and I know my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who has responsibility for further education, will be looking hard at that survey and no doubt engaging with the sixth-form colleges and further education colleges to see how these matters can be addressed.

I feel passionately about readiness for work and soft skills, which are vital for our country’s future and our young people’s future. I have the honour of chairing the international Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and I met the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) a few months ago to ask him whether he would mind editing a book on the future of work, an area in which he has a lot of expertise. He did so, and we launched the book at the World Bank meetings in Indonesia at the beginning of last month and here in Parliament a couple of weeks ago.

The book’s examples from around the world, whether from Singapore, South Korea or Argentina, clearly show that everybody is facing this issue of the future of work. There are huge changes coming up, whether through artificial intelligence or the next generation of technology, and we have to prepare our young people not necessarily for those individual skills—skills and techniques move on—but for the ability to change and to accept the need to retrain. They need flexibility in the way they think about the future. That has to start not when people have left school, college or university, but at primary school. It does not have to start too early, but perhaps in year 6 and moving on into year 7. Many schools and colleges are trying to do that work, but they need support; they need recognition for that in the curriculum. Readiness for work is vital.

Let me mention one small step we have taken in Stafford. With some friends and colleagues, I started a schools debating competition a couple of years ago, whereby schools and colleges can come to the House of Commons to compete against each other in a friendly, competitive manner. We are very pleased with the results. One thing young people have said to me is that it gives them much greater confidence to speak in public.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I commend what my hon. Friend is saying and the work he is doing, because I am his next-door neighbour, and Stafford and Stone run together in a lot of these matters. We are both fighting hard to get the best possible standards for our constituents.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Clearly, some of my constituents go to schools in his constituency and vice versa. I have experience of the issues faced by rural schools, including small ones, but he has much more experience of that than I do.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

2nd reading: House of Commons & Allocation of time motion: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading & Allocation of time motion & Carry-over motion & Money resolution
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is welcome to visit my constituency; we will make an arrangement. He will see the beautiful countryside of the upper Trent Valley, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone would also show him across Swynnerton Park and up towards Madeley, so that he can see the effect of the line on those areas.

The business case is another reason I believe this is the wrong project. We have heard from other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), that the business case is not particularly compelling. In fact, our former colleague and former Chair of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, said that HS2

“has the weakest economic case of all projects”

within the infrastructure programme. As has been mentioned, there is a hole in the business case. That is, there is no business case that I can see for the continuation of the existing west coast main line without the revenue from the high-speed services that currently use it and generate most of its revenue. How will that line be maintained? Will it be maintained purely with the revenue from local and regional services, on which prices can be extremely low? Will that generate enough revenue? Alternatively, will it be maintained using revenue from freight services? I do not know, but there is not a business case. I have asked for it and it has not been provided. I urge the Government—particularly if they are about to put out to tender for the package of HS2 and the west coast main line—to insist that we have a proper business case for the entire package, not simply for HS2.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this has all the hallmarks of a vanity project and that that is why there is not a proper business case? To a certain extent, that answers his question.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Well, I am not sure that it is a vanity project because, if constructed, it certainly will bring benefits to the country, although probably at much more expense than it should and at a huge cost to our constituents. When I challenged a very senior person who has been involved in this project in the past, they said, “Well, actually, it’s gone too far. We wouldn’t have started it here but we have gone too far.” The west coast main line was started, I think, in the 1850s—possibly even earlier—so this project will last for 200 years. What is a few years to get this right and to put it in the right place? I shall return to that point.

On the problems, let me start with the problems for people because people are the most important. I get pretty frustrated when HS2 staff come around to count bats. Yes, bats have importance, but my constituents are more important. HS2 is prepared to spend an awful lot of time and money counting bats and various other things, but not talking to my constituents. I have constituents who have waited for a visit for a year. These constituents have dairy farms, and HS2 wants to take 100 acres away from their farm, which would make a dairy farm unviable. Only last week, a constituent of mine suddenly received a letter from HS2 indicating that his entire property was needed, when it had previously only needed a very small part. I have a strong objection to the uncertainty and inefficiency with which my constituents have been handled. That is not to criticise every single employee of HS2. I have met some extremely good ones. There have been some who I would praise for their work, but there have been others who, I am afraid, have fallen short.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. I apologise if I gave the impression that I do not care about bats at all, but I care about my constituents a little bit more. There are also the issues of the slow process, the lack of engagement, totally unnecessary arguments over valuations and a lack of knowledge. For example, one constituent of mine was not aware of what was going on. He sold the property after the line was announced and made a huge loss, but was then unable to claim for that loss because he was told that he should have gone through the process. This elderly gentleman was basically robbed of tens of thousands of pounds simply because he did not quite understand the system. Will the Minister see whether there is some way that we can get compensation for my constituent, who deserves it? I have constituents, an elderly couple, whose property is going to be boxed in by the works on HS2—literally boxed in. Yet, as things stand, they are not going to be allowed to sell their house to HS2, for reasons I fail to understand.

Then there is the impact on communities and the environment. The line runs adjacent to Great Haywood. It goes through Ingestre, Hopton, Marston and Yarlet. These are mainly old and ancient villages with strong communities. Hopton has lost a lot of its population already because people have moved out. There is not the community there that there was, because HS2, although it is renting out to people some of the properties that have been sold to it, is not doing so quickly. Naturally, the people who are coming in, perhaps for the short term, are not able to join in the community as much as others would.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend recall the impact that this will also have on Yarlet School, which is a very serious problem for those who have this fantastically good school and the facilities that go with it?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I do indeed. The line goes pretty much straight through Yarlet School, and not only that but through Yarlet wood, which is one of our ancient woodlands. I think it is even noted in the Domesday Book, so it is the best part of 1,000 years old.

Another very important part of Staffordshire life that the line goes straight through, or almost straight through, is Staffordshire showground, which hosts not just the county show but hundreds of other events every year, with probably the best part of 300,000 or 400,000 people attending. It is a very important employer and economic entity within my constituency.

The line goes very close to Shugborough. The irony of this is that when the west coast main line was put through Shugborough in the 19th century, the Earl of Lichfield persuaded the railway company to build a cut-and-cover tunnel through Shugborough, which one still sees when going on the main line up to Liverpool. We have been unable to persuade HS2 to provide such tunnelling for my constituents. Clearly, where the railways would listen to the Earl of Lichfield 150 years ago and more, they do not listen to the ordinary people today who would like to have some protection from this line. The line also goes pretty much straight through the beautiful Ingestre and Tixall parklands and landscapes.

The next issue is transport infrastructure. The line cuts straight across several major roads, including the A51, the A518, the A34 and the M6, and goes over the west coast main line. As far as I can see, HS2 and Highways England do not seem to have a plan on how to manage the inevitable disruption to local, regional, and indeed national transport that is going to be caused. I hope they do have one, because the M6 must be, if not the busiest motorway in Europe, then one of the busiest, and the A34 is a kind of relief road for the M6. If both of those are going to be disrupted, particularly if it happens at the same time, the consequences for the regional and national economy, right up to Scotland, will be quite substantial.

Another problem is connectivity after HS2. Clearly, connectivity from Stafford will be better. There will be a faster journey from Stafford to London than at present. It is already an extremely good and fast journey—nobody has complained to me about it in the past—and it will, I admit, be a few minutes faster. Northbound, we are really concerned about connectivity, because we understand that the trains through Stafford and Stoke will end at Macclesfield. I have nothing against Macclesfield; in fact, it is a wonderful town. However, most of the time my constituents tend to prefer to go further to Manchester and Liverpool rather than to stop at Macclesfield. As I say, I have nothing against Macclesfield.

The next problem is the impact on businesses. Last week, I heard from a business that received, out of the blue, a letter saying, “We want all your land.” This business employs a large number of people in a rural area; it is possibly the biggest employer in that area. Yet suddenly, with literally no notice, we are suddenly told that HS2 needs the entire plot that it is working from, without any alternative.

HS2 Phase 2: Consultation

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful to, and concur with, my right hon. Friend. Accidents have occurred and I think that a hotline is an extremely good idea. I hope that the Minister is listening.

An analysis of the population of Yarnfield and the Stone area shows that over-65-year-olds make up a significant number of the local population. The proposed option will do nothing to enhance, let alone accommodate, an environment to support such an elderly population. Many residents in Yarnfield who are elderly and infirm will have to live with those proposals being imposed on them. Not only will they create dust, noise, light pollution and total disruption to all the residents of numerous surrounding villages and the Stone town, they will also ruin the lives of many who have chosen to retire to a rural environment and who have settled in the area in good faith. People in Stone town itself are also deeply concerned.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Although the development is not as close to my constituency as it is to his, there will be an impact on Great Bridgeford, Little Bridgeford and Ellenhall. In addition, if I am not wrong, there has been substantial new building of homes in Yarnfield itself and people will not have been aware that this was coming when they purchased those homes.

[Sir William Cash]

That is completely true. I concur with my hon. Friend. Indeed, people who came to the public meeting said that they moved to Yarnfield precisely because they thought that it was a peaceful area. They moved away from areas that had been disrupted by HS2 proposals, but now they find themselves saddled with them again.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England wrote about the proposals on Monday:

“The site is in the green belt, and CPRE has a long standing commitment to protect those special areas…In the case of HS2a...We considered and accepted that the best location for the main construction compound was on railway land at Basford Sidings, south of Crewe. Temporary satellite compounds would be needed at points along the line during the construction period. The decision by HS2 Ltd to transfer the main railhead compound to Stone in place of the depot at Crewe then upgrade to a permanent one and include it in the Hybrid Bill”,

which will come before Parliament,

“has caused us immense concern.”

The consultation proposals are entirely silent on many important details. Nowhere in them can we find the specified acreage of the railhead and compound. How can such consultation proposals and maps be provided to my constituents, causing great fear, anxiety and disruption in the area, without HS2 Ltd transparently showing the precise acreage of the proposed railhead and compound?

As I have said before, a great deal of noise, vibration, poor air quality, HGV traffic and visual intrusion will result from the proposed works. The consultation paper refers to the location having

“good connections to the existing Norton Bridge to Stone Railway”,

yet Norton Bridge is currently under a departmental consultation for closure, and it has certainly not been made at all clear what possible strategic link could be made to Stone railway.

On roads and highways, the proposed closure of Yarnfield Lane for three years is totally unacceptable to local residents, as it will compromise the health and welfare of the community and their ability to travel around the area. The proposal to use Eccleshall Road as an access and supply route to the construction site is untenable. It will block the whole area, which is already over-subscribed, and cause unbelievable chaos.

Stone Town Council is also concerned about the impact on the Walton area of Stone, where a strategic development location for 500 houses has been identified in the Stafford borough plan. The proposed railhead and sidings encroach on to that land. The maintenance facility must not be allowed to interfere with the local borough plan for Yarnfield and Stone. The design also proposes the use of the M6 as a supply route to the site, but that area of motorway is well known among local residents for becoming effectively a car park as soon as a traffic incident occurs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford knows that that is absolutely true. The traffic will come back on to the local roads, the A34 and the A51, and that will make the situation even worse.

The proposal to use Pirehill Lane as a supply and service route to the construction site further out towards Whitgreave is ill-conceived and has no credibility. The proposal is absolutely unacceptable, and, furthermore, it has not been thought through. The consequences for local people are devastating. Although Stafford Borough Council and Staffordshire County Council say at the moment that they neither support nor object—that they are simply weighing up the situation—they have expressed concerns about the consultation, closing Yarnfield Lane, access to the M6, the connection to Norton Bridge station, the strategic housing allocation for Stone and existing housing developments, all of which I have written to the Minister about.

Cold Norton, where there is a cluster of 40 dwellings within 500 metres of the M6, does not even seem to have been mentioned in the documents. If the B5026 and Yarnfield Lane, in particular, are closed during the works, my constituents in Cold Norton, Norton Bridge, Chebsey, Yarnfield, Swynnerton and Eccleshall will have their main travel route into Stone severed. Great Bridgeford and many other areas that concern my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will also be affected.

There is also the question of the Yarnfield sports centre, which hosts extremely well-attended football games on weeknights. It will have incredible difficulty.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the incredible disruption to the Yarnfield conference centre, which is becoming a major regional conference centre and hosting conferences from all over the country, and which has had a lot of investment?

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Oh, sorry.

[Sir William Cash]

Not at all. I was only going to say that, as Stone Town Council made clear, more than 80,000 visitors a year come to the regionally significant footballing facility at Wellbeing Park, Yarnfield. The closure of Yarnfield Lane will reduce the accessibility of the facility and force users to approach it through the village of Yarnfield rather than on the A34.

The Yarnfield Park training and conference centre is located in the village of Yarnfield and would be badly affected by the proposed closure of Yarnfield Lane, along with the disruption from the building work to create the railhead compound. Richard Smith of Compass Group has submitted to the consultation statements indicating that Yarnfield Park is one of the UK’s largest training and conference centres, with 338 bedrooms and more than 50 meeting and training spaces. The venue is operated by Compass Group, and it welcomes more than 50,000 residential guests per year. It has stated in a submission to me that the proposal to close Yarnfield Lane for an extended period would do extreme damage to its local business. The board of governors at Springfields First School have said that the closure of Yarnfield Lane would be intolerable. This has not been concluded, and I urge the Minister not to continue with these proposals, as they relate to my area, because of the arguments that I have made.

I turn to the effect of the proposals on Baldwins Gate, Bar Hill, Whitmore and Madeley. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 3 November about those areas. I urged him to refer back to the non-technical summary HS2 consultation document and the November 2016 report from Atkins, the famous rail engineering firm, on “Rail alternatives to HS2 Phase 2a”; and I urged him please to reconsider option 1 in the Atkins report, which has not yet been discounted. It is less expensive than the HS2 phase 2a project, while providing almost the same benefits, and it would avoid the need to carry out what is described as the “expensive” and “complex” section of HS2 phase 2a north of Baldwins Gate.

That option would avoid almost entirely the very expensive harm that the current project will impose on the parishes of Whitmore and Madeley. In particular, it would avoid the complex and expensive operation of raising the A53 by as much, some believe, as 8 metres in order for the track to be able to run under it, and driving a twin-bore tunnel under the development known as “The Heath” at the edge of Baldwins Gate. I urge that the cost-benefit comparison between the two solutions, current HS2 phase 2a versus high-cost option No. 1, be revisited. Adopting the high costs of option 1 would greatly simplify the construction project, offering virtually the same benefits as the current HS2 phase 2a project and, according to the Atkins estimate, would cost over £1 billion less. Fundamentally, for my constituents, this proposal would save the parishes of Whitmore and Madeley from the devastation that they currently face.

It seems that HS2 Ltd was convinced that the heath was flat and consisted of solid sandstone. It now accepts that it is not flat, and it has been informed that the ground is the remains of a sand and gravel quarry. In other words, the heath is completely soft and unstable, and HS2 cannot tunnel through it. HS2 is due to drill boreholes to verify that, but it does not seem to have got around to doing so. We think that that is for the very good reason that the proposal will not stand up. There will also be traffic chaos on the A53 for the duration of the construction work, which is seven years, as it is meant to be an access route to the area for construction vehicles.

I strongly back my constituents in seeking support for the Atkins report alternative of option 1. This is the best option available for my constituents, primarily because it proposes to connect HS2 phase 2a to the west coast main line south of Baldwins Gate. The HS2 line would then run to Crewe on the fast track of the west coast main line. In that area of my constituency, this option would avoid the permanent major adverse impact of the Meece valley viaduct and embankment, the Whitmore south cutting, the Whitmore wood cutting and the Lea valley viaduct, which threaten to have a serious impact on my constituents’ properties.

Option 1 would obviate the costly tunnelling at Whitmore heath, Madeley and Bar Hill. It would save significant amounts of money, and it would prevent the devastation of ancient woods and lands and the damage that will cause to my local area. In the absence of this proposed change, my constituents have expressed a strong interest in the creation of a tunnel from Whitmore to Madeley, as the “next best option”. The proposal for a tunnel from Whitmore to Madeley would avoid the destruction by HS2 works of 33% of Whitmore wood, the viaduct and embankments in the Lea valley and the disruptive work on Manor Road.

I understand from emails I have received that HS2 is considering a longer and lower tunnel option, combining the tunnels of Whitmore heath and Bar Hill into one long deeper tunnel. Many of my constituents, including representatives of the Whitmore and Baldwins Gate HS2 action group, believe that this is the best option. Whitmore and Madeley should receive special treatment and get the longer, lower tunnel. There is no other tunnel on the whole of the HS2 route that has such a large density of rural housing as the Whitmore tunnel.

On the question of Whitmore heath, the unfathomable delays in carrying out the work of drilling boreholes and taking samples to establish the nature of the ground is a real problem in itself. HS2 Ltd says it is sandstone and conglomerate rock, but the only sensible way to find out is to drill boreholes. We insist that something is done, because such work has not yet been done. Even its former chief executive officer Simon Kirby, in a letter written to me on 3 August, stated that boreholes are needed. I need the Minister to intervene.

Finally, on woodland loss, the Woodland Trust wrote to me on Monday—I will forward the letter to the Minister —saying that the work at Whitmore wood under the scheme

“will result in 6ha of loss from this ancient woodland.”

Swynnerton old park will be affected, as will Hey Sprink. Barhill wood will be affected, with 0.5 hectares of loss. Grafton’s wood will again be affected; it has been greatly affected already by the west coast main line. All these areas need to be protected. The Woodland Trust supports us completely, as does the CPRE.

In conclusion, I simply say that, as far as I am concerned, the Minister has alternatives in front of him. The Bill has not yet been drafted, and it would be possible for these changes to be made in the areas of Yarnfield, Stone and all the other villages I have mentioned, as well as in Great Bridgeford and the other parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that will be affected. We have had tremendous problems with HS2, as the Minister knows. Will he please do something about it, because we have not had the right consultation? Other options are available, and he has the opportunity to put this right. Will he please do so, and will he also tell us what the arrangements are for Stoke-on-Trent and about the question of having a stopover there?

Health Services in Staffordshire

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend. She makes a point that I think will be echoed by other hon. Members in the area.

The reason given for the potential closure of the community beds was that more care would be provided at home, but how precisely will that be done? I have to declare an interest in that my wife works as a GP in Stoke-on-Trent. From what I hear, community nursing teams sometimes have difficulty in managing the workloads they have at the moment, so where will the extra capacity come from? Surely it would be more sensible, before those beds disappear—if indeed they are scheduled to disappear—to ensure that the extra community nurses are in place and to show that there is a clear reduction in the need for such beds. I urge the Minister to question any proposed reduction in community beds—even if it is not of the order mentioned in the press last week—at a time when they seem to be most in need.

I will now turn to acute services in general. The University Hospitals of the North Midlands Trust has recently announced the closure of in-patient oncology and haematology at the County hospital. In future, there will be outpatient chemotherapy treatment, but in-patients will be seen in the Royal Stoke hospital. This move was not dealt with in any detail during the public consultation on the proposals of the trust special administrator, nor was it mentioned by the NHS in its information about the changes in services provided to my constituents or to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) and for Stone (Sir William Cash), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) who are affected.

From a visit to a patient on the oncology unit at the County hospital last week, it was clear to me that the service was not only very busy, but greatly appreciated. Constituents have written to me saying how important it was to have the unit relatively close, so that they could be with their family through stays which were very difficult and often lengthy. Why move what is appreciated and working well? I understand that there are staffing problems, but surely those could be tackled. I ask the Minister to look at this again.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health the day before yesterday regarding the question of agencies and the absolute necessity to make sure they do not rip off the health service? May I also congratulate him not only on his splendid victory, but on the fact that he has just collected the Act of Parliament that he so successfully piloted last year?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend. He has been a huge support in all these matters, which have at times been extremely difficult. He is absolutely right. I have come across cases of agency workers charging absolutely extortionate fees. I could give the Minister in private—he would be shocked to hear them—one or two examples of what I consider to be close to blackmail.

Another question is raised: if these important services are moving, without mention in the information to my constituents, are other moves planned of which we have no information? The loss of emergency surgery, consultant-led maternity, full level 3 critical care and in-patient paediatrics was—even if most were the wrong decisions—at least clearly set out and communicated with my constituents. These acute in-patient services were not. What we therefore need, and what I have been asking for since last summer, is a clear summary of exactly what services will be available and where.

Of course, this is primarily the responsibility of the UHNM Trust. However, it is grossly unfair to place this burden entirely on it. It has been asked to do a huge job in bringing together two acute hospitals, one of which has been the subject of a major public inquiry. It needs the full support of the NHS through the NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England. I am asking the Minister to make it his responsibility to do precisely that.

I will now turn to the tender for cancer and end-of-life services throughout the west of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. The proposal has been developed by NHS England, the four clinical commissioning groups covering North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and surrounds, and Cannock Chase, and Macmillan Cancer Care. The objective is clear: to improve cancer outcomes, which are currently below the average for England and well below the European best, so that survival rates are among the best in England by 2025 and subsequently among the best in Europe.

Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I would like to speak to new clauses 2 and 3 together. The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) seek to embed safety as the central component of the CQC’s inspection regime. My hon. Friend is not only a supporter of the Bill but a major inspiration behind it. His determination in this place to establish what went wrong in the care of his constituents and mine, and to ensure that our NHS was improved as a result, is a major reason for us being here today.

I agree entirely with the principles contained in the new clauses. New clause 2 would place a duty on the CQC to include safety in its annual performance assessment and ratings, while new clause 3 would require the CQC to consider safety in its annual state of care report. I believe that clause 1 of my Bill would already ensure that the CQC has a duty to do all that is contained in new clauses 2 and 3. I will try to explain why.

Clause 1 states that the requirements for registration with the CQC will always cover safety by securing that registered providers of health and social care “cause no avoidable harm”. The CQC will therefore be under a duty both to consider safety in its inspections and ratings and to cover this area in its state of care report. Indeed, it already does so, and here I pay tribute to the previous Government for introducing this annual state of health and social care report through the 2008 Act.

The foreword to this year’s report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has already referred, is hard hitting about safety and indeed quality. It states:

“The variation in the quality and safety of care in England is too wide and unacceptable. The public is being failed by numerous hospitals, care homes and GP practices that are unable to meet the standards that their peers achieve and exceed.”

I welcome this candour. This is what we expect from the CQC—to hold the NHS and indeed the Government to account, and to ensure that action is taken.

Let me mention an article that appeared in The Times yesterday, showing the huge variability of standards within the NHS and praised some outstanding trusts, specifically mentioning one in Birmingham and a couple of others. What we want to see is those standards being uniform across the NHS. I know that all those working within the NHS and social care want to see that. Nobody goes into work wanting to fail; they want to succeed for their patients to whom they have a duty of care. For our part, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have the environment in which that can happen. That is a small part of what this Bill is designed to bring about.

[Sir William Cash]

I recall the extraordinary experience of discovering that in order for the original trust in Mid Staffordshire to achieve trust status, an interview was necessary. In that interview, I believe 48 questions were put, 35 or so of which were about finance—not about care and safety. That demonstrated why everything went wrong. Now, however, under these arrangements, the whole situation is completely reversed, which is a thoroughly good idea.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. There were moves towards that when the Healthcare Commission, which was responsible at that stage and manifestly failed in the case of Mid Staffordshire, was replaced by the Care Quality Commission—an understanding by the previous Government that progress needed to be made in ensuring the quality and safety of care. That progress has been maintained and accelerated under the present Government.

I was referring to the 2013-14 report. One of my hon. Friend’s new clauses specifically provides that safety should be a part of such reports. Indeed, the report goes into detail over the way in which the CQC has inspected for safety. On page 12, for instance, it gives an example of a wide variation in the ratings on safety and four other measures—effective, caring, responsive and well led—for each department in a particular hospital. The ratings for safety range from inadequate to good, which shows that even within a trust or a hospital, there is a wide range of safety performance. The CQC is therefore already fulfilling what my hon. Friend is seeking in these two new clauses.

Of course, the same might be argued for clause 1 itself: why is it necessary when the CQC is now implementing the Secretary of State’s requirement to ensure that providers “cause no avoidable harm”? The reason is that, without clause 1, a Secretary of State would not have that obligation. While I cannot imagine a Secretary of State who would not consider safety and “no avoidable harm” as top priorities, experience and indeed the CQC’s own report from which I have quoted show that some of the organisations for which the CQC has the responsibility for regulation have not, and might still not, take safety seriously enough.

[Sir William Cash]

I distinctly remember insisting over and over again during the debates on the whole question of Mid Staffordshire that were taking place until the last general election that it was the Secretary of State who had to take the final responsibility for these matters, and that the duties imposed on him and the functions that he had to perform had ultimately to be his and must not be transferred to some other agency, however worthy it might be and however hard it might work to achieve objectives which, as we now know, were not being complied with satisfactorily, but which are being complied with satisfactorily now, under the Care Quality Commission. The argument that my hon. Friend is advancing comes straight from the history of the experience of Mid Staffordshire, and there is no one better to put the case than him.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I entirely agree that this is an extremely important matter. Clause 1 will ensure that there is no slippage in the future, because the Secretary of State cannot get out of her or his responsibility, and the Care Quality Commission’s annual state of care report will be part of the process of holding the Secretary of State to account. I encourage, indeed challenge, this or any future Government to hold a proper annual debate on the report, because it is a vital report. Indeed, I should welcome a debate on the 2013-14 report, uncomfortable thought it might be for certain people.

I believe that new clauses 2 and 3 are unnecessary, because what they prescribe flows from clause 1. However, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone for tabling them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I see him nodding and I am glad that I managed to pass that test. I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who ensures that we all keep up to the mark.

On this occasion, I think we would have the capacity to make the change in the first place, but, if not, perhaps we can take a belt-and-braces approach in the House of Lords and use the notwithstanding formula. We shall see.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Again, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for tabling this new clause, which covers an important subject—the language skills of doctors—although of course the language skills of all involved in clinical care are vital.

Clear and understandable communication is essential to safety and the quality of care of patients. Language skills are a necessary condition for good communication, but not a sufficient condition. They must be accompanied by good communication skills, with which not all of us are automatically blessed, however good our language skills. Communication skills teaching is now an essential part of training in medical and nursing schools and it is to the credit of the previous Government that they ensured that it was embedded in the curriculum of new medical schools and was taken forward in existing schools. I welcome the Government’s support for that important approach.

I understand that regulations have been in place for a short while to ensure that all doctors, whether from within or from outside the European Union, have appropriate language skills before being granted a licence to practise. I want to hear from the Minister what the effect of those important regulations has been and whether he believes that new clause 4 is necessary. I would also like him to consider whether the assessment of language skills should include communication skills within that language.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I want to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is an important new clause on a matter that it would be wise to have clearly set forth in primary legislation.

The heart of the matter is, unfortunately, the European Union and the mutual recognition of qualifications within the EU, and there are good reasons for that. The only way to open up service industries generally is if mutual recognition of qualifications takes place, so if we are to have a single market in services that is an important basis for it. However, above and beyond that there must be a fundamental principle of patient safety, which is embodied in this excellent Bill, and a lack of good language skills and of understanding of a language is a danger in both directions. It is a danger for the doctor who is listening to the patient explain his or her symptoms and it is also a danger when the doctor explains to the patient what steps the patient needs to take for better health. If there is confusion, it can have a seriously deleterious effect on the patient’s health.

We must be clear that this is not about restrictive practice or protecting the market for British doctors but about ensuring that there can never be such confusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone says, if this provision runs into trouble with the European Union, we need to state clearly that it is of such fundamental importance that it must override international treaty obligations. It was Disraeli who said in his speech in the Manchester free trade hall in 1872, “Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas”—that the first duty of Minister is the health of his people. That statement has underlined and guided Conservative policy for nearly a century and a half.

Francis Report

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I agree. The treatment of whistleblowers has been a disgrace, not just at Mid Staffs but in many other places. I have seen consultant contracts from way back that have prevented their raising issues even with their Members of Parliament, and I am glad to say that sort of thing is coming to an end. I want to try to focus as much as possible on the Francis report, however, as I believe there are many important lessons that all of us, including me, have to learn.

As the Health Committee has said, as a consequence of the issues I have outlined,

“a healthcare system established for public benefit and funded from public funds risks the undermining of its guarantees of safety and quality.”

It is my sincere hope that we never have the need for another inquiry of this nature. This should mark a watershed in the NHS—a time when patient safety and high-quality compassionate care is the rule, delivered through a positive and caring culture, underpinned by safety and quality management systems through our health service and backed by openness and accountability, which I am sure many Members will speak about later. It is thus that we can respect the memory of those who suffered at Stafford, but also in many other places across the UK, as the work of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has shown.

The Francis reports, and particularly the accounts of patients’ experiences, should be required reading for all medical and nursing students. I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he will pursue that with Health Education England.

Robert Francis, for whom I have the greatest respect for the calm and understanding way in which he conducted the inquiry, made 290 recommendations, but I shall concentrate on his essential aims. He writes of fostering a common culture of putting the patient first. It is sad that he must write that, but it is necessary. However, before we rush to find fault with a service which has lost its way, let us just consider the society in which it operates, starting with ourselves. Can we honestly say that we always put our constituents’ interests first? What about others in the professional and business worlds? When self-interest and personal fulfilment are so often lauded, why is it that we expect the NHS to be so very different? Saying that is neither to excuse nor to lower the bar, but to understand how difficult it is in some circumstances to maintain that highest of standards. Ensuring that patients come first when dealing with several very ill and distressed folk, perhaps at 2 o’clock in the morning, takes more than just compassion. I am not downplaying compassion in any way—it is essential—but the underpinning of quality and safety systems carried through as second nature is also required. It means ensuring that the leadership is on call to provide extra help as soon as it is needed. It demands the strength to speak out for what is not acceptable and an openness to admit when there are problems. Without the systems and standards, the supportive leadership, the strength and the openness, not even an angel can always put patients first, much as they would wish to.

There has been much debate about staffing levels, and rightly so. Although the problems at Stafford went far beyond numbers, there is no doubt that cuts contributed to them. When I was first selected as parliamentary candidate in 2006, the trust had a £10 million deficit. It wanted to achieve foundation trust status and needed to balance its books, and part of its solution was to reduce the number of nurses. I should have questioned that, as should others, but we accepted the trust’s assurances that it would not harm patient care. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members that one thing that must come out of this report is that each of us must be emboldened to challenge our local trusts when they make statements such as, “This won’t harm patient care”, despite their cutting 100 or more nurses. The approach to staffing management and data publication used at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust has been held up as an example of good practice in staffing by the Health Committee and the Secretary of State, so let us act and adopt it everywhere.

I recall that when I was first elected to this House, I was shocked at the tone and content of some of the responses by the NHS to complaints. Not only did they take several months to arrive, but they were sometimes complacent, and they certainly lacked compassion and understanding. That has, for the most part, changed considerably for the better—it certainly has in Stafford. The overwhelming message I receive from my constituents who need to complain is that they are not interested in compensation, but they are interested in a better NHS for everybody. So let us approach the complaints system from their premise, not that of lawyers. That is the responsibility of the chief executive, who should review all complaints, and personally read and sign all response letters. The Secretary of State responds to several complaints each week personally and in this, as in many other ways, he sets the example.

Although I am encouraged by the progress made in treating complaints, I am less confident about accountability.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is clearly stated in the prime ministerial guidelines of 2005 that when somebody writes to a Minister who has responsibility, including the Secretary of State, the relevant Member of Parliament is entitled to receive a personal letter that comprehensively and efficiently deals with the question at issue? Does my hon. Friend also agree that, regrettably, that did not happen in all instances when matters were raised with regard to Stafford hospital?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for all the work he has done on this issue. It is salutary for all of us to remember that when we get such a letter it often represents probably another 10 people who did not write to complain because they do not want to affect the NHS. We should treat each letter of complaint as being of immense importance.

I said that I am less confident about accountability, so let me say why. This is not just a question of the resignation of executives within a trust or the NHS when things go badly wrong, although it remains astonishing to me that no one has had the courage to do this given that the failings in Stafford were so clearly systemic; it also concerns the approach of the professional bodies representing nursing and clinical staff. The Francis inquiry saw evidence of poor co-operation with the General Medical Council from other organisations, including royal colleges, even though serious matters of fitness to practise and patient safety were involved; they almost put the practitioners above the patients. Those representing the medical and nursing professions are accountable to the public first and foremost. The best way of maintaining public confidence in their professions is to ensure that they treat their members who are not fit to practise in a firm, fair and swift way; cases of doctors or others being suspended for months or even years are too frequent.

Before I discuss Stafford specifically, may I just make a few remarks about hospital standardised mortality ratios? The Francis report states that Professor Jarman

“made it clear that it is not possible to calculate the exact number of deaths that would have been avoidable, nor to identify avoidable incidents…The statistics can only be signposts to areas for further inquiry.”

I urge all those who handle HSMRs to do so with care. They are extremely important as guidelines, and it was absolutely right that they were the first statistics that showed up the need for the Healthcare Commission inquiry, but to extrapolate numbers from them can be difficult and the evidence does not necessarily bear it. We have seen examples of that happen.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I will come to that important point.

I pay tribute to the work of Support Stafford Hospital, because the impact of its campaign has shown just how much the community values the services at Stafford and Cannock. I also pay tribute to the working group, which I set up, and all those who have worked with me on that to provide us with the detail on alternative proposals, some of which I shall outline.

There is no doubt that the administrators listened carefully to what was said in the consultation and made a number of changes in their final proposals. However, the proposals as they stand are insufficient. What I am setting out requires not a re-doing of all the work of the trust special administrator—given what I have said about the urgency of the situation, that would not be sensible—but a modification of the detail.

I do not believe that such a modification would necessarily require more money than is currently proposed, although that remains to be seen, but it would be of huge benefit to many thousands of my constituents, and those of hon. Friends and other hon. Members. It will also ensure that both Monitor and the Secretary of State can fully comply with their legal obligations under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, in respect of health inequalities, as I will show later.

My proposal is that rather than cutting three areas of service in Stafford, those continue in a more cost-effective form, at least for two or three years. I, and the clinicians at Mid Staffs, consider that it will be quite possible to show how these services can be run across the two sites in Stoke and Stafford on a networked basis. The areas concerned are paediatrics, obstetrics and maternity and critical care.

First, the report proposes a reduction of the critical care unit to four beds. It says that the possibility of the highest level of critical care—level 3—should be maintained, but it is not clear how this will be possible without a rota for specialists in critical care. The critical care department at Stafford made its own submission to the consultation, which suggested a reduction in beds and a networked specialist rota. That seemed eminently sensible. Given that the CCU at Stafford is a net contributor and supports several other activities, I urge Monitor and the Secretary of State to determine that this model is tried for a period, during which it will, hopefully, be proven to operate well, clinically, operationally and financially.

The TSA’s final report also proposes, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) mentioned, removing the consultant-led obstetrics and maternity service and replacing it with a midwife-led unit dealing with approximately 350 to 400 births a year. That is a step forward from the draft report, which proposed no childbirth at all at Stafford. However, my constituents and I do not believe that it is sufficient.

Currently, Stafford sees more than 2,000 births a year and that is likely to rise, with extensive house building, various new business parks being built and the doubling of the size of MOD Stafford, to mention but some developments, resulting, in the coming years—even with a MLU—probably in some 2,000-plus babies being born in other maternity units, mainly at Stoke and Wolverhampton. UHNS in Stoke already sees some 6,000 a year and its population is also growing. With at least 1,000 births, and probably more from Stafford, UHNS will probably approach 8,000, which is the number currently born at the largest unit in the country, in Liverpool.

The NHS rightly promotes choice for women about where to have their babies and the Prime Minister has spoken out against the trend towards ever larger units. Yet that is precisely what is being proposed here for women who are unable to use a MLU, due to the possibility of complications in childbirth. There would also be an impact on those who currently use UHNS and the Royal Wolverhampton, as their local units will become even busier—probably including Walsall as well—taking in women from a much wider area.

My proposal, and that of clinicians at Stafford, is to continue with the current service, fully networked with UHNS, while the impact of the current rise in both the population and birth rate is assessed. That would also enable the special care baby unit at Stafford to continue to support the regional intensive care network for babies, as it currently does. An added benefit would be that women will continue to have a local obstetric and gynaecology service, which I am sure the Minister will appreciate as he comes from that specialty. Again, that would relieve pressure on the larger University hospital of North Staffordshire and the Royal Wolverhampton hospital.

Thirdly, the TSAs propose to reduce the paediatric assessment unit to 14 hours a day from 24 hours a day and to do away with in-patient paediatric beds. There will be no paediatric rota, although A and E doctors will receive extra paediatric training and paediatric out-patient services will continue. The principal reason given by the TSAs is the national standards of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which state that such services should be provided by a full consultant rota, which is usually between eight and 10 consultants, whereas at Stafford it is between five and six.

Let me be clear about the consequences: if the proposal is allowed to happen, the clear logic is that dozens of other paediatric units across the country that have similar numbers of consultants, or indeed fewer consultants, must be closed or have their activities drastically curtailed. Monitor cannot use the argument that that must happen at Stafford but not at other foundation or NHS trusts for which Monitor or the NHS Trust Development Authority are responsible, and neither can the Government.

The argument that all in-patient paediatric care should take place in the largest hospitals is not accepted by the general public. They fully understand why very sick children should go to specialist units; they do not understand why their local general hospital cannot receive sick children at night or for short stays, and neither do I. If experts at the Royal College insist on making that argument, however, let it be open, let it be consistent across the land and let it be agreed by all political parties. The proposal should not be implemented by stealth through a trust special administration that in no way arose because of the performance of the paediatrics department at Stafford.

I have one final point.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I have been waiting for my hon. Friend to reach his conclusion so that I can say how much I support him in his endeavours on Stafford hospital, which affects my constituency of Stone. I had to fight so hard to get the public inquiry that has led to many of the changes, and I simply offer him many congratulations. I support pretty much everything that he says, and I believe that he has done an enormous service to his constituents through his work over the past few years.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I return his compliments. He has likewise tremendously supported the trust and the work that has been done.

My final point is that the children and families who will be most affected by the paediatrics proposal are those on the lowest incomes. Such families are the least likely to have access to private transport to take their children nearly 20 miles to the nearest hospital at night. For them public transport in the daytime is often poor, and a taxi fare is beyond their means—certainly if they have to visit a sick child several times. I believe that those on low incomes should have fair access to health care, which both Monitor and the Secretary of State have a responsibility to ensure.

The paediatrics department at Stafford made an alternative proposal in its response to the consultation. That alternative was measured and understood the need to cut costs. The alternative proposal included a reduction in the number of in-patient paediatric beds, and consultants would have worked in a network across both of the new trust’s sites.

A pattern can be seen: critical care, maternity and paediatrics. There are sensible alternative proposals.

Dairy Industry

Debate between William Cash and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this debate.

Staffordshire is one of the UK’s leading dairy counties. Dairy farming is important to my constituency; let us not forget how important it is to so many others. Some 70 trades and suppliers, possibly more, are estimated to depend on each 400-acre dairy farm.

Another almost unique feature is that Staffordshire has kept its county farms, which were set up after the first world war. Half of Staffordshire’s county farms, some 50 of them, are in my constituency of Stafford. Those farms provide a route into dairy farming for young people, which is essential because the average age of farmers is between 55 and 65, depending on who we listen to.

Last Friday, I attended a meeting at Church farm, Coppenhall, at the invitation of the Madders family, with many dairy farmers and the National Farmers Union. We discussed the problems they face. As time is brief, I will highlight three or four areas.

Clearly, the first area is milk prices and fair treatment. The common refrain was, “Give us the highs in prices and we’ll take the lows.” It is often said that the processors and supermarkets are quick to put down the prices paid to farmers but are slow to raise them when the market goes up, and the market will surely go up because dairy production figures across Europe in August 2012 show that in Germany production was 0.3% down, in France production was 1.7% down and in the UK production was 3.7% down. Those figures reflect a combination of the weather and low milk prices. So there will surely be price rises, which must be passed on to farmers.

The second vital area is marketing. Many of my constituents are already taking up the challenge of adding value—Bertelin Farmhouse Cheese in Ellenhall, for example, which was previously in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who will no doubt know the farm—but there is much more potential. I have recently had to start buying lactose-free milk, for which there is a huge market in the UK, yet the milk I buy is made in Denmark by Arla.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are also enormous export opportunities for dairy farmers? I have just come back from India, from where people will shortly be coming to see Staffordshire dairy farmers precisely to try to develop joint ventures. Is that not a great opportunity?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

As so often, my hon. Friend is a prophet. I was just about to say that.

The previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), who has rightly been applauded, was in China on a trade mission and saw no British dairy products, despite there being many from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and so on. We must do more, and the industry must do better.

Supermarkets, too, can do more. On a holiday in the Republic of Ireland a few years ago, I entered a Tesco that was festooned with Irish tricolours promoting products processed or produced in the Republic of Ireland. I welcome that great idea. I want to see far more Union flags in UK supermarkets promoting British foods.

The UK Government, too, can do more, but, first, a word of praise from the farmers. They say to me, and I do not know whether hon. Members agree, that the Rural Payments Agency has improved considerably in the past two or three years, and due credit should go to the RPA and the ministerial team.

As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) said, the current EU negotiations are vital. I am concerned to hear that British representation is not as strong as sometimes it should be. In a debate last year, I stressed the continued importance of single farm payments, particularly to the small farmers who continue to be the backbone of the UK dairy industry. The UK and Portugal are currently the only countries applying voluntary modulation from pillar one to pillar two. The concentration on environmental measures has clear benefits, but we should not go any further in that modulation if it puts us at a competitive disadvantage to our European neighbours.

I want to allow time for others to speak, so I will conclude by saying that I welcome this debate. The time is right for fair prices. I worked for many years in the coffee industry, in which I saw the impact of fair trade and fair prices. I would like to see a similar approach in the dairy industry, based on the voluntary code of practice, with supermarkets, processors and farmers working together.

Finally, I pay great tribute to those dairy farmers who work day in, day out, week in, week out, rising before dawn and going to bed late at night, to put those products on our tables.