Persecution of Christians Overseas

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I very much thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying. Does he agree that we should approach all this in a real spirit of humility, because we ourselves in this country have seen religious persecution over the centuries? However, we know what it is to put that behind us, and the advantages it brings to our society when we do not do it any more. I myself come from a Huguenot background: we fled to this country because of religious persecution elsewhere. British people have had to flee to the low countries—the Netherlands—because of persecution here. We need to approach this in a spirit of humility, as well as of upholding the name of Jesus Christ.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. He is a true example of somebody who is living a Christian life, and he is absolutely right when he says that the UK was the first country to establish human rights such as freedom of religion. It was we who established this, and spread it around the world—to America, and to Australia and New Zealand. It was in 1547 that the freedom to read the Bible in public was first established, and it was 1559 when we first had the freedom to interpret the Bible without Government interference. There are centuries of examples of Britain leading the way in protecting religious freedoms of all kinds, and certainly in standing up for Christianity.

Corporate Governance and Insolvency

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He clearly has a vast amount of experience as a former Secretary of State in our Department. He is right to identify the value extraction element in this document. When a business is taken over, we often see the directors of the purchasing company put in place complicated measures to protect their own backs, to ensure that, whatever happens to the business, they will not be impacted. The powers proposed in this consultation would allow us to recoup and recover the amount of money involved, not just for shareholders and directors but for contractors and creditors in the supply chain. In relation to Toys R Us, he will recognise that some businesses will always fail. However, the Government are clear that this set of measures will put an emphasis on the responsibilities not just of directors but of shareholders. It is an important point that shareholders—particularly institutional shareholders—should have a voice in the way in which these businesses are run.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his statement, for this consultation, and for standing up for small businesses. Will he extend the consultation—or perhaps have a future consultation—to look at the forced liquidations of often small and sometimes slightly vulnerable businesses by banks and other secured creditors, which are totally unnecessary, and could be resolved by other means, thereby maintaining jobs, employment and prosperity in our constituencies, as opposed to leaving bust businesses that should be thriving?

Taylor Review

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. The Chancellor set out our approach to those matters, and I have nothing further to add at the moment.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s position on this and urge them to make quick progress, but there is one area in which employment rights are potentially about to be seriously damaged: the right of British citizens to work in 30 other countries in the EU and the European economic area as we leave the EU. What are the Government doing to ensure that young people and others have the opportunity to go and work overseas, bringing great benefits to their own career and, when they return, to their businesses or the companies for which they work, which they have enjoyed for many decades?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I wondered how long it would be before we got on to the “B” word, Brexit. I know that my hon. Friend is hugely concerned about that, as are businesses large and small up and down the country. He will have to wait a little bit longer, I am afraid. That announcement will, I am sure, be made by someone higher up the food chain than I, but I can assure him that the concerns of workers and British business are being heard by Government.

Health Services in Staffordshire

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the fantastic work he has done over the last five years, both for his constituents and for people across Staffordshire. We welcome the work he does, and I am sure he would join me in thanking the doctors, nurses and clinical staff across Staffordshire who have worked so hard to get improved care across our county. Does he agree that we still have a fragile healthcare economy in Staffordshire? I managed to secure £8 million for East Staffordshire CCG thanks to the help of the previous Health Minister, but that is for just one year, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to move towards fairer funding in Staffordshire?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and reiterate his remarks about the excellent work done in my constituency by staff at the County hospital to recover the situation, which a few years ago was extremely difficult, to one where the quality of care offered is of a very high standard.

To return to cancer and end-of-life services, the real concern has been over the method being used. To quote Macmillan:

“We think a procurement process is the best way to integrate the fragmented cancer and end of life services we have in Staffordshire. A procurement process is needed because at the moment there is no one organisation with overall control of cancer or end of life services.”

My argument has always been: in that case, what are CCGs for? They are there to commission, so why can they not commission? In the last Parliament, we gave them the ability to work together to procure services, so why cannot the four CCGs involved, together with Macmillan, simply make that happen? The answer I was given at the time was that the constraints on CCGs’ own administration costs—a reducing amount of funding per head—meant that it was impossible. Sometimes I am puzzled. We see this all over Government and have done for many years and across many Departments: we constrain spending on so-called bureaucracy and then, in order to get necessary things done, pay large sums of money to consultants to do precisely the kind of bureaucratic work that we forbid the experts from doing—in this case the CCGs—but, because it is called consultancy or programme work rather than overheads, it is allowed. There is a problem that needs to be solved—I do not deny that—and it affects the lives of my constituents and those of other Members, so it must be solved.

Macmillan says about the first two years of the contract:

“The main responsibility of the integrator will be to address the current inadequate data about pathway activity and the real cost of this activity. Much increased investment over the last decade has arguably been wasted by poor contract accountability and a lack of reliable data and analytics.”

That is important, but it is a research and advisory role. I have no problem with the CCGs calling in experts to offer them such research and advice, whether it is a private company, university or, indeed, another arm of the NHS. A fee will be paid for that work. Again, I have no problem with that, but I would like the Minister to say how much it is likely to be. As local MPs, we have a right to know, on behalf of our constituents, or at least have a rough idea.

According to Macmillan, after 18 months the integrator —I would say consultant—will be expected to

“present a more detailed strategy as to how they expect to achieve improved service outcomes. If the evidence is robust, arrangements will be made for all contracts to be transferred to the Service Integrator from the beginning of year 3. If not, the contract with the Integrator could be terminated and the Service integrator will be required to repay all (or a significant part) of their fee to date.”

That is where I do not see the logic. What makes an organisation that is good at research and advice the right body to run cancer services for our constituents? Why can it not simply be thanked for its advice and that advice, if it is good, be followed by the CCGs, working in co-operation with the providers? The risk is that the vital work that patients, the CCGs and Macmillan have done, with the very best of intentions, will be damaged by contractual arrangements that do not make sense and may put a private organisation with a somewhat different ethos in charge of commissioning NHS providers for services, rather than the other way round.

I have no problem at all with a private organisation producing a much better plan for cancer and end-of-life services, nor do I have a problem with social enterprises or private providers being involved in delivering certain elements of that plan, as they do now and have done under Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments. However, I do not see the logic in the organisation producing that plan becoming another bureaucratic tier between the CCGs, providers and patients. I therefore ask the Minister to take up the proposed contract with the CCGs.

The state of general practice is gradually becoming critical in our area. Many GPs are retiring or approaching retirement. I welcome the Government’s plans to train more GPs, but we will also have to train more medical students or rely on recruiting from overseas.

Francis Report

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Indeed, the clinical commissioning groups have backed the changes, but the local population has not. The clinical commissioning groups are in a difficult position, because they have a budget, and the budget in Staffordshire, as in many other rural areas, is much lower than the national average for England. They are told that if they want to commission services that cost more than the tariff—as maternity services almost always do because maternity tariffs are simply not high enough—they will have to pay the extra. To some extent, the clinical commissioning groups are caught between a rock and a hard place. They may wish to commission those services, but in doing so they will have to stop commissioning others.

It is in the spirit of unity that I ask both the Secretary of State for Health and his shadow to visit Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals to speak to patients and staff and to hear first hand what they have gone through. I also urge that same co-operation in approaching the long-term challenges facing our health service. The increasing specialisation of services—62 specialties as against 30 in Norway—is driving up costs and resulting in clinicians knowing more and more about less and less.

In Stafford, we have been told that we cannot continue with our consultant-led paediatric service, because we have too few consultants—five or six as opposed to the eight to 10 that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says are needed to maintain a rota. By that standard, some 50 or more other consultant-led departments in England should close. Instead of a proper national review with full political co-operation, however, we see the gradual picking off of departments in trusts that have financial difficulties. The same is true with maternity services.

I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and urge the Government and Opposition to come together with the royal colleges and resolve this matter and much else. The British public are not stupid. They understand that they cannot have every service just around the corner. However, they do not understand why a consultant-led maternity department or paediatrics department in one place must close on safety grounds because it does not have a large enough rota, whereas another with a smaller rota remains open. They also understand the need for more services in the community, but the idea of “slashing” hospital budgets, as Sir David Nicholson is reported in The Guardian as saying, is both incomprehensible and deeply worrying to those whose A and E departments are heaving, whose wards are full and whose children face travelling long distances even to receive general treatment.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way, and I commend him for his work on this issue. He will know that Queen’s hospital in Burton has dealt with some of the overflow from Stafford hospital following the closure of facilities and services there. Does he share my concern that the special administrators have not met any of the management at Queen’s hospital, and have ignored its letter of concern, stating that closure of the emergency department will mean that it will require an additional 18 to 34 beds? The hospital has heard nothing in response to that letter.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which is one of the things that needs to be discussed. I am talking about special administrators liaising with other trusts such as the University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust, the Burton Hospitals NHS Trust, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust. We are part of an integrated health economy; what affects one affects many others in the region.

Many in the profession have put it to me that we are at risk of gradually losing the skills of general medicine and surgery. That is not to downplay specialisms, because they are vital. However, unless we maintain our district general hospitals, with their ability to deal with the majority of non-specialist cases, we will end up with our specialist hospitals being overwhelmed and without doctors with vital general skills.

It would be disingenuous of me to make such points without raising the matter of NHS funding. The Government are right to have maintained NHS funding in real terms during extremely testing times. They are also right to insist that waste is rooted out. Payments of thousands of pounds to locums for a shift are not uncommon. I could cite many other examples, but there is no time. There is little doubt in my mind that we need to allocate a little more of our GDP to health than we do currently, as we are below the level in France and Germany. However, that is a question for lengthy debate on another day.

As I have said in the House before, we need to take the NHS budget out of general Government spending and convert national insurance into a national health insurance, which will still be progressive and still based on payment according to income, so that we can maintain a first-class health service alongside a competitive tax system.

The Francis report is already having an important and positive effect on the national health service and will do so for years to come. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and his team for all they have done on that and the seriousness with which they have taken the matter. The emphasis on the safety of patients and quality of care seems obvious to us now, but sadly it was not always a priority. The report not only provides answers and makes recommendations, but asks fundamental questions about the future of our NHS. I have tried to outline some of those questions today. I urge all parties to come together to tackle them for the good of our nation.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I entirely agree with that point. There is no point in Stafford’s merging with Stoke if the consequence is that we have a trust that will be financially failing in the future.

The administrators rightly place emphasis on the need for swift action, and I believe that the dissolution of MSFT in the autumn of this year should be possible—indeed, it should be possible even earlier. In fact, I would go further. MSFT has improved greatly in recent years following the huge failings brought to light through the vital work of Cure the NHS and documented in the Francis report. Its recently published hospital standardised mortality ratio figures were the best in the west midlands, but it is fragile and finds it difficult to recruit in some areas. We need the overall arrangements to take immediate effect, even in shadow form. In recent weeks I have detected less engagement than is necessary, because of the uncertainties of the administration process. That needs to stop.

This is all taxpayers’ money. It is our national health service. It is time to work together.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the work that he has done in recent years. He used the words “fragility” and “uncertainty”. He understands the fragility and uncertainty of the health care economy in Staffordshire. Queen’s hospital, in my constituency, is a Keogh hospital, which has huge financial debts and is struggling to survive. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that this reorganisation takes place and is properly funded? If not, the knock-on effect on other hospitals, such as Queen’s, and on the wider health economy, could be damaging and have a domino effect, with other hospitals falling over.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend is right. We must make sure that we do not jump from the frying pan into the fire. We must get to a sustainable condition for the health economy. These new overall arrangements must take immediate effect. I urge the Minister to make that clear today, to give the various managements confidence to get on with their work.

I shall make one final point about the future UHNS and the Royal Wolverhampton hospital. The Secretary of State has rightly emphasised patient safety and care since the publication of the Francis report. The new expanded trusts have the opportunity to become national leaders in zero-harm health care, so I urge Monitor and the Secretary of State to seize the opportunity to support them in doing so at this time. Let this administration not be a dry legal exercise. Let it be the chance for Stoke, Stafford, Cannock, Wolverhampton and Walsall to become, even more, shining examples of the best 21st-century health care.

Single Payment Scheme

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I agree that livestock farmers have been going through a difficult time for many years. Arable farmers, particularly on the eastern side of the country, are seeing better incomes, but that is not so for all farmers. I will address my hon. Friend’ comment in a moment.

We must ensure that markets work more efficiently, so that there is less need for support. Increasing demand from Britain and around the world will do much of the heavy lifting in the long term, as it raises prices.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend’s neighbour, I know that Staffordshire farmers appreciate his work to raise their profile and their issues. We have heard about the problems for arable farmers and livestock farmers, but we have not yet mentioned the terrible situation of dairy farmers, which has been an ongoing problem for many years, driven particularly by the supermarkets forcing down the price of milk as a loss leader to tempt people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we desperately need to do something to support our dairy farmers if we are to have a sustainable industry going forward?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Bill that proposes a supermarket ombudsman is welcome, but we need that as soon as possible, because in some parts of the dairy industry, despite recent small improvements in prices, there is a crisis, with people going out of business every week.

Small Businesses

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. I had the pleasure of working with her on a training course in Rwanda one month ago, so I know how expert she is on the subject of training, and how much she knows about it. Her words must be taken extremely seriously.

The Government must step in on the issue of small business finance—indeed, they have already intervened. Since 1981, there has been a small loans guarantee scheme. The previous Government set up the enterprise finance guarantee in January 2009, and the current Government committed an additional £200 million in the June Budget. The public often demand evidence of cross-party consensus in the national interest, and this issue provides a fine example of that.

In his response, I would be grateful if the Minister answered questions on the enterprise finance guarantee, and told us how he assesses its performance to date. He is no doubt aware that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—of which I am a member—has called for the scheme to become more like the former small loans guarantee scheme in its design and operation. I would be interested to hear his views on that.

If a loan guarantee scheme proves successful and pays its way, it needs to be expanded further and rapidly at this critical time, so that as many SMEs as possible can be assisted. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on that. Finally, on bank lending, what progress are the Government making to bring together banks and small business representatives to ensure that instead of the stand-off that we appear to have at the moment, we have genuine co-operation in our country’s most vital interests?

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for organising the debate. It is testament to his hard work and diligence that we are all here, and I think that we are getting to the crux of the matter. May I raise the flag for engineering, as someone who comes from a small engineering family business? There are a lot of concerns in my constituency in relation to manufacturing. I am lucky enough to have in my constituency a couple of large manufacturing businesses. They tell me that they see the green shoots—they see business slowly improving—and they want to place orders with local businesses. They want to buy British and they want to use local suppliers, but they are finding that there is a major problem with the supply chain. Companies that they have used in the past or new companies just are not able or are unwilling to take the risk in order to meet the potential orders. They are saying that those businesses have either downscaled—they have cut shifts and lost staff—or they just are not prepared to take the risk, or the banks, more importantly, are not prepared to take the risk, that the order that might be there tomorrow or next month will be there in six months’ time. That problem is having a major impact. It is slowing things down; there is a drag effect on manufacturing in particular. If we could get that supply of finance to small manufacturing businesses, that would make a massive impact.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes extremely important points; he has great experience in this field. I feel disappointed at the situation. We are a trading nation; our history is as a trading nation. That is how Britain became wealthy over the centuries. Only by taking risks, particularly through the merchant banking of the 19th and 20th centuries, were we able to finance it, but I do not see that spirit alive in our banking sector as much I would like to. I long to see the formation of some new British merchant banks. All our old ones were largely taken over and are now part of massive conglomerates. I would like to see young entrepreneurs come into the City—indeed, I would like to see this not just in the City of London but all over—set up merchant banks and really take some risks and make a difference to the country, because I believe that they can do that and it might help firms such as the ones to which my hon. Friend referred.

The other major potential source of funding—apart from grants, where organisations such as the Prince’s Trust in particular have done fine work over many years—is of equal importance. I am referring to equity. That is where SMEs miss out. Only 2% have access to equity finance. The Green Paper gives several reasons why that is the case: a reluctance to cede ownership, unsuitable business models, poor corporate governance and businesses that are in themselves not ready for investment. I would add further reasons. First, there is the work involved in making an investment compared with the actual amount invested. Looking at a proposal for £20,000 can require as much work as looking at one for £200,000 or even £2 million. I ask the Minister to consider how to make it easier and less costly for small businesses to raise equity capital.

Secondly, there is a lack of suitable investment vehicles. I hope that the Government will give serious attention to that. Thirdly, the overall tax treatment of investment in new and young businesses puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage in attracting funds compared with larger companies. It is ironic that the companies that least need funds from investors are those that receive the most favourable tax treatment through being eligible for inclusion in pension portfolios. There are tax incentives for funds investing in smaller non-quoted companies—in particular, venture capital trusts—but they are usually available only to the wealthy investor, and the funds themselves will tend to invest in reasonably well established companies.

I am not saying that there is an enormous amount of money out there just waiting for a home in new businesses or SMEs, but we do not need an enormous amount. Let me take an example from my own county of Staffordshire. The Michelin Development fund estimates that it has helped to create 1,400 jobs over the years through a revolving fund of just £3 million—a revolving fund, not grants. That is just over £2,000 a job. The North Staffordshire Risk Capital Fund and the Black Country Reinvestment Society, both of which operate in my constituency, also help to preserve or generate jobs cheaply. Those funds are not equity funds. They mainly use loans, but they do have some characteristics of equity. They are unsecured and, in some cases, they may ask for a premium return based on performance. Those funds overcome the obstacle of the ratio of time taken to assess proposals to the investment amount by using local experts, who provide their time voluntarily or whose cost is covered by grants or the return on the investment. I would like many more such funds to be set up around the country. Indeed, I believe that the new local enterprise partnerships could make supporting them a priority. Local companies and individuals can use them to invest directly in the future of their area, just as the funds in Staffordshire and elsewhere have done.

It may be argued that such a model is not sustainable because it depends on goodwill or some financial support from the private sector or Government, but those who are quick to challenge explicit assistance are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge implicit assistance—in particular, the substantial amount of pension tax relief that continues to be granted annually to higher rate taxpayers, despite recent restrictions, and which is invested very largely in companies comprising just 30% of the private sector, in property or in gilts.

I respectfully ask the Minister to examine ways to unlock equity funding from pension funds for small businesses, which most need the capital. That could result in dozens of locally based funds springing up around the country, allowing people to contribute their time and expertise to the future of their communities. That would be yet another example of the big society at work in a very practical way.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend touches on the big society, and one of the things that people in my constituency are quite excited about is the prospect of the green bank. We have not heard much about that today, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will touch on it a bit more. There is a business in Burton called Regenerco, which is working with businesses across the country to install solar panels free of charge on those businesses in return for a share of the profit from the energy produced. That is a brilliant business. It is low carbon. It is doing its bit for the environment and for the economy. However, like many other businesses, it is keen to get access to further finance. Many people are waiting with bated breath to see how the green bank will operate and how it can unlock some of the potential in those new green businesses. Perhaps we shall hear more from the Minister about how the green bank will work, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) will agree with me that it has the potential to help some of those fledgling businesses.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as well, because I, too, am excited by the concept of the green bank and would like to see it in operation as soon as possible.

Will the Minister also consider whether there is a need to increase the sums invested in Capital for Enterprise? The last figures that I have seen indicate that the total invested by the various funds in UK equity is £566 million, while total SME financing was £1.1 billion, including loans. Those figures may be a little out of date, but in contrast, the total invested in equity in developing countries by the Government-owned Commonwealth Development Corporation is £2.7 billion—well over twice as much. What is right for developing countries is surely right for the UK.

There is also a very important role for the banks to play. Just as the major clearing banks established in 1945 the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation —later known as Investors in Industry and finally 3i—is it perhaps not time for them to come together again and form an ICFC mark 2 to invest equity in the smallest businesses, if not directly, for reasons of cost, then through local funds? The major banks have the ability, working together through an ICFC mark 2, to transform the availability of equity funding for small businesses. As the taxpayer is a major shareholder in two of them, I ask the Minister to discuss that with them.

I have been able to give only the briefest of surveys of the current situation regarding the finance of small businesses. I am sure that hon. Members following me will help to fill out the picture with the benefit of their experience. I am no expert in this matter, but what I do have is a conviction that unless we get this right, we will not be able to tackle the twin evils of unemployment and the excessive budget deficit.

The quality of the Green Paper is clear evidence of the thought being given to this subject, but as with many of my colleagues who entered Parliament this year, my background in business makes me rather impatient about words that are not followed up with appropriate action. The Government have already shown themselves willing and able to take difficult but necessary decisions, and I have no doubt that they will do the same to ensure that small business will indeed have access to finance so that our economic recovery is strong and sustained.

Burton upon Trent County Court

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Williams, for presiding over my first appearance in a Westminster Hall debate. I hope that you will be gentle with this Westminster virgin.

I thank the Minister for giving up his valuable time to attend. He knows that I have attempted to make points on behalf of my constituents in Burton on a number of occasions; I am grateful for the opportunity to make my case today. I also thank the Minister for engaging in genuine consultation. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, we got used to consultations that were little more than an exercise in futility—tick-box exercises, rubber-stamping decisions that had already been made in an air-conditioned office in Whitehall, delivering a Minister’s grand master plan. There is genuine reassurance in knowing that we have a proper consultation, with discussion and debate, about the future judicial system. I have visited Burton county court and met the staff, who appreciate having the opportunity to make their case for Burton county court surviving.

The Minister understands that the proposed closure of Burton county court is of concern to my constituents in Burton and Uttoxeter—to those hard-working people employed in the justice system, to those who use the service, and to those who are worried about how the judicial system will operate in this brave new world.

It is important to recognise that savings across the public budget are urgently needed. The previous Government’s excesses and mismanagement have left the country, like many families and businesses in my constituency, facing difficult, tough decisions when it comes to paying for the essentials in life. This debate takes place in the context of those tough financial constraints.

My constituents are not stupid: they realise that the country is broke and that savings have to be made. It is understandable that the Courts Service should bear its share of that belt-tightening, but it is equally clear that that belt-tightening must be done in a manner that protects the interests of justice and, above all, access to justice. Although this debate relates to the proposed closure of Burton county court, it would be a mistake to consider the matter in isolation, rather than as part of a wider reorganisation programme.

Underestimating the role that the county court system plays in our society would be a fundamental mistake. The services offered by Burton county court, and county courts throughout the country, often deal with the most sensitive, painful and challenging elements of modern life; bankruptcy, divorce and family breakdown are all dealt with in our county courts. Those courts represent a direct link between our local communities and the justice system. We must understand fully the impacts that any closures will have on those communities before we proceed with any closures.

The previous Government’s disastrous post office closure programme showed us that proposals that might appear justified when considered in isolation can have a disproportionate effect when their cumulative impact in an area is considered. I fear that those mistakes could be repeated if the proposed closures in the county court system go ahead. That is why I am delighted to be able to urge the Minister to stop and reconsider the impacts.

Nationally, the reorganisation of the court system will mean that approximately 25% of county courts will close. Yet in Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) knows, Leek county court has already been lost, and it is proposed that two of the four remaining county courts should go, so the cut in my county will be 50%, which is double the amount expected elsewhere in the country. Both the county courts that are closing—Burton and Tamworth—are in the eastern part of the county. Closing both those courts simultaneously would be a double blow to the area, leaving residents in both east and south-east Staffordshire with long journeys to the nearest county court.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware that in Staffordshire more than 23,000 fines, with a value of more than £11 million, remain uncollected by the Courts Service? Residents of Staffordshire will therefore find it difficult to see why there should be the 50% cuts about which he reminded us.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for his insightful and useful intervention. It is important to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the court system. As he says, such a backlog of unclaimed fines is unpalatable and uncomfortable for anybody running the court system. I will mention later the impact that the proposals for cuts will have on the future efficiency and effectiveness of the courts.

The proposal in the consultation document is that work from Burton will go to either Derby or Stafford, my hon. Friend’s constituency. The consultation paper states that Stafford county court is 26 miles away by car, by the shortest route, and that the journey takes 45 minutes by car. Even by car, that is no short journey, and the task of attending court will be much more difficult for the 24% of households in my constituency—almost a quarter of my constituents—that do not have access to a car or van and rely solely on public transport. Many of those households are among the most vulnerable in the area, comprising those on a low income, the elderly and people with disabilities. A third of the wards in my constituency that are covered by the county court are among the 20% most deprived wards in the country; that gives an indication of the kind of vulnerable people who are served by the court. That deprivation brings with it related problems of poverty and increased social and family breakdown—precisely the kind of problems dealt with by the county court.

According to the consultation paper, it takes two hours and 23 minutes to get from Burton to Stafford by bus—a journey well worth making, because Stafford is a wonderful place to visit—but the round trip takes the best part of a working day for anybody from my constituency who wishes to attend the county court in Stafford. It takes five hours to travel there and back, not taking into consideration waiting time or the time for the case to be heard. Even the train takes one hour and 40 minutes, with a change, at a cost of some £14.30 for a normal adult return fare. That is simply unaffordable for many on low incomes in my constituency.

It is important to remember that the journey times calculated are for a journey from the county court in Burton to the proposed alternative in Stafford. For the many people who do not live right next door to Burton county court, the journey will be significantly longer, because they will have to go into Burton town to get a train or bus to travel onwards.

As for constituents who live in areas such as Marchington, which is one of the larger villages in the middle of my constituency, or Rocester, the home of JCB, no combination of trains and buses can get them to Stafford county court in time for a 9 o’clock meeting. I accept that Derby county court is more convenient for some of my constituents than Stafford, and it may seem sensible in principle to say that cases will be transferred from Burton to Derby, but many people have doubts about whether that is likely to happen in practice, and what percentage of cases will be affected. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he envisages happening, and how many cases he proposes to send to Derby, and how many to Stafford. That would provide a clearer picture of what we may expect.

Derby court falls outside the West Mercia and Staffordshire area court services. Derbyshire’s courts are subject to a separate review, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that the two reviews will be dovetailed together and considered as a whole. What guarantees can he give that if changes to the county court service in Derbyshire lead to more work being transferred from other courts in Derbyshire to Derby county court, Burton will not fall down the pecking order, with cases ultimately being transferred to Stafford, with the associated difficulties that I outlined?

The suggestion in the consultation paper that work could be transferred to Derby has so far done little to reassure my constituents. We must consider the consequences of the vastly increased travel times. I fear that they will result in people not bothering to attend. If witnesses are faced with five hours’ travel to give evidence for 20 minutes, they will simply not turn up, and that will further frustrate the court system, delay justice and waste even more money—taxpayers’ money. Surely, if the priority is to reduce inefficiency in the court system, our priority should be to tackle non-attendance in court and non-payment of fines, an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred. That is a problem in the civil courts and in magistrates courts, and it should surely be at the top of our hit list. The problem will be made worse by increasing the inconvenience for witnesses who are called to give evidence.