Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to the former Leader of the House. I think it is a bit of a shame that he has not been given a knighthood. I know that he is already a baronet, but I thought he could prove that at the age of 70 it was still possible to do “twice a knight”.
Let me now ask a question of real importance. Given that the Government have a massive hole in their programme for the autumn because we lost the House of Lords reform Bill, which was carried by a three-to-one majority, can the Leader of the House do something on behalf of all the Back Benchers in the House, and ensure that the days that would have been allocated to that Bill—10 days, perhaps—can be allocated to Back-Bench business, particularly private Members’ Bills, so that some of the good ideas on the Back Benches can inform the Government?
Mr Lansley
I must confess that I am slightly staggered that the hon. Gentleman now seeks to make a virtue of the fact that he and his party voted by a substantial majority for the principle of House of Lords reform, and then effectively sought to obstruct any progress. My definition of opposition is not obstruction. It may be his definition, but it is not mine.
Pre-Paid Meters (Level of Debt)
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to raise the level of debt below which pre-paid meter customers may change their energy supplier; and for connected purposes.
I raised this issue in Parliament before through an oral question to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 26 January 2012 at column 401 of Hansard, and again in a written question on 1 May 2012 at column 1506W. On the first occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would ask Ofgem to look at the matter in detail, and on the latter, he said that it was to be dealt with by Ofgem. In the interests of hundreds of thousands of energy customers, I am presenting the Bill today to get some actual movement.
Through raising the level of debt at which pre-paid meter customers may change their energy supplier from £200 to £350, around 200,000 customers could escape crippling energy tariffs. It is a tiny change, but it would make a huge difference. I have mentioned time and again how the cartel-like big six have too much power. By trapping disadvantaged customers into extortionate tariffs, they are proving once again that they need to be shown what it means to be fair and responsible.
The profits of the big six energy companies have gone up almost a third since 2008, and payouts to shareholders increased across the board an incredible sixfold since 1999 in the case of Centrica, which owns British Gas. This is the time for it, and others, to give something back.
If each of those 200,000 customers were to save a maximum of £138 a year, it would cost energy companies a combined £27.5 million. That sounds like a lot until we realise that last year, British Gas alone made 12 times that amount in profit. Furthermore, the money saved by those 200,000 people would be spent on paying back debts to energy companies, so it is not that bad. I have spoken with Ofgem about this matter. It agrees with me in principle, although as usual it moves at snail’s pace. I would like to see it move quicker on this simple solution to the debt of hundreds of thousands of people. Let us work together to get a fair deal for prepayment customers.
In January 2010, Ofgem changed its policy so that customers with a debt of £200 or less were able to switch energy supplier as long as the new supplier was willing to take on that debt, which in most instances was the case. More people were able to take advantage of greater savings to be made by switching supplier, which meant that they could pay off their arrears more easily, cutting short a spiral of mounting debt. The £200 debt level worked then, but we could and should do more now.
More than 1.5 million electricity and gas customers are currently in debt, and almost 1 million of those can switch supplier to get a better deal on their energy tariff. The Bill would add 200,000 people to that figure and ensure a fairer system. Importantly, those 200,000 people are among the most disadvantaged in our society, and chose a prepayment meter as a way of responsibly managing their weekly budget. About a quarter of prepayment meter customers are thought to be fuel poor, and they are disproportionately represented in the social housing rented sector. People are three times more likely to be in debt if their income is in the lowest quintile, and it is evident that the 200,000 people I have mentioned are among those struggling to pay rising food and housing costs, and, of course, energy bills.
According to Which?, 84% of people are worried about their energy bills. Consumers spend one week a year worrying about their finances, and people with less debt are often happier. What do our outdated regulations do? They add extra worry to people who are already concerned about job security and a double-dip recession. There are examples of people fiddling their meters to try and reduce their energy bills, and the number of people doing that has risen 30% since 2007. I do not say that that is right—it is not and there is a price to be paid—but I understand why they are doing it.
I am even more concerned about people who reduce their energy usage in order to save money to pay off their debt. The number of pensioners dying from cold has nearly doubled in five years. Last winter, Save the Children found that half of all families planned to turn the heating off for longer to keep their bills down, leading to problems such as children in cold homes being twice as likely to suffer from respiratory problems. I would not be surprised if some people are cutting down their energy use in order to pay off their debt, which is completely unacceptable. We can tackle the problem by giving 200,000 people the freedom to make their debt more manageable by switching to a cheaper tariff or company.
Some people are very badly affected by their debt, and it is sad that it is so easy for them to get into such a position. For example, they may not have been identified as vulnerable by energy companies, and been placed on a prepayment meter after racking up hundreds of pounds of debt while struggling to pay astronomical energy bills on a credit meter. Energy companies need to take responsibility for such confusions and mistakes, and allow people to switch suppliers to help them pay off their debts.
For my more business-friendly opponents and colleagues, I will also outline the benefits of this proposal to the energy companies themselves. As it stands, £478 million is owed to energy companies, and by making it easier for a large proportion of customers to pay that back, energy companies can recoup their losses. uSwitch estimates that pre-paid meter customers could save £138 a year just by switching, so a £350 debt could be paid off in just over two years without them making any sacrifices. Both customers and energy companies would be better off; it would be a win-win situation.
Those are arguments for increasing the debt level, but why should we increase it from £200 to £350? First, the £100 limit was increased to £200 in 2010 to reflect higher energy bills and debt levels, but times have changed. Energy bills have increased by 140% in eight years and by 20% in the last two years. They have risen seven times faster than household income and continue to rise. SSE announced a price hike of 9% on 22 August, despite a 7.7% rise in its pre-tax profits over the past year. I am sure there are more price rises to follow and that history will repeat itself: when one company raises its prices, the others are never far behind. The average amount of debt is now around £350. That is the average and not the maximum. In the past two years, severe cuts have led to a double-dip recession, making it even harder for those involved. Ofgem agrees that the level is currently too low, but we need to speed up the process.
Secondly, £200 is not what it used to be. Its value has decreased by more than 10% since the level was set. It would not buy an iPhone or a BlackBerry or any of the company phones that the energy company executives walk around with. It would not buy a return ticket to EDF’s global headquarters in Paris, E.ON’s global headquarters in Düsseldorf or Scottish Power’s global headquarters in Bilbao, and yet for energy customers in debt who are unable to switch their tariff, paying the money back can be demanding and tiring. If we can agree on that, we will have the chance to make a small change to an outdated regulation that will make a huge difference to hundreds of thousands of people. Those are the people we need to help most, because they are vulnerable to debt and in fuel poverty.
I have taken the lead with help from my supporters and colleagues. All who work on energy issues have made such efforts at some point or another. This should be a lesson to Ofgem. Its job is to look at these issues and ensure customers have a fair deal. As I said, I began asking this question back in January. If Ofgem had sorted the problem out at that time, I would not be standing here today. I could have stopped at that point and left the matter with Ofgem, but the sad fact is that I did not feel I could leave Ofgem to get on with dealing with it quickly. I am therefore introducing the Bill to ensure that the debt level is changed before the winter, before other people die because of their energy costs.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Robertson, Mr Tim Yeo, Albert Owen, Laura Sandys, Dr Alan Whitehead, David Simpson, Mr Mike Weir, Jim Sheridan, Mr Alan Reid, Cathy Jamieson, Ian Lavery and Sir Robert Smith present the Bill.
John Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 65).
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker—you do not have to smile.
In 1624, as I am sure you are aware, the House decided that no Member could resign their seat. In 1680, we decided that we would invent the legal fiction that a Member appointed to an office of profit under the Crown is deemed to have resigned their seat. At the beginning of August this year, Mrs Louise Mensch— I make no criticism of her whatever—believed she had resigned her seat, but was not appointed to an office of profit under the Crown for a further three and a half weeks. Consequently, she described herself as a “resigned MP”, but was none the less a Member of Parliament, because a Member has not resigned their seat until the Chancellor appoints them to the office.
I raise this matter as a point of order because there is an important matter of precedent here. I am not aware of any time in the past when there has been such a delay, other than in 1842 when the Government refused for party political purposes to appoint a Member so as not to allow a by-election.
Chris Bryant
Will you, Mr Speaker, therefore reinforce to the Chancellor that it is important to appoint a Member the moment they seek to resign their seat through such an appointment?
Mr Speaker
I think it is a matter for further consideration and, on the occasions that this issue has been raised, if not in quite the same terms, I have suggested to Members concerned about it—I recall the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) expressing his discontent with the status quo—that it could be considered by the Procedure Committee. That is one possibility, but it certainly warrants further discussion. I note what the Minister of State, Department for Transport, has said with reference to 1963, and I feel sure that he is right.
Mr Speaker
I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was wrong—he should not look for an argument!
Breast Implants
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. The position we have inherited is that I have no powers in relation to the provision of private health care by private companies. As I said to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the Health and Social Care Bill provides for the establishment of Monitor as a health sector regulator that will license such providers. I am not making any judgment at this point on whether it would be appropriate for conditions to be attached to such licences in relation to the continuity of service to patients, but it is one option that we can consider.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I suggest to the Secretary of State that the problems in the cosmetic intervention industry may be far more extensive than we have known thus far? A few years ago, I had my eyes lasered. I visited five clinics, four of which seemed to be trying to sell me an intervention rather than trying to do anything that would be in my general health interest. Will the Secretary of State add laser surgery clinics to his list, and also private dentists, many of which are encouraging patients to undergo operations that they certainly do not need?
Mr Lansley
I will reserve my position on dentistry, because there is a very wide range and cosmetic intervention constitutes a substantial proportion of overall dentistry activity, but I will happily consider whether there is an issue to be dealt with. As for laser eye surgery, I will ask Sir Bruce’s group to consider not only the establishment of a registry in relation to implants and devices, but cosmetic interventions more generally. I hope that we shall be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman when we publish the terms of reference.
Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadine Dorries
I absolutely will—that is why I am here—but it is important to explain the context and the background to some of misinformation that Members have received in their inboxes. This is my opportunity to correct the misinformation MPs have been fed about the amendment.
The amendment has created a divide that was not present before, including in 2008. The Guardian and The Times and the union-funded Abortion Rights have mounted a campaign against the amendment. I must say that the core Conservative vote newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and so on, have been supportive, so this chasm and the politicisation of abortion has begun as a result of the amendment and as a result of the unions and the left-wing media.
Nadine Dorries
There are lots of comments being made from a sedentary position, Mr Speaker, but The Times has actually fed that divide directly and repeated much of the information it has been given. I want to answer some of the accusations made about me in response to the amendment. I do not have the press barons’ money to mount and fund a campaign. I have not received a penny. In fact, I am broke. My office has not received a penny in funding.
Nadine Dorries
No.
I have also been accused of being a religious fundamentalist. Like 73% of the country, I am a member of the Church of England and have Christian beliefs, but I am not sure when that became a crime and prevented me from having an opinion. On Saturday, The Guardian printed a flow chart showing the conservative Christians who are supposed to be mounting a sphere of influence with the amendment. I did not know who 95% of the people mentioned were or the organisation they represent. If I followed Islam or Judaism, I wonder what the response would have been to such a flow chart in The Guardian. I found the chart absolutely reprehensible and disgusting.
Nadine Dorries
I absolutely will not.
I want to mention some of the other lies that have been printed about me. I have been accused of wanting to reduce the number of abortions by introducing the amendment. That is absolutely not the objective. However, if any individual in the street was asked about the amendment and told that it might bring down the number of abortions, would they say, “Well, that’s a good thing,” or would they say, “We’re proud of the fact that 200,000 abortions a year are performed in the UK”? That is the highest number in western Europe. Would the individual in the street say that that is a good thing? No, they would say that it probably would be a good idea if something could help to bring that number down. I do not want to restrict access to abortion. The amendment is not about restricting access. I do not want to return to the days of Vera Drake-style back-street abortionists. That is not what the amendment is about. I am pro-choice, although I am presented as pro-life in every newspaper. The pro-life organisations are in fact e-mailing pro-life MPs to tell them not to vote for the amendment. I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.
It is absolutely ridiculous that the amendment has been portrayed as something that would restrict access to abortion. The amendment is about medical practitioners making to a woman who presents at their surgery or organisation an offer of independent counselling, not compulsory counselling. Every single day I have read a headline stating that the amendment is intended to drive women into the arms of religious fundamentalists via compulsory counselling. That is absolutely not true. Any Member who rose and claimed that the amendment would make counselling compulsory would be being untruthful. It is nothing more than an offer. It is an offer made to some women who, when presenting at a GP’s practice, may have doubts, may be confused and may feel that they would like to accept. That is all it is—an offer. I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can object to a vulnerable woman being made an offer of counselling when she is suffering from a crisis pregnancy.
Nadine Dorries
That is precisely the next point in my speech; my hon. Friend must have been looking over my shoulder!
I now turn to the counselling provision available to women today. Many women do not want or need counselling. They find out that they are pregnant and know exactly what they want to do, but those are frequently the women who are supported—who have partners, family and friends who will support them through that awful situation. No woman wants to have an abortion, but many know that they have to, for various reasons, and this amendment is not about them. A mystery shopper, however, recently approached several abortion clinics posing as a young woman who was pregnant and unsure of what to do. Every time I mention BPAS there is a howl from Opposition Members, but I am going to mention it in this instance, because this is irrefutable evidence.
The individual posed at a central London clinic as a 26-year-old pregnant woman who did not know what to do, and she asked for counselling. I shall come on to the difference between counselling and consultation, but she said that she did not know what to do, because she had been given the immediate consultation, was not sure whether to go through with the pregnancy, and therefore wanted an abortion. She was told that, at that very busy clinic in central London, one hour of counselling was available at one set time per week. I believe that when she revealed her identity she was offered another hour.
In fairness to BPAS, it says that it has flexibility in the system and can offer more hours. Why did it not do so? If it has flexibility, how much is there?
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says something from a sedentary position. I wholly deprecate the fact that she has had threats made, but it is inappropriate to bring forward this amendment to this Bill, because if we are going to consider abortion we should be considering the whole issue in the round, not just appending something to this kind of Bill. As she knows, I disagree with her, but she will also know that the whole point of counselling, in any circumstance, is to allow a person to come to the right decision for themselves. That is precisely what BPAS, Marie Stopes and others provide, because any counsellor who does not do that is not worth their salt.
Nadine Dorries
I would love to hear how the hon. Gentleman knows that that is what happens in Marie Stopes and BPAS. He always speaks on such issues as someone with huge experience, but I am highlighting at this moment what happens. If he thinks that one hour per week, at a set time at a busy London clinic, for the entire throughput of women having abortions, is enough counselling, so be it; that is his opinion.
Anne Milton
I am afraid that time is against me.
I hope that what I have said reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who I believe is trying to be helpful, but we do not support any of the amendments. We intend to ensure that the independent counselling offered to women follows the highest standards of good practice. My hon. Friend’s amendment 1252 is therefore unnecessary, as well as, we believe, unenforceable as currently drafted. It does not define “information or advice”, and crucially, it does not mention independent counselling. Counselling is different from advice and support. However, the Government support the spirit of the amendments, and we intend to present proposals for regulations after consultation. Not only is primary legislation unnecessary, but it would deprive Parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how the service will develop and evolve.
Amendment 1180 would oblige the Government to make regulations requiring NICE to produce guidance on abortion services. It would also oblige NICE to make specific recommendations in the guidance. That conflicts with other provisions in the same clause that prevent central interference in the substance of the NICE recommendations. Clearly that would seriously damage the independence of NICE and its reputation for evidence-based guidance. The second part of the amendment would require health or social care bodies, or private providers of abortion services, to comply with all recommendations made by NICE, which would effectively mean that NICE was setting essential requirements for abortion services, which is not its job or function. That is the role of the Care Quality Commission, and those standards and qualities are driven by good commissioning.
Anne Milton
No, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the point. The only reason why I took his intervention was that NICE had not been given a mention yet.
Anne Milton
I will not, I am afraid. I must make progress.
The amendment would not, incidentally, require local authority commissioners of abortion services to comply with NICE recommendations.
This does not, of course, mean that NICE has nothing to contribute. Hon. Members may know that it is currently considering a draft library of NHS quality standards, which includes a proposed topic on abortion services. We may have an opportunity to air the issue further at that point.
I hope that hon. Members are reassured by our proposals and by my personal involvement in the issue.
Anne Milton
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is clearly not reassured, but perhaps he will let me finish.
It is a very long time since I worked in a maternity unit, but I worked in one run by the Salvation Army, and I have seen many young women go through the trauma of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. Yes, we need to do a great deal more to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, but when faced with such a situation, young, and indeed older, women need help and support to make the decision that is right for them without interference from any vested interests. The amendments were tabled in a spirit of improving services for women, but they will not work. They will not deliver what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) wants, or what I want. They will not work for women. I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment and to work with me to ensure that we secure the right services for women.
Congenital Cardiac Services for Children
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Like the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on introducing the motion, which is of huge importance to my constituents and to the national health service. In contributing to the debate, I wear two hats. First, I represent the village of Glenfield. Glenfield hospital is actually in the neighbouring constituency of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), but it takes its name from the village in my constituency. Secondly, I am Chair of the Health Committee. The Committee has not approached the subject specifically, because we have been looking at a number of other matters, but we have so far published two reports on commissioning, which is precisely at the heart of today’s debate.
In a sense, I personify the conflict that every Member feels between the constituency interest and the national interest, and in this case I do so in a particularly dramatic form, as one of the surgical units involved is closely associated with my constituency. My first point is that that conflict exists for all Members. We are of course here to represent our constituents’ interests, but I argue that we are here first and foremost as Members of a national Parliament and should seek, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey recognises, the right answer for all NHS patients, not simply for a particular local interest.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wish to make a very small point because the right hon. Gentleman used the word “national”. Many of the services we are considering are also used by Welsh and Scottish constituents, so it is important to ensure that there is that communication between the different elements.
Mr Dorrell
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that this is not a political issue, by which he meant that it is not a party political issue. That is exactly right, but issues can be political without being party political. It is important that the House, in approaching the subject, makes it clear that the issue should ultimately be resolved according to clinical standards, not as a form of political bartering, whether party political or through the general representation of local interests.
I am in the happy situation, personifying, as I do, the conflict between local and national interests, that the specialist group has recommended a solution that accords with my constituents’ views, but I think that in approaching the subject it is important to be clear about the ladder of interest: we should approach this from the point of view of national standards for the service delivery. We of course should represent the views of our constituents, but we should be clear that the national view should come first.
Writing in The Times today, Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, states:
“Intellectually, the case for change is compelling and widely accepted. Sadly, the realpolitik is that the closer we get to a solution, the more personal, professional and political interests conspire to perpetuate mediocrity and inhibit the pursuit of excellence…For too long this has been filed in the ‘too difficult’ box. Time is running out.”
Those words should ring loud in our ears as we debate the subject this afternoon.
We should recognise that the whole issue of child heart surgery has form in the history of the national health service. It is now over a decade since Sir Ian Kennedy published his review of circumstances that illustrate what can go tragically wrong when things are allowed to drift on and when real issues are not addressed. Although I am of course here as a Member representing my constituents’ interests, I think that the key priority for the House this afternoon is to support the principle that this issue must be decided in the interests of the children who are the patients and who will become the adult patients, and in a way that satisfies the key driver of the pursuit of excellence in clinical standards.
I welcome the fact that the previous Government set up the review to ensure that we addressed the issues that had been left to drift on for too long since the Bristol heart review a decade ago, and I wholeheartedly endorse the view, expressed by Sir Bruce in today’s Times, that the time to act is now.
As a local MP, I wonder what the effect is on Leicester of this drive to a decision. I have already referred to the fact that I am not in an uncomfortable position, because on page 93 the review states:
“Option 2”—
which became option A—
“is viable as it is consistently the highest scoring potential option.”
The review’s recommendation is that the process go ahead based on option A, and that is convenient from the point of view of the person arguing the case that I do, but I conclude that if anyone wants to argue for an alternative outcome, it behoves them, particularly in view of the history of this issue in the national health service, to present a coherent, whole argument for how their solution represents a better solution for the patients of those services, while reflecting, of course, the local interest of the people we are elected to represent.
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The problem with what the Government are presenting this evening is that, having had a pause, they have decided to fast forward without the intervening period. The truth of the matter is that they will not inspire confidence in the running of the NHS by moving at a gallop and they will not improve morale by moving at such speed without proper scrutiny. I must say to Government Members that last night’s business motion, which stated that no amendments could even be moved today, was an absolute disgrace. What are they frightened of?
Chris Bryant
In a moment.
Are the Government frightened that some of their Back Benchers might vote for an amendment? I can assure them that there are very few courageous people on their side of the House, but the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is one of them.
Chris Bryant
Because there was no opportunity to have a debate last night. It would have been nice to be able to expose the problems with the way the Government are dealing with the Bill, but unfortunately such an opportunity was unavailable to us. It is a disgrace that there is no opportunity for amendment. It is also a disgrace that the whole Bill is not being recommitted. We have seen none of the amendments. The Government are basically saying, “We’ve decided where we want to change the Bill, and only those bits shall be available for discussion by the Committee.” That is a completely inappropriate abrogation of the powers of this House to the Crown. The person who should be most disgraced by that is the Deputy Leader of the House, because he has said so many times that he believes in better scrutiny and yet is now abandoning that.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There is very little time as it is, and screaming at each other does not help.
Chris Bryant
If the Deputy Leader of the House had allowed more than an hour for debate today, I would give way to him, but I am not going to give way now. We have already heard from a Minister for 15 minutes.
It is a bizarre selection of clauses that the Committee will be allowed to discuss. For instance, it will not be allowed to discuss clause 239 on NICE’s charter, nor clause 240 on its functions, but it will be allowed to consider clause 242, on the failure of NICE to discharge its functions. There is absolutely no logic to what is being presented to us.
In addition, the programme motion does not allow enough time. The Prime Minister is profoundly confused about all this, because he said many times this morning that 10 days would be allowed. Indeed, he said:
“Ten days… I don’t want to sort of misquote the Monty Python sketch but when we were in opposition we used to dream of tens days to debate a government bill”.
Well, yes, we are dreaming of 10 days now. We would love to have 10 days, but there will not be 10 days; there will be 10 sittings.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Prime Minister is not very good on detail, because the Criminal Justice Bill to which he referred, and whose Committee he sat on, actually had 38 sittings over eight weeks.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but surely the key point is that we need to do this scrutiny properly. The Government may think that they are doing themselves a favour by trying to get the Bill out of this House by the summer recess, but all it means is that those in another place will have to do a proper job of scrutiny, and I bet that they will not get it out of the second Chamber before next year.
Finally, the motion states that we have to commit the Bill to the same set of people. Now, some splendid people sat on the Government Benches in that Committee, including the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). He is a splendid Member of Parliament whose integrity I do not want to be questioned, but he will now have to force all the people whom he forced previously to vote for one set of proposals in the Bill to vote for exactly the opposite. I therefore beg Government Members, if they value the hon. Gentleman’s career, to vote against the motion.
I say that because, theoretically, the Committee Chairman could rule that some amendments cannot be taken or selected because we have already presented them and the same Committee is re-sitting. We will find, however, that many Government Members have to stand on their heads and vote for the exact opposite of what they voted for earlier.
I understand that one of the great passions in life of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, is weight-lifting. Well, he did no heavy lifting of any kind on the previous Committee, and if there are changes to the Bill they are the work of Opposition Members, not the hon. Gentleman. He said that it was a wonderful Committee and could not have been better. Well, why was the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—somebody who knows about general practice—not put on it? Of course, we know the reason: she did not agree with the Government.
I do not believe that the new Committee should include the same set of people, in particular because the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), on the final day in Committee, asked the Minister one of his great insightful questions: “What is the point of clause 249?” He is clearly a man of insight. In addition, he later said:
“I am still a member of the Committee, I think.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 31 March 2011; c. 1268.]
We should have a new set of Committee members. There is no point in every Member who sat on the previous Committee, including those with direct financial interests in the Bill, being on the Committee in future, so I say, “Vote against this ludicrous, shameful and disgraceful programme motion.”
NHS Future Forum
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I understand. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely clear. We know that informed choice for patients is a serious contributory factor in improving outcomes for patients. When there is informed choice, of necessity we must have a diversity of providers to support it. There is no doubt that to that extent competition is an essential part of delivering improving care in the future, but it is not an end in itself. It should not be elevated to that point, over and above delivering the integrated services that best give patients the care they need.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My constituent Rosie Edwards suffers from a rare congenital heart condition, known as Fallot’s tetralogy. Fortunately, for all her life, both as a child and now as an adult, she has had to have all her treatment at the Royal Brompton hospital in London. Unfortunately, the Government are proposing that that paediatric cardiac service is terminated—[Hon. Members: “Not true.”] It is completely true. There is no provision in the suggestions that have been brought forward for the service to continue. My constituents are asking whether, if reorganisation will cost a lot of money, it would not be better to spend that money on protecting those services.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman tried to characterise that as he did. The joint committee of primary care trusts is conducting a consultation. The Government are not doing it; I am not doing it; the committee is doing it, and the consultation closes on 1 July. People across the country are quite properly making representations to the consultation, including on the Royal Brompton and other units. The committee has not made recommendations to me; it will come to its conclusions after that consultation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the proposals I am referring to today.
Contaminated Blood
Chris Bryant Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful for that. This is not a response to precisely the question that the hon. Lady asks, but Lord Archer made a point about whether payments should be made through the Department for Work and Pensions. We do not see that any tangible benefit would flow from that.
Mr Lansley
No, I acknowledged that. I will of course respond to the hon. Lady, but I think it better for us to administer all the payments through the system that I have set out. As I say, they will be disregarded for the purposes of calculation of benefits, so to that extent they will not impact adversely on current benefits.
Mr Lansley
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has on many occasions spoken up on behalf of her constituents and others who were affected by the tainted blood and blood products? The answer to her question is yes—absolutely we will. When we came into office, we were determined to implement the review. As she said, we sought to complete the review before Christmas—technically speaking, we did, but we were not in a position to announce it before Christmas. We are doing this at the first available moment, and we will do everything that we possibly can to ensure that potential beneficiaries are notified and reached as quickly as possible so that the payments are in place as soon as possible.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It would be one of the greatest catastrophes if what happened were able to happen again. That is why it is so vital that the Government constantly keep under review the policy on donating blood. As the Secretary of State will know, men who have had sex with men are one of the categories of people who are not able to give blood at the moment, and that seems intrinsically unfair and prejudiced. I urge the Secretary of State to look only at the scientific evidence in the ongoing review; that, and not any other political consideration, is the basis on which the decision should be made.
NHS Reorganisation
Chris Bryant Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and I are very impressed that the local NHS and local authorities are, sometimes for the first time, sitting down together and discussing how they can use their resources. Even this year we managed to save £70 million from the budget that we inherited from the Labour party. That money can be invested in re-ablement, and in bringing local authorities and the NHS together to improve the service to people who are going home.
Mr Lansley
I want to make a little progress first.
The Opposition motion reveals that they have no alternative vision. The Labour party today is empty of ideas, confused and incoherent. It did not have anything to offer the country at the general election, and it has nothing to offer today. I will deal with each of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, but first I want to say something about what we are doing through the White Paper, and why we are doing it.
We should be proud of the fundamental values of the NHS: that it is free at the point of use, and that it is based on need and not on the ability to pay. Nothing that we do will ever undermine those principles; that is the coalition Government’s commitment. However, our pride in these values is no excuse for complacency. The demands facing the NHS over the coming decades are many: an increasing and ageing population; continued advances in medicine and technology; and rising expectations on the part of patients and the public. That is why, as we maintain equity in access to services, we will also pursue excellence in health care. We will do so because despite the great improvements in the NHS in the past—such as in cardiac surgery and cardiology, and, more recently, in stroke care and many cancer services—we have much more still to do.
Outcomes for patients in this country are too often poor in comparison with outcomes in other countries: someone in this country is twice as likely to die from a heart attack as someone in France; survival rates for cervical, colorectal and breast cancers in this country are among the worst in the OECD; and premature mortality rates from respiratory disease are worse than the EU-15 average. Simply putting more money into the system has not worked, which is why reform is needed.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has argued the need for greater localism and for local health services to be more accountable to local people. However, pulmonary hypertension is one condition in which significant advances have been made in recent years. It affects a number of my constituents but it is a rare condition, and has to be managed not locally but on a country-wide—indeed, often a Wales and England and Scotland-wide—basis. How can the Secretary of State make sure that, with the pressure towards local services, proper account is also taken of conditions on which action can be delivered only on a national basis?
Mr Lansley
For England, the White Paper sets out very clearly that specialised commissioning, whether currently regional or national, will be undertaken through the NHS commissioning board, rather than by individual commissioning consortiums.
The point about the reform process is that if we change nothing, nothing will change. The Labour party is the party of no change: it is the party of stasis, inertia and inactivity. Labour says, “Do nothing, put the reforms on hold”—whatever that means. Our aim is a simple one. We cannot stand still. If we carry on as we are, resources will, as over the last decade, be consumed without delivering the improved outcomes for patients that are so essential. Delivering improved outcomes for patients is our objective, and the White Paper gives us a clear and consistent vision for achieving that, based on three guiding principles.