House of Lords: Question Time

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

This House is full of all sorts of Members who are not shy of coming forward and I welcome that.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of a Speaker, we are told by the Government—indeed, by both Governments—from the Front Bench that it is for individual Members of the House to police the House and all its proceedings. However, does that not just create resentment and embarrassment between colleagues? The system does not work.

Woolwich and the EU Council

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 3rd June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the Leader of the House referred to the Cameron/Rifkind discussions on the role of the ISC. Can we be assured that the ISC will not be prevented in any way from carrying out a full inquiry to report by December as a result of what the Leader referred to as the ongoing inquiries being carried out by the police? Can we be assured that the police inquiry will not stop the ISC inquiry from taking place?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, following the conversation that the Prime Minister had with the right honourable Member for Kensington this morning, I know that the ISC is able to go wherever it needs to go to carry out its inquiry. The timetable of reporting by the end of the year is the one to which it is working. If there is further information I can get to amplify that, I will come back to the noble Lord. My understanding is that the terms of reference, as it were, of the ISC have been agreed and the very clear view is that it should be able to carry out its inquiry and do its work in whatever way it thinks it needs to in order to look into the matters properly so we can all see and learn the lessons.

Procedure of the House

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

On the principle of having to set some criteria, for example on identifying topicality, I shall just go back one stage. I am very glad to have been able to come up with this new proposal for guaranteed time, once a week, to deal with a topical issue on the Floor of the House. I very much accept that we need an opportunity to do that. One would need to establish some points around topicality in exactly the same way as a Back-Bench debates committee will have to come up with a set of criteria within which it would operate in choosing those debates. I accept that we would need to do that work; I would need to come back and show the House those processes.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord referred earlier to the quirky. How will the quirky meet these new criteria? He prayed in aid the need for the quirky Motion to be tabled. How would that work?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

There are a number of different points there. I certainly used the word quirky—I quite like quirky. This goes to the heart of the issue of having a rational process. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, talked persuasively in some ways about wanting a rational process. That could obviously mean a process that can lead, over time, to confirmation around a kind of norm. It could lead to a group of people’s sense of what is rational being superimposed on that of others. On retaining quirkiness, we are more likely to have quirkiness in balloted debates and on QSDs more generally if we do not have a sifting process. The topical slot is a different matter.

House of Lords: Oral Questions

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask the Leader of the House what steps he is taking to encourage Members of the House to ask short and relevant supplementary Oral Questions.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the guidance in the Companion on supplementary questions is crystal clear. We all of us in this House have a shared responsibility to follow it. I have written to the Leader of the Opposition, the Convenor and my noble friend the Deputy Leader to ask for their support in reminding Members of that guidance. I have also encouraged Members on my Front Bench to provide succinct answers so that more supplementary questions can be asked.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, exhortations by the Front Bench to be brief simply do not work. Members ignore them. Some thoughtless people hog Question Time, bully the House and ego-trip with long, garrulous statements—all in breach of the Companion. If both Front Benches are unable, due to wishing to be courteous, actually to enforce the Companion, why cannot someone else take on that responsibility? I suggest the Lord Speaker.

Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Inquiry

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, will the Minister make it clear that brief interventions are required? Otherwise not everyone will be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As my noble friend said, Robert Francis certainly recommended a statutory duty of candour, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give full consideration to that. So far, he has said that he will work through all 290 recommendations in the report, and that the Government aim to give an initial response within a month. Precisely what the timeframe will be on all these elements, I cannot say. As my noble friend will know, in the interim we created legally binding rules that require the NHS Commissioning Board to insert a contractual duty of candour into the NHS standard contract in 2013-14. That means that NHS hospitals will be required contractually to tell patients when they have been significantly harmed by a patient-safety incident during their care. Otherwise, I take my noble friend’s point on board.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the Statement says:

“every carer, every member of staff will be given the opportunity to say whether they would recommend their hospital to their friends or family. This will be published … where a significant proportion of patients or staff raise serious concerns about what is happening in a hospital immediate inspection will result and suspension of the hospital board may well follow”.

That is a very radical proposal. My question is very simple: will a member of staff making such a report have their name published, or will their contribution be anonymous? If it is not anonymous, this system will not work.

Sure Start

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As I explained in my answer to the right reverend Prelate, there is a difference of opinion between us and the party opposite about the ring-fence. It is our view that giving local authorities greater discretion over their budget is the right way to go forward; to treat them like the responsible bodies that they are. I recognise there is not as much money around as there was before—I cannot deny that that is the case—but we believe the right way is to put the same funding into the EIG for Sure Start children’s centres, which are an extremely important service. We want to focus them on providing better services for the most disadvantaged and we think that is the right way forward.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, does it remain the policy of the Government to retain ring-fencing of any area of local expenditure, over which the noble Lord has some influence?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I fear I have not boned up on the whole approach towards ring-fencing expenditure across local government. So far as my department is concerned, the general direction of travel we want to go in is to simplify funding, to have as few separate grant streams as we can and to delegate responsibility as much as possible, whether that is to local authorities or to individual schools.

Sure Start

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Noble Lords opposite can groan, but I fear that it is a consequence. I have been asked questions about the funding of Sure Start children’s centres. We have put the money into the EIG, and we have managed to find more resources to extend the offer to disadvantaged two year-olds and to increase the offer we have made for three and four year-olds. There is also the pupil premium. Those are priorities that the Government are putting money into, but we cannot wish away the economic situation that we inherited.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

How many have closed? That is all we need to know.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not have that specific answer to hand. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to help me, because I know the party opposite has done some work on that. I think the number amounts to 1.5 per cent of all Sure Start children’s centres.

Children: Adoption

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with my noble friend about the importance of support services and specialist support services. Part of a good solution to the problems of adoption is finding a bigger supply of adopters, speeding up the process and supporting those families who have adopted children. On her specific point about what support might be available, I will follow that up with my honourable friend Mr Loughton and respond to her in more detail.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Does the Minister recognise that the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, may well be the position taken by the majority of people in this country? Should we not be listening to people?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, as I said, I understand the point of view expressed by my noble friend Lord Waddington and always listen to him most carefully, as I do to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. However, there is not much that I can add to my previous reply to my noble friend Lord Waddington.

Schools: Pupil Premium

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hill of Oareford

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That is an extremely good question. I suspect that there is a question around the identification of those children, but if they are being educated and are registered in school, and if they fulfil the eligibility criteria, as one would imagine they would, then the money for that would go to that school.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, who will monitor the annual review to which the Minister referred, which is at the discretion of head teachers, and who will be responsible for undertaking that review? How will those head teachers themselves be held accountable?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As I said, my Lords, the intention is that those head teachers will spend it as they think fit. It will be a matter for their judgment because they know the pupils best. If, for instance, they think that the money would be better spent on one-to-one tuition rather than something else, they should make that judgment. We suggest they should have to account publicly to parents and publish how the money has been spent, so that people can see the linkage between the money and what it is spent on.