Tony Baldry said, “At the present moment there are a whole number of Defence Logistic Depots scattered around England. Lorries in one place, stores in another – it simply doesn’t make sense when there is clearly surplus capacity at Bicester.

“Bicester must be logical and natural location to consolidate Defence Logistics. Bicester has outstanding road and rail connections. Those rail connections are going to significantly improve with the development of the East West Rail Link which in due course will have the capacity to link Bicester by rail to both Southampton and Felixstowe.

“In addition to making Bicester the single, consolidated Defence Storage, Equipment and Logistics Depot, the Government has just published a White Paper on Defence Equipment, Support and Technology and given that the MOD are wanting to sell surplus land at Arncott, and that there is a planning permission for a business park at Bicester between “Bicester Village” and the motorway, I would also have thought it would be sensible to try and promote Bicester as a location for Defence Logistics, Equipment and Support, and to encourage opportunities for small and medium-sized companies, and to assist UK-based companies to obtain export orders.

“We already have EP Barrus in the town, and I am sure that Bicester could make an attractive location for other similar companies”.

The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell): The coalition Government have doubled British aid to Burma. If progress on political reform continues, we will be able to do much more.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is sufficient substance to the reforms in Burma? Is he confident that money provided by DFID for humanitarian relief is getting to the areas where it is needed, such as the Chin state?

Mr Mitchell: My hon. Friend poses the key question of whether these reforms are real. The fact that the regime in Burma has now released nearly all its political prisoners—particularly Min Ko Naing whom many Members campaigned to see released—is an enormously encouraging sign. The real test will come with the 48 by-elections due to take place before April. We will see how those elections are conducted and whether they are free and fair. If they are, that will be the most eloquent possible answer to my hon. Friend’s question.

Mr Blunt: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which is certainly one that I will be taking up in our ongoing examination and review, so that we improve the current, unsatisfactory state of affairs with foreign national offenders as quickly as we legally can.

Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): May I remind the Minister that it was the last, Labour Government who negotiated the groundbreaking EU prisoner transfer agreement, which came into force last December, to transfer foreign European prisoners back to their countries during their sentence? We have had lots of tough talk from the Minister and the Government, but what progress have the Government made on ensuring that the EU agreement is implemented across all EU states?

Mr Blunt: One of the reasons why I was visiting the European Union Commission on Friday and speaking to the official responsible for implementation of the agreement was to help deliver that. It is just a slight pity that in the negotiations undertaken by the last Administration, they managed to give Poland a five-year delay and Ireland a complete opt-out.

Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con): In designing prisoner transfer agreements, will the Minister ensure that the legitimate expectations of the victims of crime in this country are satisfied? Too often we find them fearful that their natural desire for retributive justice is going unfulfilled.

Mr Blunt: That is an important part of any consideration about the transfer of prisoners, and one that I certainly give attention to in considering applications that are made to me.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, the process for removal should begin at the time of sentence. That was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in our last report. At the moment, the whole process starts far too late. We need better liaison between the UK Border Agency and the prison authorities.

Mr Blunt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Select Committee for its work in this area. He will know just how multi-faceted this all is, and I am grateful for the continuing attention of his Committee. The points he makes are entirely reasonable and I will be following them up.

In his speech to the Fabien Society, Ed Balls said that he would make cuts to education, policing, defence and the NHS and importantly said that he would support the public sector pay freeze that the current Government is proposing.

It is, at last, some atonement from the Labour party; whose reckless spending during the boom period left Britain highly vulnerable to the subsequent banking crisis of 2007, a crisis which the Labour Government dealt with so poorly that even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted “[Labour] failed to win the 2010 election because the public did not think we had dealt with the resultant economic crisis as well as we should have done”.

Such admissions merely weaken the Labour Party’s claims that they have a credible alternative plan to that which the current Coalition Government is undertaking. It is clear that the opposition are confused over the direction to take given that, on the one hand, they accuse the Chancellor of making mistakes, but on the other support the Government’s policy in order to reduce the deficit.

The facts show that the Coalition’s economic strategy although tough, is starting to work. Since the General Election we have seen over half a million new private sector jobs, our cost of borrowing has fallen to record lows and businesses have invested £119 billion across the economy over the last year. Confidence from the markets proves that that Government’s economic plan is working. It is therefore not surprising that the opposition are left with no other alternative but to, begrudgingly, support the Coalition.

The result of Ed Balls’ speech demonstrates at least some element of responsibility, recognising the seriousness of the deficit crisis. Time will tell as to whether this is a genuine attempt by Balls and Miliband to be ‘responsible’ in opposition. Given the backlash from trade unions in the aftermath of the speech and further backtracking on Balls’ part, I am not filled with much hope.

I fully endorse everything said so far today in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), so I hope not to repeat anything. However, it is important for us to recognise that we will all die. As a society, we need to talk much more about dying and the care of the dying. As the psalmist says:

“The days of our age are threescore years and ten; and though men be so strong, that they come to fourscore years: yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow; so soon passeth it away, and we are gone.”

All too often in modern medicine death is seen as a failure in some way, but supporting those who are dying is an important part of modern medicine.

Three crucial things, therefore, ought to happen for anyone who is dying. They should be informed and fully know and understand, as far as possible, what is happening with their medical treatment. So far as is possible, they should be relieved of pain and should be able to die where they would most like to die. Most people, when asked, say that they would like to die at home, yet home hospice services in this country are pretty noticeable by their absence. I agree with the comments of hon. Members so far: we do have exceptionally good palliative care in this country—where it is good it is very good—but all too often it is mediocre.

Guy Opperman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. A lot of people present are passionate Christians and see the subject from a religious standpoint. I speak as someone who was given warning of death on 26 April, before my operation last year, and with respect I take the view that, of the choices faced by individuals, one is the choice of their death—when they would choose to go. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) accept, as a matter of both law and faith, that that choice belongs to us?

Tony Baldry: I want to resist the temptation to be drawn into a debate on assisted dying, because many people present want to talk about palliative care, but I state simply that the only person who should determine when we should die is the Almighty—it is not us. If we get into a situation in which we pick and choose who dies and who lives, it is a slippery slope. However, I will wait until the debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South before I develop those arguments.

On the need to enhance palliative care, I hope that much more emphasis can be given to junior doctors in particular. I understand that at present they get comparatively little training on palliative care and, given the pressures that junior doctors are under, they often feel that if a patient dies they have somehow failed that patient. They might not have: patients die, and it is a fact of life that people will die. Every hospital trust should have a clear policy on palliative care and on how to enhance it. We should never forget the role of hospital chaplains. People approaching death often need spiritual support as well as medical assistance. Spiritual support is no less worthy and necessary.

We should never underestimate the role of hospices. Hon. Members have referred to hospices in their constituencies, and I have the excellent Katharine House hospice in mine. However, we must try to ensure that they are better integrated in support of NHS palliative care services. Many moons ago, in the mid-1980s, Jack Ashley and I set up the all-party group on hospice support, which is now the all-party group on hospice and palliative care. Even then, we were concerned about the varying amount of support from the NHS to local hospices. I hope very much that NHS commissioners will, whenever possible, see local hospices not just as a resource in developing excellence on palliative care, but as an invaluable resource to help those who are dying and those who are terminally ill. I suspect that the voluntary hospice movement still needs to be much better integrated in supporting the NHS and those who are terminally ill. I hope that the introduction of new forms of commissioning will enable that to be done much better. How we support those who are dying is a measure not just of the NHS, but of us as a society, and we should be judged by how we care for those who are bereaved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton): Thank you very much, Sir Roger. May I say what a pleasure it is to be able to say “Sir Roger”? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate. It is timely that the House is reminded of the excellent work that goes on, and we have had tributes from all parts of the House this morning for individual hospices and the work of individuals. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend for his comments on the fears that surround death. Death is an inevitable consequence of life, albeit for some it is tragically premature. We do not find death and dying a comfortable subject. It is thought frightening and mysterious. If nothing else, debates such as this may demystify some of the issues around death.

I also want to mention in particular the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) and her comments on the privilege it is to be present at a member of one’s family’s death. The hospice movement, as she rightly said, has enabled that to be possible for so many more people today.

Services in some parts of the country are excellent and in some parts of the country they are patchy at best. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) pointed out, the quality of care does not always live up to what we expect. It also does not live up to what we expect in the treatment of certain conditions and in end-of-life care.

The Department of Health’s end-of-life care strategy was published in 2008 under the previous Government. I want to pay tribute to the progress that they made. It remains the blueprint for improving this area. Last September we published the third annual progress report on implementing the strategy. It is on the Department of Health’s website and I urge hon. Members to have a look at that.

Robert Flello: Will the Minister give way?

Anne Milton: I will not for the moment, because I have so little time.

Our plans for the NHS mean that we want people to have as much choice as possible in treatment in life but also in death. We want commissioners and providers to ensure that the right services, which include 24/7 community-based services, are available to support people at home.

Progress is frustratingly slow, but the examples around the country where it is working well are of note. We will review progress regularly to ensure that this becomes a reality for people. It is much overdue.

One development is the electronic palliative care co-ordination systems. I hate these names, but they can be effective tools. Through those, care providers can instantly share care plans and express preferences for care. We piloted that approach successfully in eight sites across the country and it is now being adopted more widely. We are also working to make sure care planning is a routine part of care for people who are dying. It is dreadful that care planning is not a routine part of care for all people. That has not been the case for some years, but it should be.

In November, NICE published its quality standard for end-of-life care of adults. That is an important contribution to this issue. It covers the whole of the end-of-care pathway, not just the medical bit. The 16 statements include social, practical, emotional and spiritual and religious support. We have also developed a national survey of bereaved relatives to get first-hand experiences of people’s care. The first survey should be completed by March. That will inform a new indicator on end-of-life care in the NHS outcomes framework.

To provide quality services, where and how people want them, hospices and other palliative care providers need support and funding. We will introduce a new per-patient funding system for all providers of palliative care, covering both adults’ and children’s services. We set up the independent palliative care funding review to help take that forward. The final report was published last year. It came up with some significant proposals, which we will consider in detail to ensure that we get that right. It is the first major step in local palliative care funding. We will have pilots to collect data and test the review’s recommendations, which will be established from April this year. The aim is to have the new funding system in place by 2015, which is a year earlier than was anticipated.

I also want to pay tribute to the voluntary sector. Palliative care was first developed in the voluntary sector and it still provides us with those beacons of best practice. Dame Cicely Saunders has already been mentioned and had tributes paid to her. She founded St Christopher’s hospice in 1967 and I want to associate myself with those tributes. I also pay tribute to people such as Dr Colin Murray Parkes, who has done so much in the area of bereavement and grief. That has been mentioned, but it possibly did not get the mention that it should.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Mr Amess), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Portsmouth North all paid similar tributes. I would love to mention every contribution in detail, but they all surrounded the same issues: this is about dignity; this is about choice; this is about life. It is also about bereavement and the care of the relatives who live beyond the death.

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) specifically mentioned assisted suicide, as have other hon. Members. This is a matter for Parliament as a whole to decide, not the Government. He talked about the perception of failure when someone dies. On a personal level, to be present at a good death is a privilege and an opportunity, not a failure. We need to right that balance a bit and see the success in someone dying well. As I have said, it is such an important part of the bereavement process.

We have a comparatively smaller number of people who die in a hospice, but so many more benefit from their services and expertise. We want to see hospices flourish and develop. In particular, we want to see them continuing to expand the care they give to those with illnesses other than cancer, as well as expanding into community-based support for patients, their families and their carers. That is where the work that we are doing on palliative care funding is so important. It will be key to moving us towards a fairer funding system for all providers, including hospices.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the one issue that has not been mentioned. In accepting that death is part of life, we also need to consider those who can be given the chance of life through another’s death. As I have ministerial responsibility for organ transplants, I have to mention that we need to make organ donation a normal part of end-of-life care. We need to recognise that through a sensitive approach to the family, we can, in death, give life to many others.

In conclusion, we come to this place to give our constituents and this country a better life, because we believe that everybody deserves a good life.

Robert Flello: Will the Minister give way?

Anne Milton: Very briefly.

Robert Flello: I just want to touch on the point that in my constituency, the Donna Louise Children’s Hospice Trust does some fantastic work. There is this difference between it and the work of the Douglas Macmillan hospice just outside the constituency. There is a mishmash and I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that in the future.

Anne Milton: We want to end any mishmash. We want a consistently high quality of care for everybody. Everybody deserves a good life and that is why we came to this place. This debate has allowed us to debate, discuss and share the opportunities that exist for Parliament to allow people a good death too, with dignity, without pain, in the company of those we love and at peace in death with the lives that we have led.

Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. Just before we move to the next debate and while I am awaiting the arrival of the Minister, who is not late, may I thank all hon. Members for the tone and the self-restraint that has been exercised this morning? As a result of that, we have managed to accommodate the views of 21 Back Benchers, in addition to those on the Front Bench. I regard that as exceptional. I hope that many people outside the Chamber will have heard the quality of the House of Commons at its absolute best. Thank you.

The full text of the letter is below:

Rt. Hon. Justine Greening, MP
Secretary of State
Department for Transport

12 January 2012

HS2 Compensation

I understand that in due course you, your Department and HS2 are going to be bringing forward details of a proposed compensation scheme on which you intend to consult.

Can I suggest there may be some benefit in there being the opportunity of having a pre-publication meeting, i.e. a meeting with Members of Parliament and representatives, if appropriate, of Local Authorities and Community Groups, on a totally “without prejudice” basis, before the Department produces a consultation document. I think that would be provide a helpful opportunity for colleagues to explain what they hope a compensation scheme might look like, to raise any concerns they may have had about the operation of the Exceptional Hardship Scheme as any further scheme is likely to be an Exceptional Hardship Scheme +, and if the EHS has had problems, then I think you and officials need to understand what those concerns might be.

I also think it is helpful if everyone feels that so far as is possible they are involved in trying to get the right answers to compensation, whilst of course recognising that whatever scheme is put up for compensation will of course be the scheme proposed by your Department.

Tony Baldry

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency (UKBA) conducts regular data matching exercises between e-Borders and other UKBA databases to effectively identify outbound offenders who have left the country. These figures are denoted in our internal reports as voluntary departures (data matching) removals.

The information requested is shown in the following table:

Voluntary departures (data matching) identified and removed, January to September 2011

Month Individuals removed
January

555

February

364

March

196

April

400

May

404

June

438

July

339

August

440

September

414

Total

3,550

Notes: 1. All figures quoted are management information which has been subject to internal quality checks. 2. Figures include dependants. 3. Figures relate to people who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities, who were later identified using data matching. (4 )In line with UK Border Agency methodology the number of outbound cases identified via e-Borders checks as overstayers/immigration offenders, will be the same as those removed.
While the majority of individuals identified in the table above will have been overstayers, a small number will have committed other immigration and criminal offences. We are unable to disaggregate this data within cost threshold.

Mr Simon Burns: Primary care trust (PCT) allocations for 2012-13 were announced on 14 December. These allocations provide PCTs with £91.6 billion to spend on the local front-line services that matter most, an increase of £2.5 billion, or 2.8%. This means that despite the financial situation, we have ensured that all PCTs receive a reasonable uplift.

The spending review made available funding of £400 million between 2011 and 2015, to support the provision of breaks for carers, reflecting a priority of the Coalition Agreement. The funding is currently included in PCT allocations, and we recommend that PCTs pool budgets with local authorities to provide carers’ breaks, with spending plans made available to local carers’ organisations. However, individual PCT revenue allocations are not broken down by service or policy area. It is for PCTs to commission services to meet the health care needs of their local populations, taking account of local and national priorities.

This will be the last round of allocations made to PCTs, as subject to the passing of the Health and Social Care Bill, the NHS Commissioning Board would take over responsibility for the allocation of resources from the Department for 2013-14 onwards. Also from 2013-14, the Department will allocate a ring-fenced public health grant to local authorities.

Damian Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those helpful and practical suggestions, some of which the UKBA already attempts to operate. He will be aware that most countries co-operate with the process entirely and are extremely helpful but, sadly, some countries are much less helpful. One measure that we are taking to ensure that the situation improves in the years ahead, as it needs to, is persuading Governments who are less keen than others on helping us with returns to be more helpful and co-operative about accepting their nationals back.