Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

We are following developments in South Sudan with great concern. The British ambassador has spoken to the President of South Sudan. The Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), is speaking with regional Foreign Ministers. We have called for restraint and for differences to be resolved through dialogue, and we have underlined the importance of protecting civilians.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has advised against all travel to Juba and has been helping British nationals to leave. A UK military aircraft is en route to Juba to evacuate British nationals today. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been contacting British nationals in the country and offering consular assistance.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

When the Leader of the House went home last night, did he not feel a certain amount of shame at being part of a Government who have presided over 500,000 people presenting to food banks? If so, can we have another debate on food banks so that he can express that shame?

[Mr Lansley]

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have seen the number of workless households in this country fall to its lowest ever level. Work is the best route out of poverty.

[Andrew Miller]

Answer the question.

[Mr Lansley]

It is undeniably the case that in the tough times that we faced and with the largest deficit in the OECD, it was necessary to reduce debt in this country. It is impossible simply to ignore the fact that living standards in this country have taken a hit as a consequence of what happened under the last Government. I am proud that this Government are leading the kind of economic recovery that holds the greatest prospect of giving the greatest number of people access to rising living standards in the future.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Members across the House will share with my hon. Friend a sense of the importance that we attach to making further progress in the research into the causes of dementia and its treatment, and the way in which we as a society respond to those with dementia. I was very pleased that the Backbench Business Committee was able to schedule a debate before the G8 summit next Wednesday. I hope that with the progress we are making in research on dementia and its treatment, there may be further opportunities in the new year.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s policy to exacerbate the north-south divide following the announcement, which advantages the Leader of the House’s constituency, that the A14 will not be tolled but the Mersey Gateway will?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was perfectly clear that it is entirely normal to toll estuarial crossings. If the A14, which passes through my constituency, had been tolled, it would have been the only main route tolled in circumstances where there was no viable alternative.

Finances of the House of Commons

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will leave it to the Committees to decide whether they want to bring forward proposals. Although I am perfectly willing to commit to talking to the Leader of the House of Lords, it is in neither of our gifts to put the two Houses together for such a purpose, but I know that there is a willingness in both Houses to look at where administration and support can be managed together.

[Andrew Miller]

May I bring to the Leader of the House’s attention how well the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology works on a bicameral basis? We brought it into the House in the early 1990s, and it has worked extremely well. It has become very strong in the recent past.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that, and of the example that the shadow Leader of the House gave of PICT. None the less, when we look at PICT, we must understand that there are certain areas of activity in which having two masters makes the business of trying to manage a service much more difficult. Effectively, we need to distinguish between the two sets of governors, as it were, and see whether they have entirely complementary objectives. It might be true for many areas of human resources, administration and back-office functions, but, in some other respects, the two Houses might not necessarily have the same objectives and, because of the nature of the governance, they must be given the opportunity to manage those separately.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue of pay, as did my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Pay is clearly a significant part of the overall management of cost. I know that there have been intensive discussions between management and trade unions, but too many issues remain unresolved for a deal to be done. The Management Board’s offer was a fair one, but it remains open to discussions with the trade unions. I hope that it is understood—I have had my own conversations with the staff about this—that there is no possibility of either the House or the staff winning from a court case. The net result of continuing with the court action will be a negative one overall, and it is in the interests of both sides to continue to try to reach a deal—if one can be reached.

I look forward to the Commission receiving the Finance and Services Committee’s report on what have been described as zero-hour contracts. I entirely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Strictly speaking, such contracts mean no minimum guaranteed hours and an obligation to undertake work at the request of the employee. There are no corresponding obligations from the employer in relation to the employee. That is not what we have, or what we are looking to have. We want a relationship with our staff that recognises that they and we have a legitimate reason for having flexibility and call-off contracts, but that should be on the basis of offering minimum hours if staff are looking for that and if it is consistent with the needs of the House. I am talking about areas such as visitor services and catering. We must always ensure that we meet our obligations in relation to annual leave, sick pay, training and, importantly, access to internal vacancies as and when they arise.

The House is asked to note the medium-term financial plan. I am tempted to take the position of the shadow Leader of the House and say nothing more about restoration and renewal. However, I will just say that it is a major issue. It is not simply that the expenditure is beyond the medium-term financial plan. We need to assure ourselves that the expenditure that we are undertaking on capital is not nugatory and will contribute beneficially to the overall programme. However, that does not require us to rush at defining what that overall and major programme looks like. Options should be properly explored and costed.

The involvement of the Major Projects Authority and Infrastructure UK in the review process is entirely sensible. Members in this House and in the other House will have potentially strong views on whether it is necessary to leave this place for a period. There could be a decant for a short time, or a long time, or no decant at all. No one would choose to decant; it is not something that any of us seek. None the less, we must understand that the risks and constraints on us if we do not do so may also be considerable. The independent assessment needs to give us a clear understanding of the options in terms of the practicalities, cost and potential value for money. The decision will not emerge from the options appraisal; it is a decision that we will have to make. We need to weigh the costs and complexities against how we manage our business and how the House continues to meet its obligations. Indeed, the relationship between Parliament and Government in trying to manage the business of government is a significant one, so we will only make a decision on the basis of that assessment and of Members being consulted. A decision will be made at the proper time. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was right to say that the decision is likely to be made not in this Parliament, but early in the next one.

We have had sensible discussions on the education centre. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can say that we have rightly identified how we can proceed in a way that represents the best available option. In principle, it is absolutely the right thing to do. We want as many young people as possible to have a direct experience of Parliament, which they will carry with them through their lives. We are aiming for 100,000 young people, but it is a shame that we cannot aim for 600,000. On that basis, we could say to every young person in this country that at some point during their school lives, they would have an opportunity to visit Parliament. To be as ambitious as we are is the very least that we should set out to do.

The House will have noticed in the medium-term financial plan that there is a reference to further pressures, including the Government’s agenda on public engagement, which we are keen to push forward. I will not elaborate, but I am talking about things such as the public reading stages of Bills. I am keen to work with colleagues from across the House on the further development of our petition system, including the Government e-petition system, which will make it easier for the public to engage with us. It will be readily accessible and will help the public to understand that they are petitioning Parliament and Government on their issues—not one or the other. There will be an enhanced expectation about and experience of the response, and a hope that the matter will be taken up and debated in Parliament.

On behalf of the Commission, I want to emphasise how useful this debate has been in helping us to consider the report of the Finance and Services Committee and to frame a response to it. Support for the motion today would represent an endorsement of a plan for the sustainable delivery of high-quality services to the House, while making the necessary and proportionate contribution to savings in administration expenditure in public services. I ask the House to support the motion.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about matters relating to the Council of Europe. He will be aware that in terms of the management of business, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee and the amount of time made available to it was expressly intended to ensure that some of the issues that are regularly the subject of general debates in this House could be considered by the Committee and scheduled for debate in line with the priorities of Back Benchers and not at the whim of Government. That is how the business should be conducted.

My hon. Friend will know about the reforms to the Council of Europe made in Brighton last year, which will, I hope, enable the European Court of Human Rights to focus much more strongly on issues of importance rather than a very large number of proceedings that have not been taken forward. I hope that he and others in the House appreciate the way in which the Secretary of State for Justice gave evidence to the Joint Committee that is considering the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill yesterday. That demonstrated how seriously we take our obligations in this respect.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on domestic violence? In my constituency there is a lack of a joined-up policy between the Government, the police and the local authority. We are seeing the closure of refuges, and everyone is blaming each other. We need a joined-up policy on this very serious issue. Will the Leader of the House commit to provide a debate in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate at the moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as will the House, that that was one of the areas focused on in some important debates relating to international women’s day last year. The Government, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and others have been working very closely together to tackle issues relating to domestic violence through the action plan on violence against women and girls. This is an important issue for us and we are taking action on it. We will continue to return to it on a regular basis.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

There are stations in my constituency where it is difficult for people with disabilities to access all platforms to change trains, so my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to write to him as he has just missed the opportunity to raise that point during Question Time.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I can remember at least two occasions since I have been in the House when improper conduct—within and externally—in relation to Select Committees has been the subject of inquiries called for by the Leader of the House’s party. Why is he being inconsistent now? Can he not simply accept that it undermines the credibility of Select Committees for him to act as a shield for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but Opposition Members are persisting with a complete misapprehension. There is no basis for their questions; there is no need for any further statement. I have made it clear that the independence and credibility of the Public Accounts Committee is not compromised.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I welcome what she says about the conference in her constituency. The increase in our exports is making a difference to our economic prospects. There has been a 5.8% increase in exports on a year ago. Given the circumstances, we cannot expect Government spending simply to replace private spending. Consumers, as a result of high levels of debt, have also been retrenching. Our ability to invest and secure growth in the economy therefore depends principally upon winning in the global race and getting into foreign markets. The fact that exports to China have gone up by 80% and to Brazil by 47% demonstrates that our businesses can win in the global race.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It was not clear to me whether the Leader of the House refused the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for a debate on what she called the fortress mentality or simply ignored it. Given the issues with the aircraft carrier and what we have just heard about universal credit, can we have an urgent debate about project management in this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I ignored the request of the shadow Leader of the House. She is very forgiving and will no doubt forgive me for that.

We may not be able to have a debate on project management in government in short order, but it would be a good topic to debate at some point, because it would give us an opportunity to demonstrate how the Minister for the Cabinet Office, along with the Major Projects Authority, has been leading a process of improving project management across government. I am confident that such a debate would show that there have been substantial improvements by comparison with what we saw under the last Labour Government, not least in the Department of Health. The National Audit Office has demonstrated that the project delivered during my tenure was a major achievement. As I outlined earlier, we delivered savings that were returned to the health service to improve services for patients.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I can understand how my hon. Friend might feel about that. It is of course a matter for the universities themselves, but he might consider raising it on the Adjournment, when the opportunity is once more available, as an important subject for us to consider. In the meantime I will take the opportunity to send to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university a copy of today’s Hansard in order to ask if he will reply to my hon. Friend and to me.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Early-day motion 1305 celebrates the work of Crick and Watson, Rosalind Franklin and others on an important day: today is the 60th anniversary of the publication of their work in Nature.

[That this House marks the 60th anniversary of the discovery of DNA; notes that the article entitled Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid was published by Francis Crick and James D. Watson in the scientific journal Nature in its 171st volume on 25 April 1953; further notes that that was the first publication which described the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA; further notes that much of the data that were used by Crick and Watson came from unpublished work by Rosalind Franklin and several others; applauds the discovery of DNA as having had a major impact on biology, particularly in the field of genetics; and further marks one of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 20th Century.]

It would be a great day for the Government to show some leadership on science and commit to holding Government-sponsored debates on major science topics so that the House can be informed and develop policy on some of the important consequences of the work of those scientists and other science disciplines—for example, the articles in the paper today about genetic editing, which is going to be an important issue in relation to food supply. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment to deliver such debates in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

As a Member of Parliament representing part of Cambridge, I am only too aware of that anniversary, of the tremendous character of those discoveries, and of the work that Crick and Watson and others did. That is recognised. For example, I was directly involved as Secretary of State in securing the future of the Francis Crick institute, which I see emerging next to the British Library. I think this Government are giving leadership on science. We are investing in science, we see it as an essential part of this country’s economic future, and we are supporting it to that effect, as well as recognising that the quality of our science has a unique contribution to make for the whole world. We are determined to build on that.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House organise an urgent debate on the use of English in the House, following the new euphemism that we heard yesterday, when the bedroom tax became the spare room subsidy? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative party changed the community charge to the poll tax, it cost them a leader.

[Mr Lansley]

When it comes to language in the House, we should first set out not to call things something that they are not. Calling something a tax when it is not a tax is not a good use of language.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am addressing Mr Speaker, if that is all right with the hon. Gentleman, as I think I am required to do.

The East of England ambulance service, like all other ambulance trusts across the country, has for the first time met all its category A response times, but it is important that it continue to do so right across the territory, not just on an aggregate basis. It is important for colleagues to raise this matter, and my hon. Friend and his colleagues might have the opportunity to pursue it in an Adjournment debate.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Last week, the Leader of the House’s successor in the Department of Health made some strong comments in the media about the need to improve the regulatory regime around medical implants. The Science and Technology Committee has just published an important report on this subject. Given the anxiety among the public, may we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State so he can explain what he is doing about this important subject?

[Mr Lansley]

Given my knowledge of these subjects, the hon. Gentleman will know that although I recognise that his Committee’s report is an important contribution, my noble Friend Lord Howe and other Health Ministers have never regarded this matter as anything other than important and urgent, and I am sure that they will endeavour to inform the House fully of any matters that arise. Their work not only in response to the breast implant scandal but, in particular, on how hip implants are regulated is proceeding apace.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Prime Minister and I have rightly emphasised the friends and family test. It involves both staff and patients being asked whether they would recommend their services. My colleagues at the Department of Health will continuously examine how we can improve acute hospital services. I have discussed the future hospital programme with the Royal College of Physicians, and what we are doing to modernise the NHS will absolutely address the issues that it raises. As it says, we should recognise that the increasing burden of ill health among older people, which is a consequence of increased life expectancy, should increasingly be managed through improvements to services in the community. That will mean that we can focus hospital services on patients who genuinely need to be in hospital.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

In the north-west of England, the four police authorities are merging some civilian parts of the Forensic Science Service’s functions with unseemly haste on the back of the closure of the FSS, before the system has been able to bed in. Will the Leader of the House organise an urgent debate on that important subject, as that appears to be happening before the police and crime commissioner elections? Will he ask the Home Secretary to publish any documents that give guidance to chief constables on the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course ask the Home Secretary about that, but it strikes me that the hon. Gentleman might seek to secure a debate on the Adjournment about it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the views of clinicians, and scientists from academia, industry and the third sector, on the impact of change on the development of stratified medicines?

[Mr Lansley]

I have the benefit of a review undertaken by Sir John Bell and his colleagues, which I accepted wholeheartedly. In particular, I immediately agreed with the recommendations, and we are implementing and funding recommendations for the establishment of centres across the NHS for genetic testing to support stratified medicine for cancer patients.

Life Sciences

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andrew Miller

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend might like to know that while initial and very positive steps were taken in Scotland —for example, in Lanarkshire—we have now undertaken, through the whole system demonstrator pilots, the world’s largest randomised control trial of telehealth technology, and that gives us a strength from which we can develop telehealth systems that is unparalleled anywhere in the world. In so far as there is a capacity to provide telehealth systems and provide for their use across health care systems, I suspect that we shall shortly see England overtake Scotland in that respect. It is a form of competition that I am perfectly happy to be engaged in—and if the Scots can do better than us, then good luck to them. However, we are showing, through these pilots, how we are ready to go at developing something of great benefit to patients.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is good to see that the Secretary of State is now on the same side of the debate as me regarding NO2ID and similar issues. Nevertheless, there is an important issue about ensuring the greatest public buy-in to the issue of data sharing, and careful work is needed on that. May I specifically ask him about the catalyst fund? To what extent is this new money? Can he assure the House that money from patient care is not being transferred into the catalyst fund? Will the Technology Strategy Board be able to control its use, or will it be directed by Government?

[Mr Lansley]

In the first instance, the £180 million to which I referred consists of £90 million from the Medical Research Council, which is new money within its existing budget but not at the expense of any other programmes. The other £90 million is provided by the Treasury to the TSB and is new money. None of this comes out of any NHS resources. The implementation will be led by the Medical Research Council, so to that extent it will not be driven by Government.