Hybrid Bill Procedure

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As the House heard during the previous debate, the Government are introducing a hybrid Bill to Parliament later this year to allow consideration of whether the powers to construct, operate and maintain the HS2 scheme should be granted. Given the significance of this decision it will be clear to the House that it is essential that Parliament have the means in place to support effective decision making in relation to the Bill. However, it has been a while since the last hybrid Bill and some of the rules governing this process are now out of date. Therefore, the motions I am moving today will update this parliamentary procedure. If I may, I will explain them to the House. I believe that the House will not find them objectionable.

On the motion for electronic deposit, the House may be aware that, along with the HS2 hybrid Bill later this year, we will provide Parliament with the environmental statement. This will set out the likely significant environmental effects of the scheme and put forward proposals for alleviating them. For a project of this magnitude, there is a considerable level of detail involved. We expect the statement to be up to 50,000 pages long. It is of course important that communities can easily find out what the impact will be on their local area. However, current Standing Orders require us to deposit a hard copy of that document to every local authority area along the line of route. It is estimated that each document would weigh up to 1 tonne in that form. In this day and age, that is inconvenient for the communities involved and wasteful of Government resources. That is why our first motion allows for the electronic deposit of bill documentation for the HS2 hybrid Bill. That will make it easier for communities across the line of route to find the information most relevant to their area without having to work through an enormous document. It will also make it easier for local authorities, including parish councils, to meet their obligations to make the information available for public inspection.

It should also be noted that this is a permissive power. It does not require documents to be deposited in electronic format only. HS2 Ltd is clear that if a deposit location wants all the documents in hard copy, they can have them in hard copy. In all cases, HS2 Ltd will make available the key documents in hard copy, such as the Bill and the non-technical summary of the environmental statement.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s clarification, because several people have raised with me the possible difficulties with the large maps, which, without sophisticated IT gear, can be difficult to reproduce. If HS2 will still be obliged to provide large maps in solid form, I will be pleased with the reassurance he has given.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a sensible point. For most people with access to electronic equipment, navigating large documents is perfectly straightforward. In fact, it is probably easier to navigate documents of this length and complexity electronically than in hard copy. Not least, of course, it affords people the opportunity to focus on a local area or to do things such as word searches. I can confirm, however, that reasonable requests for hard copies of maps and section drawings will be met. These could be requested either from local authorities, which will be provided with hard copies for inspection, or directly from HS2 Ltd, which will provide A3 copies. It should further be noted that copies of all maps and sections will be available for inspection in both Houses. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he was looking for.

If a deposit location would like documents in electronic format, but does not have the equipment to make them available to the community, HS2 Ltd has committed to providing that equipment at its own expense. This is a wholly sensible modernisation of Standing Order requirements, which were originally conceived in the 19th century, and is about making it easier for people to engage with the hybrid Bill process and therefore ensuring the most effective decision making by Parliament.

The second motion also relates to the environmental statement. It is vital that members of the public be made aware of these environmental effects and have an opportunity to comment. It is also important that the public’s views be shared with Parliament before it makes a decision on the principle of the Bill. That is why our proposed changes to Standing Orders will incorporate a formal consultation period for the environmental statement between introduction and Second Reading of the hybrid Bill. Although this follows the precedent of the Crossrail Act 2008, by enshrining this consultation in Standing Orders, we will improve the transparency and certainty of the hybrid Bill procedure.

It should also be noted that the lack of a guaranteed consultation process has been raised in the courts. It is important that we are clear that the proceedings of the House should not be subject, as a consequence of that lack of clarity, to interference from the European Courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

On my right hon. Friend’s first point, these are the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to hybrid Bills, and the promoters of a hybrid Bill, and participants in that process, will be required to comply with them; otherwise, the quality of consideration will be put at risk. They will have to behave in a way that is consistent with what the House and the examiners of the Bill require.

I will come directly to the second point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made. The new Standing Order requires the appointment of an assessor to prepare a summary of the public’s comments. The independence of the assessor will be assured, because they will be appointed by Parliament and will report directly to it. That summary will make it easier for Members to appreciate and represent the views of the public when debating the principle of the hybrid Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has just pointed out, the length of the consultation period is set in the Standing Order at 56 days. To give that some context, the equivalent consultation period for projects pursued under the Planning Act 2008 can be as short as 28 days. That legislation covers projects of national significance such as new nuclear power stations, which are not intrinsically unlike HS2, given the level of debate that they can create and the significance of their environmental impact.

[Frank Dobson]

I recognise that I am getting into obscurantist territory with this point. I understand that the examiner of the hybrid Bill will be an Officer of the House, and that the assessor will be appointed by that Officer of the House and not by the House itself, which has, after all, demonstrated this evening that it is party to this matter.

[Mr Lansley]

As far as I understand it, that is true. The examiner will appoint the assessor, and the assessor will report directly to Parliament. That appointment is not in the gift of the Government. The independence of the assessor is intrinsic to the process, and the role of the assessor is to summarise the views presented during the consultation. The assessor will use their technical expertise to present the environmental assessment issues in a form that Parliament can readily engage with. This is a parliamentary process; the assessor will be appointed by Parliament, not by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I think it is true to say that the draft consultation taking place now is not part of the formal processes, but that does not mean that the public will not have a significant opportunity to make their views known. Having the draft environmental statement as the subject of consultation now directly relates to my right hon. Friend’s point—that 56 days, the eight-week consultation period, does not come in, as it were, in relation to an environmental statement that has not been prefigured by the consultation on the draft. In any case, if those responding to the draft consultation feel strongly about those issues, they should make their views known in the consultation required under the Standing Order.

For the sake of clarity, I was right that the Government are responsible for the remuneration of the assessor, but the amount of remuneration will be the product of a procurement process for the necessary expertise. I hope that is accurate and completes that thought. I hope that, notwithstanding the relative obscurity of these matters, the House will—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) want to intervene again?

[Frank Dobson]

Yes, I do, before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. It is not my intention to ask obscurantist questions, but it is my understanding that in the Appeal Court hearings—the Government won most cases and lost one—an undertaking was given, in the case that was lost, that the environmental assessment would look at all the alternatives to HS2, including different routes and also air, road and other alternatives. Will he confirm that that is the case?

[Mr Lansley]

I had better enter the same caveat as I have on one or two other occasions: if I find I am in any sense wrong, I will correct what I say. My understanding is that the environmental statement that is the subject of this Standing Order is an environmental statement relating to the route proposed in the hybrid Bill. It is not an environmental statement that relates to a range of other options. But I will take advice, and if I am wrong I will correct that for the right hon. Gentleman.

National Health Service

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) made an important point on the Nicholson challenge, which a number of Opposition Members mentioned. At least one or two of them had the good grace to recognise that David Nicholson’s proposals were set out in May 2009, under, and endorsed by, a Labour Government. Labour Members now want nothing to do with the consequences of meeting that financial challenge. They fail to recognise, as my right hon. Friend said, that the challenge was against the background of an expectation that a Labour Government would not increase the NHS budget, and that the challenge would have to be achieved within three years. The Conservative Government have increased the budget for the NHS. Over the course of this Parliament, it will go up by £12.5 billion, which represents a 1.8% increase in real terms. The right hon. Member for Leigh and his party were against that.

No Opposition Member recognised in the debate the simple fact that, in the first year of this Parliament, £4.3 billion of efficiency savings were achieved, and performance improved, across the NHS. That was not even in the time frame for the Nicholson challenge. We have now had one year of the challenge. The target was £5.9 billion of efficiency savings, and we achieved, across the NHS, £5.8 billion. Things are on track, which completely refutes the shadow Secretary of State’s argument that we cannot have reform and deliver on the financial challenge at the same time. Actually, we can do both, and in addition improve performance in the NHS.

The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) completely contradicted the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on the South London Healthcare NHS trust. The latter said he was against changes at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, but the former said that I did not get on with the changes soon enough. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish complains from the Opposition Front Bench that I did not have a moratorium, but the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich complains because I did have one.

Let me be clear about this: I did introduce a moratorium, and the four tests. Reconfigurations that meet the four tests should go ahead, because they will improve clinical outcomes for patients, meet the needs of the people of that area, deliver on the intentions of local commissioners, and be in line with the views of the local public. If they meet the four tests, they should go ahead; if they do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) made clear in respect of Worcestershire, they should not go ahead. That much is clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) made good points on how clinical commissioning is bringing improvements in musculoskeletal services. He also rightly made it clear, as the right hon. Member for Leigh did not, that Wales does not meet anything like the same standards as England and is cutting its NHS budget by 8.4%. We are increasing resources for the NHS in England and improving it. It is expected that, by the end of this Parliament, expenditure per head for the NHS in Wales will be below that of England. That is what we get from a Labour Government.

Let me reiterate to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) a point I made a moment ago. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall should admit that the plans being looked at in north-west London are entirely the same ones considered under a Labour Government before the election. I will insist that the plans are subjected to the four tests I have described. If they meet those four tests, they can go ahead; if not, they will not. I advise him to continue making speeches in the House, but also to ask the general practitioners and clinical commissioners in Ealing what they think is in the best interests of their patients—his constituents. That is a good basis to start with.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and a number of other hon. Members, asked about the south-west pay consortium. When I went to the NHS pay review body just a couple of months or so ago, I made it very clear that the Government believe we should do everything we can to support NHS employers to have the flexibilities in the pay framework that are necessary for them to recruit, retain and motivate staff.

[Frank Dobson]

Meaning: pay staff less in the south-west.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman should not interrupt from a sedentary position. I am answering the question. Members are interested in this. When I went to the pay review body, I made it clear that, in my view, we could achieve that through negotiations on the “Agenda for Change”. That continues to be my view, and the south-west pay consortium makes it clear in its documentation that it supports such a negotiation. It is right to pursue such a negotiation nationally and for local pay flexibilities to be used in the national pay framework. That is what most NHS employers do, with the exception of Southend.

I have made it clear, as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has, that we are not proposing any reductions in pay as a consequence. I do not believe they are necessary or desirable in achieving the efficiency challenge.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes extremely good points. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) appears to be trying to represent us as not agreeing about matters. He is chronically incapable of agreeing with himself. In June 2006 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that what the NHS needed in future was foundation trusts, practice-based commissioning, more involvement for the private sector and payment by results. The thing is that Labour in office did not achieve any of those things. It is only through the mechanism of the legislation that we are putting together that we are going to enable the NHS to achieve those things in a way that does not entail all the difficulties that Labour had, such as getting the private sector involvement with the NHS wrong. We are going to get those things right.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Salisbury convention requires the House of Lords not to reject a measure if it has an electoral mandate? As all the parties in the House were mandated not to totally reorganise the national health service, would it not be wholly proper for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords to have some guts, join with Labour and Cross Benchers and vote the whole measure down?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about that. Perhaps he was not here last Wednesday when we debated health matters. [Hon. Members: “He was.”] Well, then he did not listen. I set out very clearly how the Bill was responding to the manifesto mandate that we in our party had, and it was a manifesto mandate that the Liberal Democrats brought to the coalition Government, not least in relation to the role of local government, bringing greater democratic accountability, which is precisely how some of these things have been achieved. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about a mandate in the Lords, he might like to tell his colleagues that at the last election his party was elected on the basis of supporting foundation trusts, for example, to be able to be free to increase their private income.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As we said in our response to the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, we recognise the importance of integrating health and social care services—while concentrating on the needs of patients and their families—to the achievement of our aims. However, I do not believe that we would further those aims by changing Monitor’s name, as amendment 1225 suggests. Although I agree with the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), we have an alternative approach.

Rather than making it explicit that the Secretary of State could impose requirements on commissioners in key areas through regulations, as my hon. Friend suggests in amendment 1209, the Bill proposes that commissioners should have clear statutory duties to reduce inequalities between patients, in relation to both access and outcomes. That is covered in clauses 20 and 23. Commissioners would also have to promote integration of services in carrying out those duties. That is covered in clause 20, which inserts new section 13M of the National Health Service Act 2006, and in clause 23, which inserts new section 14Y. Those clauses refer respectively to the NHS commissioning board and to clinical commissioning groups.

The Bill would also establish clear duties for Monitor to allow the integration of health care services and the integration of health care with other relevant services, including social care. We have already amended the Bill to make it clear that Monitor should not promote competition for competition’s sake: this is all about quality. However, integration can only ever be a means to that end, not an end in itself. Integration, like competition, is designed to secure continuous improvement in the quality of services and a reduction in inequalities, as clauses 20 and 23 make clear.

Although I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, I ask him to not to press amendments 1225 to 1228 when we reach the appropriate moment.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has pleaded the legal view of one of his Back Benchers in rebutting the case made by others about the impact of the changes in his duties. Will he tell us what advice he received from the Department’s lawyers or the Law Officers of the Crown?

Public Health White Paper

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. Derek Wanless said that we needed an “engaged” scenario back in 2002, but it simply did not happen. I know that many in public health feel that the transfer giving local government the lead responsibility on public health—which is radical and new—will, in many respects, bring public health back home. It allies the public health initiative and resources to the responsibilities of local government on economic development, the environment, planning, housing and education in precisely the ways that will influence the wider determinants of health.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s proposal to return public health to local authorities, from which a Tory Government took it away, but why did he not mention housing in his statement? It is widely accepted that homelessness, poor-quality housing, overcrowding and insecurity of tenure are major causes of both mental and physical ill health, and a major cause of inequalities in health.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. In fact, I did mention housing. However, I have also established in the Department a health inclusion unit—derided by those on the Labour Front Bench as a quango, although it is not one—whose purpose will be to focus specifically on some of the most excluded communities, such as the homeless and Traveller groups. Life expectancy in some of those groups can be in the 40s, and the gap in life expectancy and the health inequalities are a scandal. I have appointed Professor Steve Field, formerly of the Royal College of General Practitioners, to lead it, and I think that he will do a fantastic job in ensuring that the NHS, as well as local authorities, reaches out to deliver the health improvement that is needed.

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

For England, the White Paper sets out very clearly that specialised commissioning, whether currently regional or national, will be undertaken through the NHS commissioning board, rather than by individual commissioning consortiums.

The point about the reform process is that if we change nothing, nothing will change. The Labour party is the party of no change: it is the party of stasis, inertia and inactivity. Labour says, “Do nothing, put the reforms on hold”—whatever that means. Our aim is a simple one. We cannot stand still. If we carry on as we are, resources will, as over the last decade, be consumed without delivering the improved outcomes for patients that are so essential. Delivering improved outcomes for patients is our objective, and the White Paper gives us a clear and consistent vision for achieving that, based on three guiding principles.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I said I would give way to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), if he still wishes to intervene.

[Frank Dobson]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to improve treatment. How does he think the treatment of sick children at Great Ormond Street hospital will be improved if it has to do without the £16 million that his Government are currently threatening to take away?

[Mr Lansley]

I explained to the right hon. Gentleman at Health questions just a fortnight ago that we are in discussions with the specialist children’s hospitals. They are very clear that they are engaging constructively with the Department, with the intention that the payments through the tariff should accurately reflect the costs incurred in providing specialist services. That is the current situation, and no decision has yet been made.

I was talking about the principles of the White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

No.

Against all the advice from the Opposition, we protected the NHS budget in the spending review. It was a brave decision for a Government to take in such circumstances, but it underlined our commitment as a coalition to the NHS. It was a decision that went contrary to the advice and recommendations of the Opposition. For the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne to try to attack the Government over “cuts”—he used that word—in the present circumstances is pure opportunism.

The right hon. Gentleman will not say whether he backs our NHS budget. He talked about what the shadow Chancellor is supposed to have said, but it was the shadow Chancellor who specifically said that he did not support our proposals to increase the NHS budget. Does the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne support our cancer drugs fund or not? He did not say. Does he back our integration of health and social care and the resources that we will use through the NHS to support social care and local authorities? He has not said.

The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Opposition oppose or support our commitment to the NHS. How could he? The Leader of the Opposition said before the spending review that he would publish his alternative proposals, but he never did so. The Opposition were promised it, but it did not happen. Without a plan for the economy and for public services, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne can say nothing about the NHS.

Our commitment to the NHS is clear. We have made tough choices on public spending so that we can protect the NHS and ensure that the sick do not pay for Labour’s debt crisis—

[Frank Dobson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman before.

The big gamble is not pressing ahead with reform; the gamble now would be to carry on as the last Government did, failing to implement the reforms that are necessary and desirable—and supported—across the service. The spending review and the White Paper give the health service a clear, practical, evidence-based framework for sustained improvement in the future. We will not go back to the days of top-down Whitehall micromanagement and bureaucracy. We will free the NHS to improve outcomes for all patients and to meet our vision of ensuring that health outcomes for the people of this country are among the best in the world. I urge the House to reject the Labour party’s motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Frank Dobson

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point and we have discussed this at Burnley. I feel strongly—indeed, I know—that we must continue to apply the tests that I have set out for such issues of configuration, including that they will deliver improving clinical outcomes, be safe for patients and, as he rightly says, reflect the commissioning intentions of local GPs representing local patients.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

How can it possibly be right that the world-renowned staff at Great Ormond Street hospital in my constituency face, under this proposition, a reduction of £16 million in the funding of that hospital? NHS funding is supposed to be ring-fenced, but from the point of view of people at Great Ormond Street, it seems to be rather more ringed than fenced.

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if we had listened to the Labour party in the comprehensive spending review, we would have cut the NHS budget, but we did not. We resisted the Labour party’s proposal, and resources for the NHS will increase in real terms, but there is then the matter of how those resources should be deployed to best effect. The application of the proposal—we have still to agree with children’s hospitals on how it will be applied—would have the overall effect of reducing Great Ormond Street’s total income by less than 2%.