St John Ambulance

Debate between Mike Wood and Brooks Newmark

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I rise to counter the damning speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). This is prompted not by any national part of St John, but by members of my local group, for whom I have always had enormous respect and whose service in my constituency has always been of the highest order. It is on that basis that I want to put their views on the suggestions made in the lead-up to this debate about the present management and direction of St John. None of the people I have spoken to within St John is in any way resistant to the idea that the Charity Commission has some responsibility for overseeing the charity, and they would welcome any investigation that might be thought necessary. This is not about thwarting the intention that I assume is behind the debate; I want to provide a wider, more rounded picture of the present state of affairs.

As we know, St John believes that too many people die—in my area as much as anywhere else—who do not need to, and who would not if first aid was available at their time of crisis. My group believes that, since the reorganisation, it is even more committed to St John’s mission, which is available on its website and seems close to the heart of every member of my local St John I have ever dealt with.

The mission is

“to provide an effective and efficient charitable first aid service to local communities”—

my group does that—and

“to provide training and products to satisfy first aid and related health and safety needs for all of society”,

which my group certainly does. The final aim is

“to encourage personal development for people of all ages, through training and by membership of our organisation”,

and my local group’s membership is growing.

I ask the hon. Members for North Thanet and for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to understand that while they speak for communities in Kent, St John extends throughout the country. It was an important admission that local disparities in service might very well be part of the problem, and that could be an issue when forming a picture of the organisation and its recent management that is perhaps not as complete as it might be. We know that the organisation was, in essence, £9 million in deficit by 2011 and that that deficit was growing. Any organisation has to face the reality that if it is that much in the red and things are not getting better, change is needed. I understand that there might be some objections to how that deficit arose, but it is instructive that, by the end of 2014, this organisation that was recently £9 million in the red will be registering a small surplus. St John has quickly got on top of a financial situation that was unacceptable.

[Mr Newmark]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that although my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) made points about the cuts and their impact, the delivery of services has improved, especially for young people—perhaps in the same way that the Government have made cuts yet improved productivity and delivery—and the training of young people has increased by 37% in the past year alone.

[Mike Wood]

I am grateful for that intervention because it makes my next point for me. In spite of what has happened, and against that background, my understanding is that the organisation nationally—this is certainly my experience locally—has improved its performance. It is training more people and functioning in a much more open fashion, and it has listened and taken note of the report it sought on its governance. As I understand it, the report was independent and said that the organisation was too bureaucratic and complex, that it lacked clear governance policies and lines of accountability and that, essentially, there were too many committees and too many roles. Perhaps that is inevitable in an organisation split over 41 semi-autonomous bodies but, none the less, St John sought to improve that state of affairs after hearing the view of the expert body asked to review it. Again, my group, which is based just over the border into Wakefield, at Ossett, has welcomed the improved situation in which it now functions.

It is also important to look at information from bodies such as the Care Quality Commission. It has continued to provide inspection reports that have shown, certainly in my area, that St John is providing a service of a very high standard. Obviously, if the two hon. Gentlemen from Kent—the hon. Members for North Thanet and for Canterbury—have misgivings about the organisation and management of a St John home in their area, it is their responsibility to make those concerns public. Nobody has any misgivings about that, or any opinion other than that that is exactly the right thing to do. I would have done the same about something in my constituency, but to extrapolate from that a wholesale belief that the organisation is far away from its objectives and delivery targets, as was suggested at the start of the debate, seems to be neither sensible nor safe.

May I make a rather partisan, north-south point? The two hon. Gentlemen from Kent who proposed the debate—they are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who came and went, who I understand was born in Kent—perhaps might just, in their more charitable moments, accept that the world extends beyond Kent. I think that they have to be told that there is life north of Watford.