13/12/2016 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello, and welcome to the main news from Westminster.

The former Chancellor George Osborne says the UK Parliament could have

done something to avert the tragedy in Syria.

I think we are deceiving ourselves in this Parliament,

if we believe that we have no responsibility for what has

happened in Syria.

There are calls to wake up to Russia's interference

in international affairs.

Where not only their interference now proven in the American

Presidential campaign, probably in our own referendum last

year, we don't have the evidence for that yet, but I think

it is highly probable.

Also on the programme, dismay at attitudes among NHS staff

to the deaths of people with learning disabilities.

There can be no tolerance for the deaths of people

with learning disabilities, treating them with any less

importance than any other patient in the National Health Service.

And tackling homophobia in sport.

I was the first one to come out in rugby, and in doing that,

I felt a huge, huge amount of pressure, and I was just

a referee, I wasn't a star like the players are.

The five year war between the Syrian Government and rebel

forces has reached a critical and alarming point.

The Syrian Government retakes control of the city of Aleppo,

civilians are coming under attack.

The UN says pro-Government forces have been entering homes and killing

people, including children.

The UN is urging the warring parties to declare a truce,

so that children can be moved to safety.

Meanwhile, MPs have being holding an emergency debate on the crisis.

Several MPs harked back to the Commons vote three years ago

in which military action against President Assad

forces was rejected.

This latest debate was initiated by Andrew Mitchell,

who painted a grim picture of what is going

on inside Syria now.

The reports of the United Nations and its agencies and of

the international Red Cross are likely to be extremely accurate,

and they have reported over lunchtime that there is clear

evidence of civilians being executed and shot on the spot,

there are dead bodies in the street, which cannot be reached

because of gunfire, and in the last couple of hours we have heard

there are probably more than 100 children who are unaccompanied

or separated from their families, who are trapped in a building

and under heavy fire in east Aleppo.

There are large numbers who are stranded in the open

and looking for shelter.

The only food available is dates and bulgar wheat, water has run out,

there is no electricity, and last night people

were flooding into this enclave.

There are, as I say, credible reports of executions,

and the removal of groups of adult males.

Would the right honourable gentleman give way?

I will.

I thank the right honourable gentleman for giving way

and he paints a grim picture of the current situation in Aleppo.

Years ago I travelled with the honourable member opposite

from Beckenham to Srebrenica and we visited an exhibition

in Sarajevo, of pictures from Srebrenica and pictures

from Syria, and they were indistinguishable.

When we hear of summary executions, disappearances of men and boys,

unmarked graves and the types of atrocities he has described,

does he not believe we risk this being the Srebrenica

of our generation?

Andrew Mitchell said one way to avoid that scenario

was to get aid into Syria as quickly as possible.

A view reinforced by Labour.

If Russia and Assad continue to block road convoys into the area,

then surely the Government must finally accept that we have reached

the point of last resort, when the previous Foreign Secretary

promised that air drops would be used.

Now if we fear that manned flights would be too dangerous,

as I know the honourable gentleman sitting next to the Foreign

Secretary does, and he sits and shakes his head,

then the Government must consider using unmanned drones

or GPS guided parachutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am really concerned about the idea that we would send our aircraft

into airspace that is contested and is hostile.

They fly low, they drop aid, as I know, very low.

They could be taken out by ground fire, not just missiles.

There are other solutions, such as using unmanned drones or GPS

guided parachutes of which there has been, the GPS guided parachutes can

carry large amounts, much larger than unmanned drones.

These are all proposals we know that the Government is actively

considering at the moment.

So I hope the Foreign Secretary will tell us today, if air drops

are not the answer for delivering humanitarian aid, then what is?

The former Chancellor raised the vote against

military action in 2013.

I think we are deceiving ourselves, in this Parliament, if we believe

that we have no responsibility for what has happened in Syria.

The tragedy in Aleppo did not come out of a vacuum,

it was created by a vacuum.

A vacuum of western leadership, of American leadership,

British leadership.

I take responsibility as someone who sat on the National Security Council

throughout those years, Parliament should take its

responsibility because of what it prevented being done.

Words that were praised by a Labour MP.

So very many times in this House I have vigorously opposed

everything that he put to us, today I respect a very thoughtful

contribution and an important contribution he has just made.

Mr Speaker, I rise today with one purpose and that is to persuade

the Foreign Secretary that, if he chooses to listen

to the member for Sutton Coldfield and take the action suggested

to him, he will do so with wide support across this House.

There was a warning about Russia's behaviour.

I don't think we have even begun to wake up to what Russia is doing

when it comes to cyber warfare, not only their interference proven

in the American Presidential campaign, probably in our own

referendum last year, we don't have the evidence for that yet,

but I think it is highly probable.

Certainly in the French Presidential election they will be involved

and there already serious concerns in the German Secret Service that

Russia is interfering in the elections coming up.

We have to wake up to this.

I am sure there are many in this House and throughout the country

watching their television screens, whose main motive, main instinct,

main feeling is one of frustration at the apparent impotence

of our Government to be able to get involved and do anything.

I do think that there are some people, perhaps not those sitting

in the front bench opposite, but some in the Foreign Office

who need to go on an assertive training course, they need to speak

a lot louder and more emphatically than they have been doing thus far.

The Foreign Secretary condemned Russia for blocking aid

and the evacuation of civilians, and there were hard words

for President Assad.

Assad has doggedly refuse to allow the UN to deliver supplies

to hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are starving.

He is content for his own people to be reduced to starvation,

even though there are UN warehouses full of food, within easy reach.

He said it was up to Russia and Syria to declare a truce,

but he also criticised the Commons decision in 2013.

On August 29th 2013, this House voted by 13 votes not

to use force against Assad, even after he had poisoned hundreds

of his people with sarin nerve gas, and we as a House of Commons,

we as a country, we vacated that space into which Russia stepped,

beginning its own bombing campaign on behalf of Assad in 2015.

Ever since that vote, our ability to influence events

in Syria or to protect civilians or compel the delivery of aid has

been severely limited.

He predicted victory would elude President Assad and he questioned

whether Russia would continue to support his futile

struggle to subdue Syria.

Now a teenage boy with a learning disability died in 2013, aged 18,

while he was at a treatment centre run by Southern Health NHS Trust.

The Trust said Connor Sparrowhawk died of natural causes

after drowning in a bath, but an independent investigation

concluded that his death was entirely preventable,

and that there had been failures in his care.

This and other tragic cases led to an inquiry

by the Care Quality Commission into how the NHS

investigates patient deaths.

I found the processes were inadequate and caused bereaved

families further distress.

The Health Secretary said the findings made sobering reading.

Among other things, the report said families and carers often

have a poor experience of mortality investigations, are sometimes not

treated well kindness, respect and sensitivity,

can feel their involvement is tokenistic, and often question

the independence of the reports.

The NHS does not prioritise learning from deaths,

and misses countless opportunities to learn and improve as a result.

From next March, though, all NHS Trust boards will have

to collect and analyse data on preventable deaths.

We'll be requiring Trusts to publish that information quarterly,

in accordance with regulations I will lay before the House,

so that patients and the public can see whether and where progress

is being made.

The CQC report raised concerns about the treatment of people

with learning disabilities and mental health problems.

In acute trusts we will ask for particular priority to be given

to identifying patients with a mental health problem

or a learning disability, to make sure that their care

responds to their particular needs.

And that particular trouble is taken over any mortality investigations

to ensure wrong assumptions are not made about the

inevitability of death.

Connor Sparrowhawk's stepfather Richard told Radio 5 Live,

"When a loved one dies in care, knowing how and why they died,

is the very least a family should be able to expect."

We agree.

The findings of the CQC are a wake up call.

Relatives shut out of investigations, reasonable

questions gone unanswered, grieving families made to feel

like "a pain in the neck" or feeling they would be better dealt

with at a "supermarket checkout".

Mr Speaker, this is totally unacceptable.

It is shameful and it has to change.

The most chilling phrase I think in the foreword in this report

was where Mike Richards and his team said they found the level

of acceptance and sense of inevitability when people

with a learning disability or mental illness die early is too common.

So will the Secretary of State just put on the record what Mike Richards

says in this report, that there can be no tolerance

for the deaths of people with learning disabilities,

treating them with any less importance than any other patient

in the National Health Service.

Well, I am happy to put that on the record, and say

that that those words have the Government's

wholehearted support.

One MP is in the throws of a difficult personal experience.

I seek the indulgence of the House to raise a personal issue.

This Thursday, I should have be attending the inquest

into my father's death, which I anticipate will conclude

was avoidable, just been notified an hour ago that the one of the key

witnesses won't be attending because the hospital had incorrect

contact details for him.

He was a locum and was unaware the inquest was taking place,

so for the second time it is being cancelled.

Could the Secretary of State tell us whether the report has looked

into the aspect of locum doctors and of the pressure of the failure

to learn lessons, because so many people in the Health Service,

and A in particular, are only coming to hospital

on a one-off occasion, and actually that is a part

of the cause of the sort of defensiveness there

is within the system.

First of all, I am sure the whole House will join me in wanting

to offer our condolences to him, about what happened to his father,

and of course the incredible grief he and others feel when they lose

a family member is just compounded if you subsequently discover

that the death was avoidable.

Can I also pay tribute to Sara Ryan, the mother of Connor Sparrowhawk,

who has fought tirelessly for justice for those

with learning disability.

Just to warn the Secretary of State, I think she'll take some convincing

that things really will change, given all of the resistance that

she's come up against.

I hope he's managed to meet with her.

If he hasn't, would he be willing to meet with her, together with me,

to discuss the plans going forward?

The Health Secretary said he had met Sara Ryan.

Without her campaigning, he said, they would not be making such huge

changes on a national level now.

You are watching Tuesday in Parliament with me,

Christina Cooper.

Now onto broader matters around health care.

A Lords committee is investigating what the NHS might look

like in the year 2030.

How will it cope with the pressures placed on it?

And what might be the best way to fund social care in the long term?

At its latest session, the committee heard from a series

of politicians, but first, it questioned the man

in charge of NHS England, the body that sets the priorities

and direction of the health service.

Do you have any ideas for a sort of alternative funding

model for social care?

You mentioned earlier all the different ways

in which social care is funded.

Is there something that would be more effective,

which would enable the longer term sustainability of the

NHS and social care?

I think there are things that we ought to do to integrate

health and social care locally, but I believe that those solutions

are best designed between consenting adults locally rather

than mandated nationally.

We need to think more broadly about funding,

public funding streams for older people, for retirees in this

country, and we need to go beyond just thinking about health

and social care funding and also think about what's happening

in the benefits system, the pensions system and so forth.

And so I am personally attracted to the idea that we obviously

have a triple lock until 2020, which is three different ways

in which pensions go up.

I think a new way of thinking about that would be a triple

guarantee for old people in this country, that would be

a guarantee around income, around housing and around care.

I don't think you can think about any one of those

in isolation from the other two.

The MP who is a doctor and who chairs the Commons health

committee was asked if MPs could reach agreement

over long-term funding.

I can't tell you how depressing I find it sitting in the Commons

chamber and hearing the kind of yahoo politics over this issue,

and I personally feel that we need to do the same with health

and social care as was eventually done over pensions, an acceptance

that the scale of this is so great, and it will be a challenge

for whoever is in power, so it's in the interests

of all political parties to get together and have a mature

discussion about how we fund this so it doesn't become such

a political football.

I personally feel this is the right time in the electoral

cycle for that to happen, because the closer you get

to an election the more difficult that becomes.

Onto the views of the opposition parties.

I struggle to justify to myself the fact that a very wealthy

person who has cancer has all of their medical needs paid

for but a person on very modest means in a semi in Salford who gets

dementia ends up losing everything.

This is the basis of our 1948 settlement, and yet it doesn't seem

to me to be very fair.

The Government is making a series of decisions

about whether it is inheritance tax cuts or corporation tax cuts

or capital gains tax cuts.

The Government has found hundreds of millions in capital investment

for new grammar schools, so I believe the Government can make

a different set of choices at the moment to fund the shortfall

in social care.

I think that we do have to look at changing the shape of the NHS,

looking at sustainability, so some of the things that

are putting a lot of pressure on it and squandering money

is the marketisation in the NHS.

I think that's incredibly wasteful, and it's quite clear the Department

of Health do not actually know how much money is spent on that

whole convoluted process, the bidding and tendering.

And finally, the verdict of the Health Secretary.

I'm a supporter of our current system.

Lots of people say, well, you know, what about

an insurance-based system?

But I think the interesting thing is, if you look

at the insurance-based systems that exist, they tend to be much less

good at cost control.

The NHS is actually very widely admired for its

ability to control costs.

An MRI scan costs three times more in America than it does in England,

despite having the same machine and the same operators, because,

when insurance companies are paying for costs,

then no one has a motive to keep the cost down.

With a single payer system, you can.

I think it's very misleading and unnecessarily worrying

to the public to talk about, is the NHS sustainable?

They worry about those core principles.

I think the bigger question is, how are all health systems

across the whole world going to be sustainable in the face of the huge

pressures of an ageing population and of advances in medicine

and technology that are making us all live longer

and are fantastic for all of us?

I think there is a bigger question, which isn't really about the NHS,

because I don't think we will ever change those principles,

but about how we are going to get more resources

into health care systems.

The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, in action for the second time.

To the House of Lords now, where peers discussed very

disturbing claims that child migrants brought to the UK

from the Calais refugee camps have disappeared.

The Home Office Minister, Lady Williams, promised to investigate.

Could she comment on media reports that some of the children that have

already come to this country have actually disappeared?

Could she comment on whether that is accurate and,

if it is at all accurate, which is very disturbing,

could she say what more can be done to prevent this happening

to any other children?

Well, I'm pleased that the noble Lord has raised that question,

as one who is so concerned with safeguarding, and the concerns

haven't actually been raised with us, although I have seen them

in the paper, and we haven't received any specific

details of any cases.

But of course we will investigate any concerns fully

and we are working closely with the LGA and would of course

engage with any agencies, the relevant agencies,

should those stories be verified.

We would do that in the same way we would do with

a child that was our own.

Would the noble Baroness, the Minister, care to answer,

as she failed to answer on another occasion, how long does the funding

last if a local authority takes in a child or children?

Is it a one-year payment or will it cover the full cost of that child

in terms of education, housing and health?

My Lords, if a child is in local authority care,

the child will be looked after as if it was,

as if they were one of our own.

As I say, the cost of that local authority care will be met.

In terms of the other funding that I think the noble

lady is referring to, it's certainly being

committed to for the moment.

I can't speak for further budgetary rounds, but certainly it's been

committed to for the moment.

Can my noble friend say whether all these children have family here,

or are they looking to be adopted?

Well, for the children who meet the criteria under

the Dublin regulations, those children will

have family here.

For the children who've come here through section 67

of the Immigration Act, they won't necessarily have family.

They will be unaccompanied.

Now, how widespread is homophobia in sport

and what can be done about it?

The culture committee is investigating the issue,

and it's taken evidence from Nigel Owens, a top

referee who was in charge of the Rugby World Cup final last

year between New Zealand and Australia.

That was eight years after he had come out as gay.

He says his experience had been hugely positive.

I can count on one hand negative attitudes that there were.

Very, very few.

On the whole, if somebody was to ask me, is rugby a homophobic sport,

then the answer would be no, because I couldn't be who I am today

and referee at the level that I am today in rugby

if that was that case.

Now, I am aware as well that there are a minority

of people within rugby, as there is within every sport,

and as there is within society as well, that would not

like a person, whether it is for the colour of his skin,

his religious beliefs or his sexual orientation, and that is something

that is not only in sport but is in society as well as in everyday life.

He said there had been some homophobic abuse

during an international match he refereed at Twickenham

two years ago.

I don't think rugby can take the moral high ground when it comes

to everything in sport, respect, the way it deals

with issues in sport, but what I think rugby does do a lot

better than a lot of other sports, it does address those issues.

As that instance in Twickenham was brought to the attention

of the RFU, it was dealt with.

The people were banned from the stadium two years ago,

they were fined and the money was given to a charity of my choice.

Speaking to people outside the sort of professional end of the game,

at the community end of the game, young people have come to me

who are dealing with their sexuality and dealing with how

are they going to deal with it if people find out in rugby.

A lot of it is very positive and a lot of them still feel

that they cannot be themselves in rugby within that environment.

So there's a lot of work to be done still as well, I think.

Nigel Owens was asked about the differences

between rugby and football.

When the first gay footballer does take that plunge,

and I think what is hindering at the moment is everybody's waiting

to find out who it is.

I was the first one to come out in rugby and, in doing that,

I felt a huge amount of pressure, and I was just a referee.

I wasn't a star, like the players are, but I felt a huge amount

of pressure in taking the plunge.

You're going to be the first one in a professional sport.

So I can't imagine the pressure that is on an individual

in the game of football.

He spoke about his own suicidal feelings before coming out.

I had to accept my sexuality, first of all, and it took me

an overdose and a few days in intensive care and only

just coming back to life till I accepted that.

There were people there to help me through this

and tell me, things will be OK.

I look back now and say, yeah, they were right,

things will be OK in the end.

At the time, a lot of it was to do with me dealing with myself,

and you're quite right in what you say there.

You know, we have to do all we can to make the environment

safer for these people, no matter what age they are.

It's up to people in the crowd, he said, to make it clear to people

shouting homophobic abuse that it was unacceptable.

I don't think people realise that, when they do shout this abuse,

abuse that is not acceptable, when they do shout this abuse,

you have no idea what it can make somebody sitting maybe two seats

away from you who are dealing with themselves, it can

have a huge influence on that, and it can.

If I was sitting in a stadium at 25 years of age in the state that

I was then, and I heard somebody shout things like that,

it could have been enough to tip me over the edge

and try to take my own life, which I did a few years later.

So, yes, it's hugely important that we try to eradicate that

from sport and from society as well.

The rugby referee Nigel Owens, talking about homophobia in sport.

That's it for now, but do join me at the same time tomorrow

for another round-up of the best of the day at Westminster.

Until then, from me, Christina Cooper, goodbye.