Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian Mearns

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. He might want look for opportunities to raise the matter himself, perhaps in an Adjournment debate. In any case, I think that it is an important subject for all of us to be aware of. Wherever we are engaged in public policy making, I hope that it will be evidence-based and objective. One of the Nolan principles is objectivity. That should be as true for those who seek to influence policy as it is for those who make it.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Last night I attended a function organised by the all-party group on rail in the north at which Northern Rail set out its future investment programme. Unfortunately, it will only go as far north as York. At another recent meeting, Network Rail outlined its proposals for the next control period, none of which will go beyond York. The current disparity in public infrastructure spending between London and the north-east is 520:1. May we have a debate on when this Government will put that right?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, not least from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech at the beginning of last week, of the importance that we attach to the further promotion on infrastructure that enables all parts of the United Kingdom to have maximum access to the economic growth being generated by this Government’s long-term economic plan. High-speed rail will clearly make a significant difference, but there are many other projects being promoted by Network Rail. I will draw the attention of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport to the point the hon. Gentleman makes as we approach the publication later this year of the infrastructure plans for the next 10 years.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian Mearns

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is a great cheerleader for mid-Wales, and he is absolutely right to suggest that there are some great businesses helping the UK to compete in the global race by investing and expanding their operations. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State, but if he is in his place next Thursday when the Secretary of State is responding to questions, he might have a further opportunity to raise the matter then.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will have noted that IPSA is back in the news. May we have a statement on what IPSA is going to do to improve its cumbersome IT systems, which waste an awful lot of MPs’ staff time, and to address the fact that the organisation remains incommunicado for large parts of the day?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not promise a statement at the moment but, if I may, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s point to the attention of my colleagues on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I know that the Committee has raised a number of issues with IPSA as a consequence of its examination of the organisation’s estimate. We will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board when we further consider some of these IPSA issues.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian Mearns

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Clearly, my hon. Friend may seek opportunities for a debate, but it would be inappropriate for the Government to do so when we are in the midst of the further review undertaken by Howard Davies, which will provide an interim report next year and a final report in 2015. As my hon. Friend and the whole House knows, these are immensely complicated issues that it is not easy to resolve in a short period of time.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

This year in Manchester two people have been arrested, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned for abusing police officers, and in South Shields in the north-east of England an arrest has taken place for a similar offence. May we have a debate on policing, prosecutions and sentencing as a matter of urgency, as it is very topical?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that members of the public watching our discussion might wonder whether it would not be better for Members to devote themselves to the interests of their constituents and new issues rather than constantly trying to contrive new ways of returning to an issue that, frankly, was closed weeks ago. The Chief Whip apologised and that apology was accepted, and on that basis the matter was closed.

Breast Implants

Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said in my statement: if women are entitled to NHS treatment in those sorts of circumstances, they should come to the NHS and we will provide the standard of care that I outlined.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has demonstrated his obvious concern for the women affected by this situation. Does he accept that they are gravely concerned about the difference of opinion that is emerging between Governments in the countries where these implants have been used, in particular, the difference between our Government’s advice and that of the country where the implants were manufactured, France? Will he also reflect on whether companies in the private sector that are giving either cosmetic or other treatments of this nature to women are properly insured, so that even if they go out of business the insurer will cover women for future treatments should something go wrong?

[Mr Lansley]

On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, I refer him to what I said earlier about how we might deal with that in the future. On the point about other countries, I have spoken to Commissioner Dalli and I have spoken to my French counterpart twice. What I want to be clear about is that the French authorities did recommend routine removal of implants, but from any individual woman’s point of view we are, in effect, recommending that the same thing should happen: any individual woman should see the clinician responsible, should be examined—by imaging, if necessary—and should consider, in the light of that and in a clinical decision with her adviser, what is right for her. That will be true in France and in Britain. I wish to emphasise that we have not seen, on advice, scientific evidence that justifies the recommendation of the routine removal of these implants. We are not saying to women that we think they should have them removed; we are saying that women should have access to imaging. Clearly, women with symptoms, or women for whom evidence of rupture or leakage has been provided through imaging, may well choose to have the implants removed, and we would support that.