Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand what my hon. Friend says. As he says, this is, and should be, clinically led, and it should be evidence-based. He will recall, no doubt, that this has been happening over the years; it is a steady process, not something that started under this coalition Government. It is sometimes the necessary consequence of securing access to sufficient staff with sufficient expertise and sufficient regular practice to be able to provide a 24/7 service; we need a 24/7 NHS. It should not, however, lead to a loss of access that has a damaging impact on outcomes; it should be outcomes-based. In relation to his local area, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond specifically to his point.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

This House has made real progress on scrutinising important public appointments. Will the Leader of the House outline what process will be in place to allow the House to scrutinise the Government’s nomination for the next European Commissioner?

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the Prime Minister in this House and my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in the House of Lords yesterday made it clear that while this nomination is one for the Prime Minister, it is open to the scrutiny Committees of the House to request, as they could on any nomination for commissioner, that evidence be given to them. It will be a matter for the nominee concerned as to how to respond.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

To be as helpful as I can, I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to my hon. Friend on this issue. However, other Members may also be interested in it, so I will check with him whether there is a way he can inform them about the issue she raises.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Peter Oborne, writing in today’s Telegraph, says that he warned the then future Prime Minister that he would be

“making an extremely worrying statement about the type of government he plans to lead if he allows Coulson anywhere near Downing Street”.

Given these widespread concerns expressed at the time, may we have a statement on the vetting processes used at the time and now, so that we make sure that vetting is of the highest status that can possibly be achieved?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit confused. The vetting process is a security vetting process, which is quite distinct from the choice that the Prime Minister rightly makes about whom he employs as his advisers, including in special adviser positions. Those are not the same process and should not be regarded as such. However, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday and as is reflected in the evidence to Leveson, a process of inquiry was of course undertaken when Andy Coulson was first appointed director of communications to the Conservative party. At that time and subsequently, questions were asked and assurances were received, which unfortunately led to—as we completely understand—the Prime Minister giving Mr Coulson a second chance, but it proved to be misplaced.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the important work it does in advising on the developments that are coming forward. We do have opportunities, not least in relation to new settlements and prospective garden cities, not only to reflect the successful design concepts in architecture of the past but to establish something in the 21st century that will be part of our architectural heritage for the future. As far as a debate is concerned, the subject might lend itself to an application for an Adjournment debate.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituents are concerned that the future TransPennine rail franchise may curtail services from Cleethorpes to Manchester via Scunthorpe. Can we have a debate on TransPennine rail services?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might also like to seek an Adjournment debate on that matter, but, to be as helpful as I can, I will ask Ministers at the Department for Transport to respond to him and update him on the position in relation to the TransPennine link.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Secretary will update the House on Monday, following what appears to have been an extremely successful global summit, not simply because we brought so many countries together for the purpose of ending sexual violence in conflict, but because of the vigour of the NGO community coming together in the same way. The message being sent out is that people need to understand the sheer scale and enormity of sexual violence in conflicts and that so very few people have been held responsible. That must not be true in future. It must be that the people responsible for such things will genuinely be held to account for the crimes they commit.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In March, I asked the Leader of the House when the Government would deliver the will of the House and the country by banning wild animals in circuses. He teased me rather in his response by saying that he could not pre-empt the Queen’s Speech. We have now had the Queen’s Speech and the measure is not in it. When will the Government bring forward legislation?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on this, but unfortunately, as I said last week, it has not been possible to find time in the short Session ahead of us.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that these are issues with which parts of the NHS have wrestled for a very long time. My view, and I think the view of the Government, is that clinical commissioning groups, in their responsibility for commissioning, should take full account of the NICE clinical guidelines. NICE has published fertility guidelines, which are not mandatory but are there for a reason. It should be recognised that the recommendation of three full cycles of IVF and the age limit is evidence based. Clinical commissioning groups should look to the evidence. If they do otherwise, large amounts of money will have been spent on investigations of infertility, but the opportunity to maximise the chances of conception in the IVF that follows will be undermined. It is important to use the resources that are used in the investigation to support proper treatment.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituent, Pete Woodcock, is unable to claim jobseeker’s allowance because of treatment for his advanced cancer, yet Atos says that his application for the personal independence payment will not be processed for at least five months. He writes that to make sure that his family can manage, he will be cancelling his treatment and will sign back on jobseeker’s this week. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to explain why PIP is performing so badly and to say what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the development of the personal independence payment system is proceeding in stages and it is important that we get it right. It is geared to the needs of people with disabilities far more than the previous system, under which they were often not subject to assessment for years on end. I recall that the figures for those with life-limiting illnesses showed that a high proportion of those assessments had been undertaken. However, I will look at the figures and ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions responds to him. I am sure that we would be grateful to have the details of any particular case so that we can respond to it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Well, my hon. Friend tempts me. Two days, as the programme motion specifies, is the right answer for the time being. Of course if we were able to go beyond that, it would allow us to find out what it was specifically that the Labour party objected to that caused it to vote against the Finance Bill. Otherwise, we will have to tell the British public that it is against the increase in the personal tax allowance, against the reduction in corporation tax for businesses and, I am afraid, against the long-term economic plan that is delivering for the people of this country.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In the context of raising the participation age, may we have a debate on whether it is still appropriate for 16 to 18-year-old learners to be funded 22% less than pre-16 learners?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister for Schools has answered that question on a number of occasions. It relates of course to the necessity of managing within budgets for those who are of that age in that sector. As he raises it again, I will ask my hon. Friends to return to him with any additional information that they can give him.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. It is tremendously important. I pay tribute to the work that he and so many people across Kettering are clearly putting in to give young people opportunities for work experience and to enter the world of work. Happily, that is something we as a Government are doing as well, including through the 1.6 million apprenticeships already begun under this Government. The fact that youth unemployment is now lower than at the election is tremendously important. The youth claimant count is down by 118,000, long-term youth unemployment is down by 37,000 since last year, and through the youth contract we are giving lots of young people additional opportunities for work experience, which, with the traineeships and apprenticeships, is giving them much more diverse and appropriate routes into the world of work.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Despite the answer that the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), the reality is that energy-intensive industries are detrimentally affected by the coalition’s carbon floor tax. Not a penny of promised compensation has been given to them yet, and the Budget said that something would come over the hill in 2016. May we have a debate now on the impact of this Government’s unilateral carbon floor tax on energy-intensive industries?

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate what I said to the House. It is clear that the steps we are taking recognise that while we are meeting our objectives to deliver on decarbonisation, we must make sure not to do so in a way that discriminates against and disadvantages energy-intensive manufacturers in this country. That is what we are doing and what the Budget does.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It is an abuse, and it is important that it is dealt with. My hon. Friend will recall that we are taking further powers in the Immigration Bill which is now before the House of Lords. I will raise the issue with my colleagues at the Home Office, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that we take it seriously. We are legislating on it, and he may have an opportunity to raise it further in Home Office questions or in consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration Bill in due course.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In June 2011, the House made clear its view that wild animals should not be used in circuses. In March 2012, the Government gave a commitment to the House and the country that they would bring forward legislation to deal with the issue. Can the Leader of the House say when that legislation will be brought forward?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I am not in a position to pre-empt announcements on the introduction of legislation, especially in the run- up to the Queen’s Speech.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my hon. Friends at the Business, Innovation and Skills Department. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think we are lecturing companies. We are being clear about what we regard as social responsibility, and that companies have a responsibility that extends not only to their shareholders and employees but to the wider society. All companies should recognise that. Where the Government have a substantial shareholding in a company, of course we should use that shareholding similarly—in a socially responsible way. We are aiming for, and have seen, a substantial reduction in bonuses in the banking sector, which I know is occurring in those companies in which the Government have a shareholding.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary about the possibility of improving outcomes for pancreatic cancer patients through Abraxane?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary whether there is any opportunity to update the House. A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer continues to be very serious. The hon. Gentleman knows that survival rates for pancreatic cancer are very low in comparison with those for many other cancers, on which we have made considerable progress. In the Cancer Research UK laboratories in my constituency, I have seen the work being done on potential routes to the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer, but it is early days and I fear that the number of projects with good lines of inquiry are still few.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I am wrong, but my memory is that we had a debate on the Corston report in Westminster Hall. I will check on that and see to what extent I can ensure that the relevant Department adds a response on the issues she raises.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister ruled out giving more tax cuts to millionaires. In the interests of balance, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on how much more tax people on incomes of under £10,000 pay as a result of increases in VAT and employees national insurance?

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, the Prime Minister rightly stressed the coalition Government’s priority. In tough times, we are ensuring that those with the highest incomes pay a higher proportion of tax, and that low income earners and the lowest paid have their tax reduced by £700. Three million people are out of tax altogether, so those on lower incomes benefit the most from the Government’s tax policies.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess that I had not particularly noticed that, although I spend a lot of time in New Palace yard coming and going, but I will talk to the Department for Transport, which is responsible for the Government Car Service, and see what its view of this is.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

When meeting with the Education Committee before Christmas the Education Secretary gave a commitment to publish the impact assessment on the cut in funding for 18-year-olds. This commitment was reiterated by Ministers at the Dispatch Box on Monday. Having checked with the Vote Office and Committee members, it is my understanding that that still has not been published. One would think that at the time of making a decision the impact assessment would be available. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the impact of this decision to damage the education of 18-year-olds?

[Mr Lansley]

I was in the House and I heard what was said and I will ask the Department when it intends to publish in the way proposed.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a point of real importance. Many Members are, like me, aware of the pressure on annuitants buying annuities at times when yields can be relatively low, highlighting the importance of their getting the best possible deal, the best possible information and, frankly, the lowest possible charges. If my hon. Friend raised this issue in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I cannot promise that a Treasury Minister would be there because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is going to respond to it. My hon. Friend could, however, be confident that if he raised the matter, Ministers would be made aware of it and would listen to what he had to say.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The education of 16 to 18-year-olds already receives 22% less funding than the education of those aged between five and 16. May we have an urgent debate on the impact of the 17% cut in funds for the education of 18-year-olds that was announced this week?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I will ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman’s question that was relevant to further education colleges, and that the Department for Education deals with his point about the overall distribution of education funding.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

We are anticipating the publication of Howard Davies’s interim report, and I am sure that the House will want to consider it. May I, however, gently remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that following the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, issues that they consider priorities can be debated by the House through an application to that Committee?

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Conservative North Lincolnshire council has said that it will not support people hit by the bedroom tax who smoke. May we have a debate in the House about how local authorities are or are not supporting people hit by the bedroom tax with discretionary housing payments?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions say this in the House, that additional resources have been made available to local authorities to help those with specific additional needs as a result of the spare room subsidy. In relation to precisely what local authorities are doing, I was not aware of the North Lincolnshire example, but I will of course speak to my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about whether they are aware of it and can respond to him.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I recalled him making it clear that there would be an annual report to the House. I do not think he made a specific commitment as to how that report would be received by the House and debated, but I will discuss that collectively and through the usual channels, as usually happens.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Prime Minister failed to acknowledge that more than 500 children’s centres have closed on his watch. May we have a debate about the impact of the closure of children’s centres on the Government’s watch?

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I did hear the Secretary of State respond to a question about Bristol, but not beyond Bristol. I am entirely familiar with the geography of the south-west, having lived in Exeter for four years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the rail investment programme, which is not just HS2—as he said, HS2 represents just a quarter of the investment during the next Parliament. Many projects in the programme were never proceeded with under the previous Government, but will have a positive impact on many parts of the country. If there is anything in particular that my colleagues can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) about this matter, I will ask them to do so.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It has always struck me that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is an honourable man so, notwithstanding the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I would have thought that he would want to come to the House and deal with these matters directly.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is indeed an honourable man and a man of integrity. I am happy to confirm to the House that the allegations are not true and there is no reason for him to come to make a statement. We make statements to the House to update it on something that has happened, not something that has not happened.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have read early-day motion 598, which highlighted world polio day last week. I cannot promise time immediately, but it would be appropriate to discuss this issue either through the Backbench Business Committee or in an Adjournment debate. It is very important that we achieve this aim, but it is fraught with risk, because of the circumstances we have seen most recently in Syria, where the breakdown of the health infrastructure as a consequence of the conflict has led to an outbreak of polio. We have to achieve polio eradication alongside getting health services into places such as Syria that do not have them at the moment.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

This week Tata Steel announced 500 job losses nationally, of which 340 will be in my constituency. May we have a statement or a debate on what the Government are doing to support the steel industry and steel workers at this time?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately offer a debate, but I will discuss this with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. They, along with Tata, recognise the strategic importance of that company to the United Kingdom and have together developed a joint Her Majesty’s Government-Tata Steel strategy to support the business and ensure that it is in the right position to support our growing economy in the future and to enable our competitiveness. Any redundancies are very regrettable, and we feel very much for the difficult time that the work force is experiencing. Jobcentre Plus and its rapid response service will be available and will do all it can to help to support those workers.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a specific point relating to his constituency and his local council. I hope his local council will listen to what he says. The Localism Act 2011 sets out to give power to local authorities and neighbourhood plans, and tries to ensure that they take account fully not only of the simplified national planning policy framework, but do so in the context of local decision making by local people. He is right to stress that point.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The independent living fund has transformed the lives of severely disabled people. May we have a debate on the likely impact of the decision to transfer the fund to local authorities? Severely disabled people are greatly concerned about the likelihood of losing their independence.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course talk to my hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions; it seems that I shall need to do that quite a lot today. The hon. Gentleman is describing the transfer of those funds into the hands of local authorities. Those local authorities will have the ability to look at a range of benefits and assess how they will work in the context of the link to people’s own housing responsibilities, and I know that that is proving to be a positive way of enabling people to manage to a budget more effectively. In so many of these circumstances, however, the ability to have discretion at the margin to deal with difficult cases is something that every council will have to look at carefully.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I can imagine how he and his constituents might be alarmed by an experience of that kind. I will, of course, raise it with my colleagues at DCLG and encourage them to respond to him regarding what powers are available and how they are appropriately used. He might note that our DCLG colleagues will be here answering questions on Monday, which might give him an opportunity to raise the matter then.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House spoke about the need for a debate on third-party influence. Does he feel that should include consideration of the impact of large, multi-thousand-pound donations from individuals such as John Nash, a chairman of Care UK, to Government Members?

[Mr Lansley]

I was a director in Conservative central office 20 years ago, when the Conservative party made it absolutely clear that donations to the party would not secure influence—they would not come with strings attached. In those two decades the Labour party appears to have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. It continues to be a party dominated by its paymasters; 81% of the resources that the Labour party depends on comes from trade unions. In quarter four last year, one trade union, Unite, gave Labour £832,990 and that did not come without strings—it came with many strings attached.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point on behalf of his constituent. He will be aware that the Government’s increase of the minimum wage will tip some carers over the earnings limit for carer’s allowance. Therefore, the Government are in the process of considering whether an increase in the earnings threshold is warranted and affordable. However, it should be kept in mind—my hon. Friend will know this and be advising his constituent of it—that the earnings limit for carer’s allowance is net of tax, national insurance contributions and certain other allowable expenses, which means that carers can earn significantly more than £100 a week and still get the carer’s allowance.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the impact of cuts to youth services such as those being carried out by Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire council in the Scunthorpe area on young people and their prospects?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a statement on that, which is a matter of his local authority making decisions. However, he will find that I have announced a debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday 16 May on the Education Committee report on careers guidance for young people, which is relevant to his point. He might wish to contribute to that debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary and his colleagues are actively engaged in precisely the negotiations that she describes. Of course, as we all appreciate, this is happening against the backdrop of the success that the Prime Minister achieved in the EU budget negotiations, which is terrifically important. We do need further reform of the common agricultural policy, and that is what this Government have set out to achieve. In terms of a debate in this House, I suspect that in the course of this process the European Scrutiny Committee will have an opportunity to look at these proposals, and it is of course open to it to make a decision on whether to refer them to the House for debate.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In the light of news that the Mersey gateway, like the Forth road bridge improvements, might well be built with Chinese steel, may we have a debate in this House about procurement policy for major infrastructure projects?

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Payment protection insurance mis-selling appears to have spawned another abuse: people are being subjected to unsolicited texts, e-mails and phone calls. In addition, spurious claims then have to be defended by businesses, such as those in my constituency, which is putting them at risk. Is it not time we had a debate on the behaviour of claims management companies?

[Mr Lansley]

My memory is that the issue was raised in the Backbench Business Committee’s discussions, but I cannot be sure at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I might talk with the Chair of the Committee. I think that it might have scheduled the debate and that it has already taken place, but I just do not remember entirely. However, there are certainly important opportunities for us to debate that.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), described in a Westminster Hall debate in July how we are approaching the issues relating to the militarisation of diamond finance. We are continuing to work with the non-governmental organisation Global Witness and other partners to consider the evidence prior to discussions with EU partners and, where appropriate, we will seek to retain or add names to the EU targeted measures list if there is a compelling legal justification to do so. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary further to update my hon. Friend.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am increasingly being contacted by constituents who are concerned about the impact the bedroom tax will have on their living standards when it comes into effect. That is further compounded by the shortage of one-bedroom accommodation for them to move to. May we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on how the Government intend to increase the supply of one-bedroom accommodation in the rented sector when the bedroom tax comes into effect?

[Mr Lansley]

I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman makes that point three days after he and his party voted against the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, which, among many other things, will enable more social and affordable housing to be built. For example, we will enable sites that are non-viable because of section 106 agreements to enter into new agreements so that that housing can be built. That is what we need to do, among other things, to create new and additional social housing.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue that also affects the constituencies of other hon. Members. The Association of Chief Police Officers lead on burglary is due to meet banks to establish the extent of the problem caused by the closure of secure storage and to offer crime prevention advice, including, where appropriate, the use of home safes. Moreover—I know that my hon. Friend will fully endorse this—this is further evidence of how police and crime commissioners, following their election, will be able to address such issues so that police forces can respond to them as part of their operational priorities.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for several weeks, the Chief Whip has struggled to answer questions about exactly what he said in Downing street. Is it time for a ministerial statement on ministerial answers?

[Mr Lansley]

No.

Health Transition Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Blackburn is not here; I told him that I would quote from his evidence to the Justice Committee. I will therefore not attempt further to interpret what his view might be. I think that what he said to the Justice Committee was consistent with the view that those implementing the FOI Act should bear it in mind that there was an exemption for the formulation and development of policy, as my hon. Friend implies. There was not an exemption for Cabinet collective discussion; there was an exemption for the formulation and development of policy. In each case, we have to weigh the public interest very carefully. Clearly, there will be many circumstances in which the public interest in disclosure outweighs the necessity for there to be a safe space for private discussions about issues of risk. In this case, in December 2010 my colleagues and I were clear that it would have been wholly wrong, and disruptive and damaging, to the policy development process for the document to be published at that time.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

What does the Secretary of State so fear about what is in the risk register that he refuses to show it the light of day and defies a tribunal ruling?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that I cannot ask the hon. Gentleman a question, but I wonder whether he has read the document I published on Tuesday about what is in the risk register. I bet he has not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that no decision has yet been taken on the location of children’s or adult congenital heart surgery centres in England. Neither the draft adult clinical standards nor the proposed standards for children’s services require services for children and adults to be collocated.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the relationship between adult and children’s cardiac services is properly considered as part of the review?

[Mr Lansley]

On both children’s and adult congenital heart services, all relevant clinical factors should be taken into account in the review, but I reiterate the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland): the standards for those services do not require children’s and adult services to be collocated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved outcomes in England; to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities; and to lead the reform of adult social care to support and protect vulnerable people.

[Nic Dakin]

If the argument is that doctors are the best people to commission health and manage finances, why not listen to doctors themselves, who universally reject the Government’s plans? Why not listen to the royal colleges and patients groups and drop the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman just does not know what is happening around the country. All over the country doctors taking clinical leadership in foundation trusts and NHS trusts, and GPs and their nursing and medical colleagues taking responsibility in the new clinical commissioning groups, are demonstrating that they can improve the quality of care for the patients they serve. They hear what is said by the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues and think they are completely out of touch with the world in which they live.

NHS Future Forum

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It was always clear that we would retain section 1(1) of the 1946 Act, which states that the Secretary of State will have a continuing duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. What has been asked of us is that the Secretary of State should have not only that duty but a duty to secure the provision of that health service and an oversight responsibility in relation to the national bodies charged with providing it, and we will respond positively to that request.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

This is a sorry tale of the Government going too far, too fast. What we have now is in danger of being a dog’s breakfast and the worst of all possible worlds. How much has this top-down reorganisation cost the UK taxpayer so far?

[Mr Lansley]

The listening exercise has to date—on 14 June—cost £36,640.97. The process of modernisation in the NHS is saving hundreds of millions of pounds every month. We know that we have to not only increase resources to the NHS but deliver continuously improving productivity and efficiency in the NHS. The Labour party always ignored that and failed on that; we will not fail on that.

NHS Reform

Debate between Lord Lansley and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I can assure my hon. Friend that one of the central beauties of the Bill is that in future it will matter less what my priorities are and much more what the priorities are of his local communities and general practitioners and others who are responsible for commissioning in his area. On that basis, I have no doubt about the importance and priority that they will attach to community hospitals.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I share and welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to reduce bureaucracy, so I am concerned to know why Monitor’s budget is increasing by 600% over four years to police the marketisation of the NHS. Is that not poor value for money?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government are introducing for the very first time a clear limitation and reduction on the running costs of the NHS. That will include the Department of Health, the arm’s length bodies, the strategic health authorities and the primary care trusts—the whole shooting match. We will reduce those costs by more than a third in real terms. Monitor forms part of that. We have made it clear that its estimated total running costs will be between £50 million and £70 million. That is more than at present because its responsibilities will be considerably larger than they are at present.