18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
Andy Burnham
Those on the Government Front Bench are laughing. They will not be laughing when I have finished my speech.
More than 150 experts in child health wrote to a newspaper last week to say that health inequalities among children will widen as a result of the Bill. Are Ministers listening? No. It is disgraceful that they behave as they do.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Will the Secretary of State confirm—sorry, the shadow Secretary of State—that in clause 3 of the Health and Social Care Bill for the first time in the history of the NHS reductions in inequalities in health have been put on the face of a Bill as a duty to achieve?
Andy Burnham
I confirm to the Minister that I am the shadow of my former self, but it sounds as though he would like to have me back. Expert opinion says that health inequalities will widen. Is he listening to that opinion? That is the question he should answer today.
Andy Burnham
As I was saying, the Government clearly are not following the statement of policy set out on the Treasury website, but the strange thing, as the House will hear shortly, is that NHS bodies across the country at local and regional level are following the policy closely. As I understand it, the Treasury’s theory is that the more widely the risks are understood and shared, the greater the ability to mitigate them. Indeed, I recall the Minister stating in a press release as recently as last October, the month before the commissioner’s ruling, that an open and transparent NHS would be a safer NHS. Two simple questions follow: why is the Department for Health not following stated Government policy and what it said in October was its own policy; and is the Department in breach of Government policy, or has it secured an exemption from it? I hope that the Health Secretary will shed light on this point today, because at present it does not look too good.
Let me turn to the Government’s other reasons for fighting publication. First, it is claimed that disclosure would
“jeopardise the success of the policy”
That is a moot point. The Information Commissioner said that it is a strange defence, given the Government’s other statements on openness and scrutiny building more robust plans. Secondly, it is claimed that it could have a chilling effect and that officials would be less frank in future. Given that risk assessment is a core part of all public servants’ responsibilities, not an optional activity, that claim was not accepted by the commissioner. Thirdly, it is claimed that the names of junior officials could be disclosed, but the commissioner has said that he was satisfied that the register would identify only senior civil service or senior NHS officials.
Fourthly, it is claimed that disclosure would set a difficult precedent and could lead to the publication in future of information relating to national security. The weakness of this argument, as the commissioner pointed out, is that a precedent has already been set, and it was set by the Labour party when we were last in government. A comparable risk register linked to the specific implications of a particular policy—the Heathrow third runway—was released by the previous Government in March 2009 following a ruling by the Information Commissioner on a request from the current Transport Secretary. Why are this Government not following the clear precedent set by the previous Government? That is the answer to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. In truth, these four reasons seem to me to be the desperate defences of a desperate Government who have something to hide and a desperate Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Let me offer the shadow Secretary of State a view that has been put to the House previously:
“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]
Does he recognise that view?
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State clearly was not listening. It is not a comparable situation. We are talking about a different document. Does he understand that? It is a different document. How more simply does he want me to say it? He was just talking about the strategic risk register. Today the House is debating the transition risk register, and I would be grateful if he did not continue to muddy those waters.
Why are the Government not following the precedent we set? I do not know whether they will try to produce any more desperate reasons today, but it looks to me as though they have no real defence, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has pointed out. People will be expected later to troop through the Lobby for the Government, without so much as a fig leaf of a principled argument to support their call. Liberal Democrats, who used to lecture us on the supremacy of freedom of information, will be exposed once again: spineless, co-conspirators against the NHS, acting out of nothing but gut loyalty to the suicide pact that is this coalition.
That brings me to my second point. What exactly are Government Members all so desperate to hide, and what precise risks are they running with the NHS? When the Prime Minister made his disastrous decision to allow the Health Secretary to break the promises that he had personally made to NHS staff—indeed, those promises were then enshrined in the coalition agreement—and to proceed with his top-down reorganisation, we warned that the hard-won improvements in waiting times over the Labour years would be placed at risk. That is exactly what has happened.
The Government inherited a strong, self-confident NHS, independently judged one of the best health services in the world, if not the best, and in just 20 months they have reduced it to a service that is demoralised, destabilised and fearful of the future. Throughout the country there are growing signs of an NHS in distress. A and E departments are under increasing pressure, with figures published last week showing that the Government missed their own lowered A and E target for the seventh week in a row.
Between December 2010 and December 2011, there was a 13% increase in the number of people waiting longer than 18 weeks and a 105% increase in people waiting longer than a year. The number of patients waiting more than six weeks for their diagnostic tests has more than doubled, and the number waiting more than 13 weeks has more than trebled.
We have a habit in this House of reeling off such statistics, but every single one represents a family living with worry, a life on hold. On Monday the Health Secretary said that
“pressure on hospitals is reducing.”
If ever I heard it, there speaks a voice from the bunker: a sure sign of what happens when you surround yourself with people who say only what you want to hear.
Mr Lansley
We must proceed from facts and be accurate. The number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment in May 2010—the time of the most recent election—was 18,458. In the latest figures, published for December 2011, that figure had more than halved, to 9,190.
Andy Burnham
I will trade figures with the right hon. Gentleman. He quotes a different time frame from the one that I quoted. If he is going to resort—
Andy Burnham
No, I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman. He resorts to those tactics and gives us the view that the pressure on hospitals is reducing, when all over the country hospitals are under intense pressure and A and E departments and wards are being closed, but, if he expects us to take those statements from him, he should know that we are not going to do so. This is not a man living in the real world, and he is not listening to the warnings that are coming from the NHS. It can be no surprise to people that the NHS is slipping backwards, because that is precisely what local and regional NHS bodies have been warning him. The fact is—[Interruption.] I will not give way. The fact is—
Mr Lansley
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the purposes of accuracy, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to have said that 105% more patients waited longer than a year for their treatment in December 2011 compared with December 2010, when he should know that the figure—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I wish to listen to this point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will decide whether it is a point of order, Mr Campbell.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the purposes of accuracy, the figures published by my Department for December 2010 were 14,671, and for December 2011 were 9,190, a reduction of almost 5,000.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair, Mr Lansley. As—[Interruption.] Order. As you well know, that is a point of debate.
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State says that it is not actually going to happen, but that assessment was made after mitigation. The assessment states that it is likely, that it is major and that mitigating effects have not taken the risk away. He should probably learn to understand the risk register before he refuses to publish it.
NHS Surrey warns of
“performance measures as set out in vital signs for 18 weeks are not met due to a loss of capacity or focus or availability of funding”.
The rating is 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences. The risk has not been mitigated.
What do the local risk registers say about care for cancer patients? Worryingly, some predict—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State would do well to listen; he is not good at listening. He would do well just to listen to what I am saying. Worryingly, some predict poorer treatment for cancer patients.
NHS Lincolnshire’s corporate risk register states:
“New risk in December—the continuation of the Cancer Service improvement, cancer network and the achievement of cancer waiting time targets”.
The risk rating is 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences.
At NHS Bradford and Airedale again, there is a similar risk, with
“poor patient access to cancer waiting times 62 days urgent referral to first treatment, resulting in poor patient care.”
Its rating was 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Let me put a quotation to the shadow Secretary of State again:
“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]
I asked in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State whether he recalled that quotation. It is what he said in an answer to this House in Hansard on 23 March 2007.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Lansley
I will in a moment.
Frankly, this is a broken-bat debate in the first place, because the shadow Secretary of State is trying to suggest that this Government should do something that he as a Minister and then as a Secretary of State steadfastly refused to do, using exactly the same arguments that the present Government have used.
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State’s bat was broken before he came to the crease, because at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister put it to the Leader of the Opposition that, as he was devoting a whole Opposition day to this debate, he might want to make some argument or put some question to him on this subject, but such a point from the Leader of the Opposition came there none. The shadow Secretary of State is standing at the Dispatch Box without the support of his own leader.
Karl Turner
Does the Secretary of State think that his job is at risk and that it should perhaps be on a risk register?
Mr Lansley
I do not know about the debate being bad-tempered, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we at least have jokers in the House.
The shadow Secretary of State is out on his own. I will be kind to him and say that at least opposition is coming naturally to him. Whatever we propose, he opposes it, even to the extent of directly contradicting what he and his colleagues said in government. His contribution today was another shameless example. We have seen this before. The last Opposition day debate on this subject was a travesty of his previous views about the role of the private sector, the need for the private finance initiative and the role of competition in the NHS that he espoused in government. He has done a U-turn on those matters and now holds the polar opposite views from those that he held before. That may be a luxury of opposition and he may enjoy it for the moment—actually, I am not sure that he did enjoy it that much—but that kind of inconsistency will keep him in opposition for a very long time.
The shadow Secretary of State spoke for about 50 minutes and I heard not a word of appreciation for the staff of the NHS. We are asking the staff of the NHS to live in financially challenging times, but it is not mission impossible. He said that saving money in the NHS was mission impossible. That is certainly how the Labour party treated it in government. Spending money was about the only thing that it seemed to be capable of doing, but it never spent it well. We are asking the staff of the NHS to save and to reinvest, and to improve performance at the same time.
Did I hear one scintilla of appreciation from the shadow Secretary of State for what NHS staff are doing, or for the fact that we have the lowest number of hospital-acquired infections on record and the lowest ever numbers of patients waiting more than six months and more than one year for treatment? I did not. I put it on record again that whether we compare May 2010 with December 2011, during which time the number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment more than halved, or December 2010 with December 2011, in which time it went down from more than 14,000 to nearly 9,000, the number has gone down. For the shadow Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that it has doubled, which is transparently wrong, is a misrepresentation to the House and a travesty to the staff of the service. He ought to come to the Dispatch Box and withdraw it.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course the views of staff are desperately important, but this is our NHS, and what is really important is the outcome for patients. It is because of the catastrophic decline in productivity that I say to my right hon. Friend that we urge him to keep going, with no more watering down of the Bill. His parliamentary party is 120% behind him.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and when he was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee he constantly told the last Government that they should do something to ensure rising productivity in the NHS. He was not alone in that.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Lansley
I will in a moment. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to explain the views of not only my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) but his successor as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who said:
“Over the last ten years, the productivity of NHS hospitals has been in almost continuous decline.”
[Interruption.] I hear Labour Front Benchers ask, “What about the risk register?” I will tell them what the risk to the NHS was before we came into government. It was that a Labour Government would carry on failing to increase productivity in the NHS. Productivity would have declined, and the NHS would have been unable to provide patients with the service and care that it should provide, because Labour wasted money on bureaucracy instead of spending it on patient care.
Emma Reynolds
I am proud of our record on the NHS, given that patient satisfaction with the NHS is at an all-time high. Does the Health Secretary agree with the analysis of Professor Black in his report in The Lancet that Tory Ministers’ claims that productivity declined between 2000 and 2009 is based on a myth?
Mr Lansley
I have just quoted what the Labour Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said on the basis of advice from the National Audit Office, which is precisely in line with data published by the Office for National Statistics. I think I will rest on that.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I appreciate what NHS staff do and the fact that they are delivering improving outcomes. We published 30 indicators of NHS outcomes just two months ago, and 25 of them showed that performance had been maintained or improved. They had not all gone up, but that is why we are focusing on those outcomes, and not just waiting times. However, the average time for which in-patients waited for treatment was 7.7 weeks in December 2011, down from 8.4 weeks at the last election. For out-patient treatment, the average is down from 4.3 weeks at the election to 3.8 weeks now.
Mr Lansley
I know that my hon. Friend will join me in appreciating the success of the NHS in improving waiting times.
Andrew George
I do indeed welcome that news, and I do not question what the Secretary of State says about it. However, I am curious about the fact that on one hand the shadow Secretary of State says that it is all going terribly badly but opposes reform of the NHS, and on the other the Secretary of State says that outcomes have never been better but is pressing on with the Bill. Why is he doing so?
Mr Lansley
The curious thing, as I know my hon. Friend will appreciate, is that even the Leader of the Opposition says that reform is needed in the NHS because of the challenges that it faces. Of course we can debate what the nature of the reform should be, but the idea that we can simply stand still and that nothing in the NHS needs to change is not the view of NHS staff, patients, the Labour party or the Government. We therefore have to consider what the nature of that reform needs to be, and I believe in patient choice and empowering doctors and nurses on the front line to deliver care. I believe in cutting bureaucracy and removing whole tiers of management to enable that to happen, and in common with my Liberal Democrat friends and colleagues I believe in strengthening democratic local accountability in the NHS and strengthening public health services through local government operations.
The worst possible thing for me to do would be to say, “We need to reform the NHS because it is doing so badly.” I do not believe that, but I do believe we have to root out poor performance. I was shocked to hear the shadow Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who has disappeared, talking about Stafford hospital. They were the ones who never appreciated the risk of what was happening there. They know that they went through reorganisations without ever addressing the risk. The dreadful things there happened on their watch, so they might at the very least have come here and apologised. The right hon. Member for Exeter came to the Dispatch Box when he was a Minister and said, “Oh, it’s nothing to do with me, it’s all to do with the management of the hospital.”
I believe in foundation trust hospitals, which apparently the Labour party now does not. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say that he is in favour of foundation trust hospitals, but that if they get into difficulties the best thing is for them to be run by the Secretary of State. He might talk to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was the Secretary of State when, in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, dozens, perhaps hundreds of patients died of clostridium difficile infection at the Kent and Sussex hospital. That was an NHS trust, not a foundation trust. The Department of Health and the Secretary of State have no God-given ability to run hospitals directly and do so better than they can be run by the doctors, nurses and managers in charge. The point is that there must be proper accountability, and through HealthWatch, local government and the responsibilities of Monitor we will have a proper accountability structure in the Bill.
Andy Burnham
I said that we would learn the lessons of what happened in the Mid Staffordshire trust, and I apologised at the time on behalf of the Government.
The first-stage Francis inquiry recommended the de-authorisation of foundation trusts. Why is the Secretary of State removing that power in the Bill before Robert Francis has reported again?
Mr Lansley
It is because we are clear that the reason he said that was that there was no mechanism available to Monitor in legislation for the maintenance of services and interventions. The Bill will mean that there is.
I sometimes think that the shadow Secretary of State has not actually read the Health and Social Care Bill. He keeps saying that this or that is in it, or that it does or does not do this or that, but for the first time since 2003, when his predecessor’s legislation stated that there should be a mechanism for dealing with hospitals that are failing, we are setting out a proper structure for the continuity of services. He says that it is just about de-authorisation, but it is not.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but unlike the shadow Secretary of State I have taken a lot of interventions. I will take more before I finish, but I need to say one or two things without trespassing too much on Back Benchers’ time.
The shadow Secretary of State does not really have anything of substance to talk about, so he wants to talk about the risk register. Let me tell him about our approach to transparency. We are international leaders in openness and transparency in government. Across government, we publish business plans, departmental staffing and salaries, full details of departmental contracts and summaries of departmental board meetings. We are legislating for foundation trust boards to meet in public, which the Labour Government never did; they resisted it. We are opening up the workings of government in ways that Labour rejected outright.
We have set our sights higher than that. In the NHS, we have opened up more information about services than was ever done under the last Government, shining a light on poor performance and promoting better performance. The NHS atlas of variation has been published for the first time, exposing the variation in outcomes for patients in different parts of the country. That was covered up by Labour, which would have said, “Oh, no, that’s the postcode lottery, we mustn’t publish that information.” We have set it out, because that is the route to improving performance.
I remember the shadow Secretary of State’s predecessors as Health Secretary going on the “Today” programme and saying, “Oh, no, nobody’s in mixed-sex accommodation any more. We’ve eliminated all that.” Well, we have published data on that for the first time, showing that 12,000 patients a month were being put into mixed-sex accommodation. Now, because we published those data and acted, that figure has come down by 95% since December 2010. The previous Government covered that information up; we are publishing and dealing with it.
Mr Lansley
I will give way in a moment.
We have published situation reports and real-time information on winter pressures, but the previous Government never did so. We are investing more in new information collections on A and E performance and new clinical quality indicators for A and E. We are collecting more data on ambulance performance and increasing the number of clinical audits. We are publishing the data on the things that matter to patients, all of which is helping the NHS understand the actual quality of care. We are open and transparent because we believe, as the previous Labour Government did not, that putting information out is in the public interest.
Mr Lansley
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
In January 2011, the Secretary of State's Department set up the audit and risk committee with a commitment to publish minutes of its meetings within three months. The last note of any meeting of that committee published on its website is from February 2011. Is that international leadership or the same cloak of secrecy that prevents him from publishing the transition risk register?
Mr Lansley
When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister he and his colleagues never published such information, so I will not take any lessons on that. As a Treasury Minister, he refused to disclose a Treasury risk register.
Let me explain what risk registers are for, because an hon. Lady on the Opposition Benches keeps chuntering about them. A high-level risk register, such as those being considered by the tribunal on 5 and 6 March, is a continuously reviewed and updated document that enables officials, advisers and Ministers to identify and analyse the risks of, and to, particular policies. Risk registers present a snapshot of the possible risks involved at any one time. Their purpose is to record all risks, however outlandish or unlikely, both real and potential, and to record the mitigating actions that can ensure that such risks do not become reality.
For such a register to be effective and for it to serve the public interest, those charged with compiling it must be as forthright as possible in their views. The language of risk registers must be forceful and direct. That is essential for their operation, to enable Ministers and officials fully to appreciate those risks and to take the steps to mitigate them, or to redesign policy to avoid them.
It is important to note that such high-level risk registers are different to the risk registers of the organisations from which the shadow Secretary of State quoted, such as the risk registers of strategic health authorities. The latter concern operational matters and not matters of developing and designing policy, and they are written with publication in mind—they are intended to be published. By contrast, there are very clear reasons why Departments—under not just this Government, but previous ones—do not publish their high-level risk registers while they are still active and while policy development is ongoing.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
The Justice Committee is currently inquiring into the workings of the Freedom of Information Act. It must identify where the proper boundary lines should fall to protect the ability of civil servants to advise Ministers, but that must be set in the context of legislation that the Government have committed themselves to supporting, and which the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has now publicly disowned.
Mr Lansley
I entirely understand my right hon. Friend. My colleagues and I very much look forward to the conclusions of the Justice Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr Lansley
Further advice from my right hon. Friend, not only to me but to the Prime Minister, is always welcome.
Simon Hughes
I defend the Government’s record on the openness of information, and I am a clear believer that the Freedom of Information Act, which I and many Liberal Democrats supported, is the right way forward. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the Government are doing nothing other than following the policy provided for in the Act, which is that when there is a dispute, including when the Government and the Information Commissioner have a different view, the matter properly goes to the tribunal, and the Government respond positively to the tribunal’s decision?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because I had not intended to quote the Information Commissioner, who wrote an article in The Observer in which he rightly states that he is not infallible. The Government have the right to appeal to the tribunal and we have exercised that right. The tribunal is a proper place in which the public interest test can be applied.
Let me return to the reasons why we do not publish high-level risk registers, the first of which is candour. To be effective, a risk register requires all involved—not necessarily the officials responsible for the policy, but others—to be frank and open about the potential risks involved. It is their job to think the unthinkable and to look at worst-case scenarios. It is vital that nothing is done to inhibit the process of identifying risk. If people are in doubt about the confidentiality of their views, they will inevitably think twice before committing themselves to such direct and candid language in future. Without full candour, risk registers across the Government would be bland and anodyne. In effect, they would cease to be of practical value. Inevitably as a consequence, that would lead to a reduction in the quality of advice given to Ministers.
The second reason is that disclosure can increase the likelihood of some risks happening—it is like a self-fulfilling prophesy. When some risks are made public, those potentially affected are likely to act in a way that could increase the likelihood of the risk actually happening. Let us imagine publishing the risk registers of banks—no doubt the shadow Secretary of State would tell us that the risk registers of banks owned by the Government should be published. The consequence of publishing such risks would be to precipitate financial events.
Lord Turnbull, former head of the civil service, and not under this Government, said in another place:
“Managers might be reluctant to be frank in public about operational difficulties if that would undermine their ability to make contingency plans or could trigger an event before their plans are ready.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2011; Vol. 733, c. 729.]
The purpose of a risk register is to secure mitigation of those risks, not to precipitate them.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
To see a sick baby survive in a specialist neo-natal unit is a joy; to lose a sick baby is a tragedy. Does the Secretary of State understand the concern expressed by Bliss, which represents the parents concerned, at more than 140 specialist nurses going, and at the risk and uncertainty inherent in the Government’s proposals? Will he agree to meet Bliss and me so that he can hear first hand the concerns of the parents?
Mr Lansley
I hope the hon. Gentleman knows that I attended Bliss receptions under the previous Government, at which it raised exactly the same issue.
Mr Lansley
I have met Bliss—I just said so—and we discussed exactly those kind of issues. I would happily do so again.
The objective of the NHS—this is precisely what we have set out in our focus on outcomes—is to ensure that we seek a continuously improving quality of service for patients. I have many times been on specialist neo-natal intensive care units precisely to understand that. I remember having a long discussion just last year with the staff, including the neo-natal staff, at my local hospital, Addenbrooke’s, and hearing of the importance to them of recruiting an additional neo-natal nursing complement to ensure that they provide the right service. That is nothing to do with the Bill. It is about focusing in the service on delivering quality. That is why we are getting resources into the front line.
The third reason is that the publication of a risk register could take away directly or distract from policy development—the process that it is intended to support. Departmental officials and Ministers should work directly to deliver the policy rather than react to the risks associated with the development of policy before the policy has been agreed.
Mr Lansley
I will give way in a moment.
Fourthly, the publication of the risk register would distort rather than enhance public debate. We should remember that a risk register does not express the risks of not pursuing the policy—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should think about it. A risk register does not include the risks of not pursuing a policy and ignores the benefits of a policy—it presents only one side of the cost-benefit equation and is deliberately negative. Effectively, it is a “devil’s advocate” document, not a balanced one.
What is the balanced document associated the Bill? The impact assessment. I have with me a summary of the impact assessment, but there are hundreds more pages. We incorporate all relevant information in the impact assessment because it not only captures the same risks, but puts them alongside the benefits, costs and impacts, including the impact of not taking action.
The impact assessment is the proper evidential and informative basis for parliamentary and public debate. If any hon. Member is in any doubt about the public interest served by not releasing the risk register, I remind them of the advice received by the House nearly five years ago from the shadow Secretary of State. The argument that he put was precisely the argument that we are now putting.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
When pressed earlier, the shadow Secretary of State seemed to recognise some of the issues. He said that the publication of any document should be considered on its merits. May I invite the Secretary of State to stand by a simple principle and ensure that his Department always honours the full terms of the Freedom of Information Act?
Mr Lansley
We will, of course, fully abide by the terms of the Act. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the Information Commissioner himself said, we are proceeding precisely in line with the provisions of the Act.
Mr Lansley
Let me make one additional point, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman—again.
All the information was in the original impact assessment. Information was put into the revised impact assessment in September, as is customary on the introduction of a Bill to another place, but in recognition of the Information Commissioner’s decision on 2 November, the Minister in another place, my noble Friend Lord Howe, described—[Interruption.] I will if I need to, but I do not intend to read it all out. He set out the issues covered by the transition risk register to make Members in the other place aware of precisely what those risks were.
Andy Burnham
As I mentioned, there is a precedent here under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. I refer to the request for the risk register on the Heathrow runway. The Information Commissioner having ruled on it, the previous Government published the register. The Government are not following that precedent but instead fighting it in a tribunal. If, on 5 and 6 March, the tribunal does not find in the Government’s favour, will he publish the risk register, or will he carry on fighting?
Mr Lansley
I heard the right hon. Gentleman mention his precedent, but it was not a precedent, because that was a risk register relating to an operational matter. I explained to him that the risk registers published by strategic health authorities relate to operational matters.
Mr Lansley
No, the risk register that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about relates to policy development, not an operational matter. It is a high-level risk register akin to others across Government that, if published, would be prejudicial to frank advice in policy development. [Interruption.] I am only repeating the position that he took when Secretary of State. Let me quote him:
“We have determined that the balance of public interest strongly favours withholding the information”.
I will take his advice and stick to my view: the release of the risk register does not serve the public interest, even if it might serve his political interest to make a song and dance about it. I have been clear about it, as has my noble Friend. The information on which any debate about the Bill should be conducted is already in the public domain.
Rehman Chishti
Will the Secretary of State clarify something? The point made by the shadow Secretary of State is complete nonsense. For him to give a commitment on something that might happen at a tribunal is bizarre, because the Secretary of State can use the rules under section 59 of the Freedom of Information Act to appeal to the High Court on a point of law. So he cannot give that commitment.
Mr Lansley
I bow to my hon. Friend on the procedures under the Freedom of Information Act. We have made it very clear that we are proceeding as the Act provides, as the Information Commissioner himself set out. I want to make it clear to the House that there is no information that it would be proper for the other place to have access to when considering the legislation, that it does not already have access to. The tribunal will be an opportunity not for politicians but for the likes of Lord O’Donnell, the former head of the home civil service, to set out clearly the process by which the free and frank expression of advice to Ministers in policy development needs to be protected under the Act.
I will tell the House about some of the risks that the NHS faced. It faced risks relating to the £67 billion private finance initiative repayment bill left to us by the right hon. Gentleman. He talks about hospitals being under threat, but we have had to offer exceptional financial support to seven hospitals to help them to back up their PFIs. Members might be interested to know that when I announced that decision on 3 February—just a fortnight or so ago—the shadow Secretary of State, who puts his view of these things on Twitter, wrote:
“I didn’t sign them off.”
He did not even use 140 characters. He managed it in even fewer. He said he didn’t sign them off—but oh yes, he did. What about Whiston hospital in St Helens and Knowsley? He signed that off. It is a pathetic attempt to escape responsibility for leaving the NHS in debt. [Interruption.] Oh, he is blaming his junior Minister now. It had nothing to do with him! When he refused to release the departmental risk register back in 2009, did he do that, or is he going to blame one of his junior Ministers? I have such excellent Ministers that I will never have to blame them for anything, but frankly I would never attempt to do so, and I hope they know that.
Mr Lansley
No.
The NHS faced the serious risk under Labour of declining productivity, as has been so powerfully illustrated. Labour turned a blind eye to inefficiency. The reason why we have to plug a £20 billion productivity black hole in the NHS is that Labour let productivity fall year on year before the election. We are pushing productivity up, and already efficiency gains of £7 billion have been delivered.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend cited the large PFI contracts that the Labour party landed us with. Does he agree that those contracts have put under threat not only the PFI hospitals themselves but wider health economies and smaller district general hospitals, such as the George Eliot in my constituency? They have been affected too.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point that I understand precisely. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of not only George Eliot hospital but the whole health service in his constituency. I appreciate that.
I shall give a practical example. When I was at the Stobart centre meeting hundreds of general practitioners from across the north-west, those from St Helens said, “We’re really worried about Whiston hospital”—a PFI approved by the previous Secretary of State—“and we can’t deliver the service that we want to for our patients, because all the money will be eaten up by the PFI project at Whiston.” That is precisely why we are tackling the risks that we inherited from Labour.
The NHS also faces risks from Labour’s failed approach to public health. Under Labour, public health budgets were raided and alcohol-related admissions to accident and emergency departments, and levels of obesity and sexually transmitted infections, all rose sharply. I was staggered to hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about fragmentation of sexual health services at the last election. The last Conservative Government—I hope that my coalition colleagues will forgive me for a moment, because I am talking about the Conservative Government before the Labour Government—acted on sexual health, not least in relation to HIV. As a consequence, not only were HIV rates among the lowest anywhere in Europe but sexual infection rates fell for a decade. After the 1997 election the Labour party failed on sexual health, and sexual infection rates rose for a decade. Labour’s position has no basis. We had some of the highest HIV rates at the end of the previous Government’s term. It is outrageous. The Opposition have completely wiped out their recognition of what went wrong under the Labour Government, including on sexual health matters. That is why we are dealing with those risks.
Mr Lansley
I will mention one more risk, and then give way to my hon. Friend.
There is one more risk: Labour’s IT programme—not a small risk, but a risk of £7.4 billion-worth of contracts, and a risk not just of money not being spent properly or being wasted, but of the opportunity cost to the NHS of not getting high-quality IT in place. This morning I had the pleasure of launching a “Maps and apps” event, showing how we are promoting the use of the latest technologies across the NHS, not on the basis of the Government saying, “Here’s the single app that everybody must use in the NHS: it’s a centralised system,” but by allowing literally hundreds of people—enterprising people from across the NHS and beyond—to bring in new technology applications for the benefit of patients and clinicians across the service.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Going back to the Labour PFI burden that we have been left with, can he confirm a figure that I heard recently, which is that the burden on the NHS budget amounts to about £3,000 a minute?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but I cannot confirm that, short of being able to do that calculation very quickly in my head, but the simple fact is that a £67 billion commitment was made for the future. It is staggering that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and his colleagues used to say, “Look, we’re spending more than ever on the NHS,” and, “Look at all these brand new hospitals”—102 hospital projects. One might have thought that they were spending more than ever in order to build the hospitals. It turned out that they were not even building the hospitals with the money that the taxpayer was providing. The last Government left an enormous post-dated cheque for the NHS to deal with after the election, when they left a deficit for the whole of this country—a country mired in debt by a Labour Government and an NHS with a £67 billion debt around its neck.
There is one more risk that the Labour Government left us with: the escalating cost of bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the NHS in the year before the election. The cost of bureaucracy in the NHS in that year went up 23%. At the same moment that he was telling the NHS that there was going to be a £20 billion black hole, he launched the so-called Nicholson challenge, to save up to £20 billion. We did not launch it; it was launched when he was—[Interruption.] Actually, it was launched when the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was the Secretary of State, but it was pursued when the right hon. Member for Leigh was the Secretary of State, and at the same time he allowed the cost of bureaucracy to go up by 23%.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
There is a further risk to my constituents in Ipswich as a result of the PFI scheme in the east of England, which is that services had to be stripped out of Ipswich hospital in order to provide funding and patient flow through Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which was the largest PFI scheme at the time.
Mr Lansley
It was, and it was staggering—my hon. Friend will remember this—that all the difficulties associated with building the Norfolk and Norwich PFI were evident to the last Government and yet they carried on. They carried on signing up to PFI projects that were frankly unsustainable, including, for example, the project in Peterborough—which, sadly, we had to include in the support that we are offering to unsustainable PFIs—which was signed off although Monitor had written to the Department to say that it did not support the project. I do not know, but perhaps the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something about that.
From my point of view, that is why we need to reform the NHS. It is why we were in the position of undertaking the work as the risk register was being published, because we had to avoid all those risks, reform the NHS and move forward to put doctors and nurses in charge, give patients and the public more control, strengthen public health services and cut bureaucracy.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he has been very generous with interventions today. I am proud of what this Government have been doing for the NHS. Indeed, we can see what happens when we protect NHS spending and when we have a cancer drugs fund. We do not need a risk register to see the difference that that makes; we can just look at Wales, where waiting times are rising and cancer patients are being denied access to life-saving drugs and having to wait longer. That is the benefit of the Conservative policies in England.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is safely in Dover, a long way from Wales, when he says these things, but I go to Wales and he is absolutely right. It is staggering. The right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues can stand there and say, “Oh, well, you know, it’s only”—what is it?—“8% of patients who are not being seen within 18 weeks.” In Wales it is 32% of patients who are not being seen—
Mr Lansley
If the hon. Lady wants more, I will give her more. In this country—in England—we are increasing the NHS budget, despite the fact that her right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said it would be irresponsible of us to do so. We are increasing the NHS budget in this Parliament in real terms each year. In Wales—
Mr Lansley
Perhaps the hon. Lady ought to talk to her friends from Wales, because she is deriding Wales. The Wales Audit Office said that the Labour Government there were going to cut the NHS budget in Wales by over 6% in the course of this Parliament. The Wales Audit Office said that on present trends, by 2014-15—before the next election—expenditure on the NHS would be lower in Wales, under Labour, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Come the next election, it will be Labour that has to defend its neglect of the NHS in Wales, while we in the coalition Government will be able, together, to defend and promote our stewardship of the NHS, including resources for the NHS.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. As Opposition Front Benchers mock the statistics about Wales, my constituents, sadly, have to experience the performance of the NHS in Wales. Is it not the case that the ultimate risk to the NHS is Labour management of it, which is what my constituents have to put up with?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why, according to the latest work force data, we have increased the number of clinical staff since the election by some 4,500 and reduced the number of administrative staff by some 15,000, including 5,800 fewer managers. The risks of not modernising the national health service are the greatest risks. Without clinical leadership, patients sharing in decision making or a relentless focus on improving outcomes, patients would have received worse care, and the changes needed to save and reinvest £20 billion across the NHS budget over four years would never have been achieved.
Mr Lansley
In a moment.
The Health and Social Care Bill underpins those reforms. We need to safeguard the NHS for future generations. The Bill does simple things—many things, but simple things. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy. It empowers the NHS Commissioning Board, which we promised in our manifesto. It empowers clinical leaders in local commissioning groups, which we promised in our manifesto. It empowers patient choice and voice, which we and Labour promised in our manifestos, but which only we are doing and Labour is now against. The Bill supports foundation trusts, which Labour said it was in favour of, but which we are going to act on. It introduces local democratic accountability, which the Liberal Democrats promised in their manifesto. It creates new, strong duties to improve quality continuously, reduce health inequalities, promote research and, yes, integrate services around the needs of patients. No fragmentation, no failure to connect up; for the first time, integration as part of the responsibilities, including those of Monitor; no change to NHS values; no undermining of the NHS constitution; strengthening the NHS constitution; free at the point of use, based on need; no privatisation, no charging—
Mr Lansley
I will give way shortly.
The only change in the legislation in relation to the private sector is that the Health and Social Care Bill outlaws discrimination in favour of the private sector, which is what happened under the Labour Government, when the private sector treatment centres got 11% more cash for operations and £250 million for operations that they never performed. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain that.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—eventually. I want to get back to the risk register, which is the topic of this debate. I understand that staff from McKinsey and Co. attended meetings of the extraordinary NHS management board, which was set up to implement the Health and Social Care Bill. Can the Secretary of State tell us what parts of the transition risk register McKinsey and Co. has been given access to?
Mr Lansley
I am not aware of McKinsey getting any access to it, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that since the general election, I can personally say that I have not met McKinsey, so if it is involved in any of this stuff, it is not involved in it with me.
Mr Lansley
No, I am not giving way again.
I asked about expenditure by the Department of Health on contracts with McKinsey, because I read about it in the paper and I thought, “Well what’s this all about?” I was told, “Ah, well, £5.2 million was paid to McKinsey in May 2010,” because it related to work done before the election—work done for Labour.
Mr Lansley
No.
I asked, “How much money has the Department of Health spent on contracts with McKinsey since the election?” The answer is £390,000. Well, I know McKinsey well enough from the past to know that we do not get an awful lot of advice for £390,000.
Mr Lansley
No, I am not giving way.
Before the election, in 2009-10 when the right hon. Member for Leigh was Secretary of State, more than £100 million a year was spent by the Department of Health on management consultants; now less than £10 million is being spent on them, so we will take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman.
We are managing the risks to the NHS. We have delivered £7 billion of efficiency savings and recruited 4,000 extra doctors, and there are 896 more midwives in the NHS than there were at the last election. We have cut the number of managers, 900,000 more people have gained access to an NHS dentist, and nearly 11,000 patients have had access to cancer medicines through the cancer drugs fund, which they would not have had under Labour. As I have said, waiting times are down, mixed-sex accommodation is down, and hospital infections such as MRSA and C. difficile are at record lows.
That is the progress we are seeing in the NHS today, but instead of celebrating it, the right hon. Member for Leigh has brought us a pointless debate. He talks about risk registers, which he himself refused to release. The debate is pointless, as the issue will come before the tribunal on 5 and 6 March, which is the proper place to examine these issues. It is a waste of Labour’s parliamentary time in an opportunistic attempt to divert attention from its lack of any alternative to the reform processes that the coalition Government are putting forward for the NHS. It is a futile motion, a pointless debate on Labour’s part, while we are supporting the NHS with reform through a Bill that has had unprecedented scrutiny. It has been consulted on through the NHS Future Forum, and through other routes continuously with thousands of NHS staff across the country, and we have listened and responded to everything they said. We are taking the responsible route by taking the NHS away from Labour risks towards a stronger future. I urge the House to reject the Labour motion.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), a fellow member of the Select Committee on Health.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Minister for making his sedentary intervention.
Obviously, I rise to speak in favour of the motion and I humbly request the Secretary of State for Health to publish the risk register, as recommended by the Information Commissioner. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for taking up this issue. As most people will know from their e-mail inbox and their postbag, and from letters that have gone into various newspapers, the professionals are behind us, as are the public.
I have an image of the Cabinet sitting round the table singing the classic Irving Berlin song, “Anything you can do, I can do better”, as each Secretary of State tries to please the Prime Minister by showing how far they can go beyond what was agreed in the manifesto and the coalition agreement. The Secretary of State for Health, who obviously does not want to hear a good argument, is not so much nudging the NHS—to use his favourite phrase—but giving the NHS a great big shove off the end of the cliff; this is more about the chaos theory than the nudging theory. There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of his reasons not to publish the risk register, which is that it contains the information that the public need to see whether the decision that he has reached in the Bill is without risk to the NHS. The Information Commissioner has deemed this to be in the public interest but the Secretary of State chooses to hide it from the public. The public have a right to know that when a decision is taken in their name the relevant considerations have been taken into account. If this reorganisation goes wrong, as it is doing—the good people in the NHS who are working hard are leaving now—could that possibly amount to misfeasance in public office?
In the Health Committee, we have seen what can be done with co-operation. We visited Torbay and saw public sector leadership at its best. I have absolutely no idea who the staff there voted for—nor do I particularly care—but I know that they saw a system for elderly people that was not working, and they worked hard, not thinking about their pensions or asking for overtime, to devise a system in which there was one point of contact for elderly people. Under the system, the risk is shared, 50% with the NHS and 50% with the local authority. They devised a system with consistency of leadership and long-standing good relations across the system. A care package that might take eight months to deliver elsewhere can now be delivered in two hours. By spending £l million on community care, they saved the hospital £3 million. A seven-step referral is now down to two steps. All of that is at risk, however. The NHS and local authorities could learn from that good practice and evolve in that way.
Some people say that, as a result of the Bill, the people around the table will be the same; they will just have different titles. People need to know that the risk is not just about getting rid of managers. The Secretary of State might say that he is reducing the number of managers by making them redundant, but the NHS still needs some managers—so step forward McKinsey and KPMG to help the GPs who do not have, or might not want, management skills. Members of the public need to know the risk associated with the loss of expertise that has stayed in the public sector for the common good, but which will now be lost by the dismantling of structures.
John Healey
There is the precedent of releasing a programme risk register connected with the third runway at Heathrow, but the principle of the Freedom of Information Act is that each case is different—every risk register is different. The reason why this case is important and exceptional and why the Information Commissioner has, on balance, required the Government to disclose rather than withhold the risk register is that the Government’s health reforms are the biggest ever reorganisation in NHS history; that the legislation is the longest in NHS history; and that it has been introduced at a time of unprecedented financial pressure.
Mr Simon Burns
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm for the House that, on behalf of Lord Boateng, he refused to release a risk register when he was a junior Treasury Minister?
John Healey
I do not think that the Minister was listening to the point that I just made: on the Freedom of Information Act, the decisions that Ministers make—I hope—as we did, and the decisions that the Information Commissioner would make on a challenge, depend on the specific information and, in this case, the risk register at stake. This case is unprecedented and exceptional and the Information Commissioner has come to this view because we are faced with such huge upheaval. It involves the biggest reorganisation and the longest legislation, at a time of the tightest financial squeeze for 50 years. Furthermore, this reorganisation was explicitly ruled out in the Conservative manifesto and in the coalition agreement. That is why, less than two months later, the huge upheaval of the White Paper was so unexpected, and why the NHS and the civil service were so unprepared for what they are now being forced to implement.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Today’s debate has shown that we have a Government who refuse to be open about the risks of their health Bill and arrogantly reject the widespread concerns of patients, the public, and NHS staff. Instead of providing the leadership that the NHS needs, Ministers have left staff struggling to cope with the effects of their damaging Bill.
Unlike the Government, the NHS is facing up to its responsibilities by publishing local risk registers to try to mitigate the effects of the Government’s plans. NHS North of England warns that the Government’s reorganisation has a high risk of compromising patient safety, as knowledge about how to deal with mistakes and adverse patient events is lost. NHS Midlands and East says that there is a high risk that waiting times will suffer, primary care will be neglected, and joint working with councils will be undermined. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) said, NHS London warns that there is a high risk that clinical commissioning groups will not have the skills they need, and that the NHS will fail to deliver either the best outcomes for patients or the best value for taxpayers’ money. NHS Milton Keynes warns that there is a high risk of failure to deliver its statutory requirements, leading to significant harm or fatalities of children and vulnerable adults. That point was raised by several of my hon. Friends, and particularly eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).
However, the Government are not concerned about the risks that the Bill poses to patients, only to their own political prospects. In the past few weeks, we have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of Conservative Ministers scrambling to distance themselves from the wreckage of their Bill and desperately pointing the finger of blame. An anonymous source in No. 10 told The Times that the Health Secretary
“should be taken out and shot.”
Anonymous Cabinet Ministers have told ConservativeHome that the Bill is as bad as the poll tax, that it must be dropped and that the Secretary of State must be replaced. The Financial Times has said that the Chancellor is worried that the Bill will retoxify the Conservative brand. Apparently, the Deputy Prime Minister is furious that the Tory in-fighting is ruining his attempts to get his party and MPs on board. The Secretary of State accuses the British Medical Association of being “politically poisoned” in opposing the Bill; I say that the source of the poison is all on his own side.
Mr Lansley
Just so that the record is clear, when I referred to the phrase “politically poisoned”, I was not saying it myself, but quoting Aneurin Bevan’s description of the BMA.
Liz Kendall
I notice that the Secretary of State does not deny that members of his own Cabinet and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers are concerned about the Bill.
Instead of fighting among themselves, the Government should be relentlessly focused on ensuring that the NHS meets the challenges of the future. Our ageing population, the increase in long-term conditions, and the huge medical and technical advances mean that the NHS must continue to change to improve patient care and deliver better value for taxpayers’ money. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, that means shifting the focus of services into the community and more towards prevention, so that people stay fit and healthy for longer. It means centralising some health services in specialist centres so that patients benefit from medical advances and get the best standards of care. It also means ensuring that local NHS and council services work together so that older and disabled people can stay living independently in their own home.
The NHS needs service reform, not structural reform. The Bill will make the changes impossibly hard to achieve. The recent Health Committee report on social care states that the best examples of integrated services have been achieved by care trusts, which were set up under the Labour Government, and yet those are being swept away by the Bill. In 2009, NHS London centralised stroke services into eight hyper-acute units. That decision was very controversial at the time, but within six months it had more than tripled the number of patients getting vital clot-busting drugs to the highest rate of any large city in the world. The Bill will put strategic service changes such as that at risk.
Liz Kendall
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I will not waste my time on that point when we have important issues about the future of the NHS to discuss.
Government Members should realise that GPs, nurses, midwives, health visitors, public health professionals, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, radiologists and Opposition Members are against the Bill, not because we are against change, but because it will prevent the changes that the NHS needs.
Government Members do not want to talk about part 3 of the Bill, because they know that people do not want their NHS run like any other market. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister claim that their Bill is all about cutting bureaucracy and putting patients and clinicians in control, yet the Department of Health now admits in its fascinating document, “Design of the NHS Commissioning Board”, that there will be five layers of management in the Government’s new NHS, except in the performance and operations directorate, in which
“an additional layer (or layers) will be required”.
In place of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, we will now have the NHS Commissioning Board, four commissioning sectors, 50 local offices, commissioning support units, clinical senates and clinical commissioning groups, as well as Public Health England and the health and wellbeing boards. Patients and staff have been left completely confused about who is responsible for running different services and how they will be held to account.
The Government say that the new structure will cost £492 million a year.
Liz Kendall
Let me continue to explain this point. I have given way to the Secretary of State already and I want to finish my point.
According to the Government’s own document, the cost of running commissioning support units and commissioning for Public Health England is not included in the costs that have been given. Indeed, it states:
“The costs of providing clinical advice to the wider system will be separately funded.”
That prompts the question, what are all those different organisations doing if they are not helping to improve clinical care? The Government are not cutting red tape, they are increasing it, and they are not liberating clinicians but suffocating them—not my words but those of the NHS Alliance and the National Association of Primary Care, which used to champion the Bill.
Perhaps the Secretary of State should listen to the advice of Dr Peter Bailey, a GP and former chair of a commissioning group in his own constituency. He recently told Pulse magazine that GPs have
“been duped…set up to fail…We stand baffled in the wreckage…put down the sledgehammer. Get rid of the Bill.”
The Secretary of State should listen to the good doctor’s advice. He should grant the freedom of information request submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and publish the risk register. He should listen to the 78 Opposition Members and 15 Liberal Democrat Members who have signed the early-day motion tabled by my admirable hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) calling for the register to be published.
Even today, as this debate has taken place, the Information Commissioner has told the Evening Standard that he thinks the Government should publish the risk register while peers are still debating the Bill. He has said:
“Where proposals are particularly contentious and with far-reaching consequences, it’s better for more information to be available for a broader discussion about the pros and cons before everything’s decided. By enabling people to express their views on proposals, the final decision will be better informed and better understood.”
I say to Liberal Democrat Members that voting for the motion will show that they really support the early-day motion that they have already signed. It will show their constituents that on this issue, they mean what they say and are different from Conservative Members.
Parliament has a right to know the risks of the legislation that it is debating, and the public have a right to understand the true risks of the Government’s reckless NHS plans. I commend the motion to the House.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
We have had an interesting debate. The number of right hon. and hon. Members taking part has shown the interest in it. I congratulate Opposition Members who have made speeches—unfortunately, so many spoke that I cannot go through all their speeches—on sticking meticulously to the line in the parliamentary Labour party briefing. They repeated meticulously the mistakes and wrong information in it.
I have a degree of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), because very early in the debate his predecessor as Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), seemed to hole his argument below the line when he came out with what was a rather surprising statement at the time, although having listened to the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) it does not seem that surprising. He said that the risk register was a second-order issue. Given that the debate is about the risk register, that struck me as rather odd.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on an excellent speech. As we listened to more Opposition speeches, his speech began to strike a strong chord that risk registers could be misinterpreted and become a charter for shroud-waving.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who with great logic and clarity argued an overwhelming case, and I was delighted to hear yet again a speech from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). A health debate without a contribution from him would be a severe loss. No doubt the news editor of the Morning Star will be fascinated with his comments. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti).
I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Leigh has decided to politicise a topic that, at its core, is not really about health. The question of publishing risk registers has implications that will be felt across the Government. For the reasons I shall outline, risk registers have implications for the successful running of a parliamentary democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that by heart already, but let me tell him again, in plain English, one last time. The reason why risk registers are not released is the same now as it was when he was in government: if their contents are taken out of context, they could be misleading for parliament and the public.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, the right hon. Gentleman cleared the line in a letter sent from the Department of Health on 1 October 2009, when refusing to publish a departmental risk register. He rightly said that there was a
“public interest in preserving the ability of officials to engage in discussions of policy options and risks without apprehension that suggested courses of action may be held up to public or media scrutiny before they have been fully developed.”
Releasing the risk register is directly contrary to the public interest he described. As he knows, risk registers outline any conceivable situation, however improbable, on the subject they are evaluating. Any risk at all, even the most minuscule or unlikely thing, is included. They help the Department to see the possible pitfalls and to ensure that they do not happen.
This case has implications not only for the Department and Whitehall, but across all levels of government. As hon. Members will know from the debate, risk registers are essential because they are records of frank discussions between Ministers and civil servants on policy formulation. If a precedent were set for those records to be made public, it follows that such discussions and conversations would be a lot less open and a lot more guarded. That would mean that policies might develop with a lot less candid thought and debate than they do now. That might have been the argument under the previous Government, but the reason prevails and the argument is the same today.
The right hon. Gentleman understood that argument when he was Secretary of State for Health. Similarly, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who made an interesting speech, understands it. That is why, regardless of what he said in interventions today, during his time in the Treasury—
Mr Burns
I will not give way. I am afraid I do not have time.
As a Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne wrote to Mark Oaten, the then MP for Winchester, upholding the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s refusal to disclose information about gateway reviews and the identity cards scheme.
Tony Blair—a name that is not often heard with joy on the Opposition Benches now—understood that too. In his memoirs, he calls himself a fool, a nincompoop and an imbecile for introducing the Freedom of Information Act, because, in his words, Governments need to be able to discuss issues
“with a reasonable level of confidentiality”.
He said:
“If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you’re weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations…And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That’s why it’s not a sensible thing.”
Several hon. Members asked about the strategic health authorities that published their risk registers. I would like to clarify this point, because there seems to be considerable confusion about it, particularly among Opposition Members. The purpose of the Department of Health’s risk registers is to allow civil servants to advise Ministers properly about the potential risks of a policy. SHAs, on the other hand, are further removed from Ministers, and are more concerned with operational issues—not policy formulation—and the more day-to-day business of health care. They are not concerned with providing objective guidance to politicians. Their risk registers are routinely published every quarter, and are written with publication in mind. That is evidently not the case with Department of Health registers, which, to remain useful, must be confidential.
Risks are inherent in any programme of change, and we have been open about them, having published a vast amount of detailed information, including the original impact assessment, in January 2011, and the revised impact assessment last September. In addition, the Public Accounts Committee’s health landscape report was published in January 2011, and there has also been the annual NHS operating framework, and the oral and written evidence presented to the Health Select Committee and the PAC. The risks must be scrutinised, we have supported that scrutiny and the risks have been scrutinised. The Bill received 40 sittings and two stages in Committee, and as one hon. Member mentioned, there have been 100 divisions. Even the lead shadow spokesman said, on conclusion of the Committee stage, that the Bill had been thoroughly scrutinised. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I wanted to ask the Secretary of State this question earlier because I was rather confused. The Information Commissioner has said that the risk register should be released. If the Government lose the appeal, will they publish it, given that it would be the right thing to do?
Mr Burns
I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the situation. The hon. Lady is right that the Information Commissioner has taken a view, and under legislation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the right to appeal to the tribunal. That appeal, which he lodged some time ago, will be heard on 5 and 6 March and a decision will be made according to a timetable set by the tribunal—we have no control over the timing.
Of all the topics that the Opposition could have chosen to debate for the past six hours, this is probably one of the most pointless. The tribunal for publishing the risk register sits in a fortnight’s time, as I have just told the hon. Lady, so why not wait for it to report back and use this opportunity to talk about something more useful? Since they have chosen to race down this particular dead-end, however, all I can say to them is this: wait until after the tribunal. There is nothing to add until then. We have explained which areas the risk register covers; we have subjected the Bill to unprecedented scrutiny and consultation; we have debated it for countless hours, and yet still the Opposition bleat that we have not been open. My advice to them is this: change the record. What they are doing is cynical, opportunistic and shallow. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
Question put.