Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Newton of Braintree
Tuesday 25th October 2011

(12 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

I listened with great attention to the noble Lord and took on board what he said. Of course, the position of Monitor is not entirely comparable because under the Bill it has vastly more powers.

Lord Newton of Braintree Portrait Lord Newton of Braintree
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sorry, I was distracted.

Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

Monitor under the Bill will have vastly more powers than it had. As a result, the situation is not entirely comparable. That is my point.

Lord Newton of Braintree Portrait Lord Newton of Braintree
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Monitor has extended responsibilities—and, importantly, a much clearer remit to be concerned with the quality of patient services—beyond what it had when its overwhelming focus was on financial matters. I regard that as an improvement. The Secretary of State under the Bill has more powers over Monitor than it had under the original proposals introduced and passed by the Labour Government. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is nodding his head.

This is a difficult and complex area. We could argue for ever about the best way to deal with it. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I hope that we can find a way forward. I also hope that many noble Lords will recognise that some things said about the Bill are simply not true.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Newton of Braintree
Monday 24th January 2011

(13 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newton of Braintree Portrait Lord Newton of Braintree
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, and it is yet another point that has been done to death. The suggestions that community is all, regardless of other circumstances, which has been implicit in quite a lot of what has been said, and that somehow this is death and disaster compared with the situation at present, are complete and absolute poppycock.

Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I listened, as I always do, with great interest. However, I was not sure what central point he was trying to make. Was he saying that basically we should not worry about any of these things—to hell with local government boundaries, local loyalties and identities, and let us just have a computer divide the country into blocks of a certain identical number and spew out whatever the result is, irrespective of those things? Is that what he was saying?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Newton of Braintree Portrait Lord Newton of Braintree
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That was not what I said. I indicated specifically that the flexibility in the Bill, and the possibly greater flexibility that has been the subject of one discussion, would allow those factors to be taken into account. Of course, they are not to be dismissed but equally, with a reasonably fair voting system, they are not the be-all and end-all.

Lord Davies of Stamford Portrait Lord Davies of Stamford
- Hansard - -

In that case the noble Lord is saying what I totally believe, which is that the present system is not all bad; it could be a great deal worse; and flexibility is of the essence in the role of the Boundary Commission. If those are the three principles that he was setting forth I could not have put it better myself. That is exactly what I think is the view of the majority of people in all corners of this House.

The Government have come in for a great deal of criticism over the past 90 hours, or whatever it is. I do not think we should have too much sympathy for them because they brought it on their head by going ahead with this Bill without pre-legislative scrutiny, as my noble friend Lady Hughes has just said. There was no attempt to consult local people at any stage. It is not an excuse to say that they had a deadline of 5 May and needed to make rapid progress because it was an arbitrary decision of the coalition to put the two Bills together. We have been over that several times. The Government have been subject to a lot of criticism but I do not feel sorry for them. However, I shall not add to that now. I want to be much more positive and move on.

The public would expect us in the Committee stage of such a Bill to do two things.