Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

That is why my assumption is that, although the Government might not respond directly by accepting the new clause, colleagues on the Front Bench will be able to answer the point made by the Electoral Commission, as there is obviously regular engagement between the Government and the commission. I hope those on the Front Bench will be positive about that point.

It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said earlier, that new clause 3 is not supported by the Electoral Commission. For want of other guidance, the Electoral Commission is always the best place to go to for a steer on the appropriate response, so I will not support the new clause.

My concern is that the Government should give time for Committees to report and for their deliberations to be considered and that, when the Electoral Commission expressly supports the Government’s proposals or proposed changes, the Government should be responsive.

Let me make a general point about the timetable. Obviously, the Bill took a huge amount of time in gestation and was then born very quickly—it shot out of the cot, or cradle, or wherever it had been kept—

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

That is often the way.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes, it is. The Bill was held in dock for a long time, but then somebody suddenly pressed the button and out it came. I do not think that anyone can complain that there has not been enough time in Committee or on Report; the complaint is that, as people know, we have not had the pre-legislative scrutiny that all Bills ideally should have. I know that the Leader of the House would accept that in principle.

We are in the second day on Report and we must have Third Reading, so we cannot now do all the revision and careful scrutiny that we would like to. That is probably true across the House. I am in favour of many of the Bill’s principles, so I do not have issues with some of the changes, but I hope that the Government will ensure that there is the time for that careful consideration and to listen to the voices before the Bill goes from this place to the House of Lords.

A commission has been set up, prompted by the voluntary sector, to be chaired by the Lord Bishop of Oxford, who is a Member of the House of Lords. It is considering these issues and will have a valuable contribution to make, provided it can report soon. I hope, too, that the Government will take seriously what it says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The character of each of those scandals is of a particular kind. We are setting out to ensure that relationships between lobbyists and key decision makers in Government are more transparent in future, so that those who impact on our political system do so in the glare of public life. For most of the things the hon. Gentleman describes, people were trying to seek influence covertly, and in some cases were completely contrary to the law and the codes of conduct of this House and elsewhere, or of government. We must expose those relationships everywhere, where we can, and when people breach the code, we will deal with it.

The Bill has been widely debated in the House and beyond, and I thank Members for sharing their views, because healthy debate is a cornerstone of our democracy. The measures in the Bill have also been misrepresented, and during the passage of the Bill we have fully exposed where those misrepresentations lie. The hon. Member for Nottingham North explained on many occasions in the course of his 190 minutes of offerings that there had not been sufficient scrutiny of the Bill. I gently say to him, however, that one does not take the moral high ground over lack of scrutiny by taking up more time than is needed to explain the issues. [Interruption.] Actually, I think there are relatively few issues, and we have exposed them clearly and answered them fully. I encourage Members in the other place to read the debates. They will see that, as the Bill completed its passage through this House, those issues have been answered, and by virtue of the amendments tabled the Bill has been improved. As is always the case, all is capable of improvement.

[Simon Hughes]

There can be no serious objection to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill, but there are clearly continuing concerns about part 2. The Leader of the House has committed to considering the report by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee when it is published, but will he confirm the undertaking that he and his colleagues will work to ensure that the misrepresentations are dealt with, and that the concerns—and some uncertainties—can be discussed with Ministers, the voluntary sector and others, including the Electoral Commission, in the days ahead?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope I will be clear, just as I thought my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was clear during discussions on part 2 of the Bill. We had a number of meetings with a range of organisations, and we listened carefully to points raised in this House and by those organisations. I met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations before Committee stage, and I was clear that we would make changes to the definition of expenditure for electoral purposes, to remove what it regarded as the risks and uncertainty associated with those definitions. It was not our intention to change in substance the test for what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes, albeit that we intend—rightly, I think—to introduce greater transparency by including the range of controlled activities in a way consistent with recommendations by the Electoral Commission in its regulatory review.

It is important for us to have a registration threshold, so that those who want to spend a significant amount of money to influence electoral outcomes do so openly. They will not be prevented from doing that, but they will have to do it in a transparent way. It is important to get big money out of trying to influence electoral outcomes. It is therefore important to bring down the threshold, and for it to be disaggregated so that it cannot be spent disproportionately in individual constituencies or small geographic areas.

We did not want to change the test, in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, that only expenditure that could reasonably be regarded as intended to procure or promote the electoral success of a party or candidate should be controlled expenditure. That will still be true. In fact, it will be even more narrowly true, because we have taken out the strand relating to enhancing the standing of political parties at relevant elections, as it was capable of being used to create uncertainty.

Members have quoted from the letter by Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of NVCO. I urge them to read it carefully. It says that there is uncertainty associated with the definition in the 2000 Act, and that that continues to be the case. It is the job of the Electoral Commission—taking the test we have here, which is as clear as we could make it—to inform organisations through the guidance it produces. We stand ready to work with the Electoral Commission. It is an independent organisation and it is for it to decide how it goes about that task, but we could not have made it any clearer.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

Like my right hon. Friend, I am keen that we do not have some great bureaucratic invention to deal with this issue. There is one thing I do not understand, however. If a public relations company that has 500 clients comes to speak to my right hon. Friend or a Secretary of State or a permanent secretary, what would be the difficulty in making it a requirement that the company makes it clear which client it is coming to speak on behalf of? Otherwise, one does not get very much further by just knowing which company is making the representation.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend, characteristically, makes a better point than those on the Opposition Front Bench did. It is consistent with the approach that we are taking, but I respectfully suggest that we should not include such a requirement in the Bill, as amendment 100 seeks to do, because the register is not the place where those meetings are recorded. They are recorded in ministerial diaries. The issue is getting transparency in ministerial diaries.

We are the first Government to publish details of those meetings and other transparent relationships. We have extended the scope of that, not only in lobbying but in relation to the media; we publish that information. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), picking up the work undertaken by his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is engaged in ensuring that information provided by Departments provides sufficient detail about the subject of meetings. If one has the register, which discloses who the consultant lobbyist is and their clients, and Ministers’ diaries, which are clear about the purpose of a meeting, one should be able to see the character of the relationship —who is lobbying whom, and for what.

[Simon Hughes]

I completely understand that, and I commend the Government, as my right hon. Friend knows, for the change in the rules about the publication of diaries, which is very welcome. May I ask him a practical question, which may answer my concerns and those of others? What will be the intended delay between the meeting and the diary publication or the appearance in the register? People often need that knowledge soon after the event—not a long time after, when it may be too late to be relevant.

[Mr Lansley]

We have already made a commitment that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries for each quarter would be published by the end of the subsequent quarter.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that matters relating to growth were entirely relevant to yesterday’s Queen’s Speech debate on growth and the economy and that jobs and business, including export matters, were debated last Friday—I am sure he was in his place for that debate—so the subject of exports has been relevant to debates in the past week. He is right, though, that exports are essential. If we are to get growth, we cannot rely, as has been the case in the past, on debt-fuelled growth, whether Government debt or consumer debt. We need more balanced and sustainable growth, not least by winning in the global race, and that is what we have set out to do.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

To give the House a break from the Leader of the House’s colleagues’ obsessing about Europe, may we have, before the summer break, a serious debate about the Commonwealth countries and south Asia? There is a controversial Commonwealth conference in Sri Lanka, there has been a recent terrible tragedy with wider implications and civil disorder in Bangladesh, there is a new Government of Pakistan, there are difficulties in the Maldives and there is an Indian Government with issues of civil disorder and the death penalty. I think that many colleagues would appreciate an extended debate on those countries and their policies.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making an important point, not least in referring to the tragic events in Dhaka, by which many of us have been deeply shocked. All those issues, including the elections in Pakistan, demonstrate the importance of good governance and democracy in many of these countries. In Pakistan, we have seen for the first time the democratic election of a new Government following a full term from a previous democratically elected Government, which is positive. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a debate on all these countries, but it might be appropriate if he or others were to seek such a debate from the Backbench Business Committee. The prospect of the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would be a good basis for an application.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

1. what progress has been made on bringing forward proposals to set up a House business committee to consider Government business as set out in the coalition agreement.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I continue to consider proposals and will be discussing some practical proposals to meet this challenge when I give evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee next month.

[Simon Hughes]

Both coalition parties have a commitment to transfer more power over business from the Executive to Members of the House of Commons. Given that we made a commitment in the coalition agreement that this should happen by the third year of the Parliament, may I have a guarantee that, in this year—2013—and in the next, and third Session, that will be done?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will understand that any House business committee would need to add value to our existing processes. I hope that my right hon. Friend and others across the House will recognise that we have made substantial progress in that direction already in this Parliament, not least through the creation of the Backbench Business Committee. I want to make sure that we build on that and that it is not compromised, while meeting the requirement for responsive and effective business management and recognising—as the Wright Committee did—the opportunity for the Government to secure their legislative programme.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3)

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will note that it is a matter for hon. Members to determine to what extent they want to make progress on the next group of amendments, and the rate at which they make progress depends on the character of the debate. That is often true when we consider Report stages. The extent to which later groups of amendments can be considered depends on the time that Members choose to take in debating earlier groups. It may, of course, be that the time to consider amendments relating to press conduct will not occupy all the time available.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I hope that the Leader of the House will remember that I and others have suggested that he might look with colleagues at the very simple principle that when we use up some time for other business on a Report and Third Reading day, we have injury time to replace it, so that there is an automatic carry-over to give us the guaranteed time that we were expecting.

[Mr Lansley]

I do recall my right hon. Friend making that point previously. I simply say that it is an inflexible approach. It is our intention to assist the House in the way we structure programme motions, and that is precisely why this programme motion has been constructed around extending two hours beyond the moment of interruption. I emphasise that we are now four hours and 40 minutes away from the closure of the debate. If a normal Report stage falls on a Monday, it is not unusual for there to be two statements or an urgent question and a statement, which takes the House from 3.30 pm to about 5.30 pm, at which point we are four and a half hours away from the moment of interruption on that day, so I stress that we are not an unusual length of time away from the moment of interruption for a debate on Report.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Members will know the structure of the debate on Monday, and what is important is that, as was made clear yesterday and has been confirmed today, they will have the opportunity to have that debate. I took the trouble to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box, so that Members are aware of what is now planned.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. It is extremely regrettable that the all-party talks on Leveson have broken down, and extremely regrettable that the Prime Minister is no longer willing to take part in them. I am clear on behalf of my colleagues here—and, I think, the official Opposition and other parties—that we do not think a simple charter, without seeking to implement Leveson as recommended, will be at all sufficient. Will the Leader of the House elaborate on Monday’s business? Given that it is likely that other amendments will be tabled—they are actively being constructed at this moment—can he make sure there is sufficient time to debate not just a Conservative amendment but other amendments? That means we will not have a short day at all, because some of us are determined to get it right and not dishonour our pledge made after the Leveson report.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend will have been listening carefully to what I said in my statement. I freely acknowledge that we do not always satisfy everybody in terms of the time made available, but I did say in my statement that colleagues must expect business on Monday to go beyond the moment of interruption, and I fear that will have to be the case. That will allow a debate, and without dwelling on precisely how we achieve that, my and my colleagues’ purpose, through the usual channels, will be to ensure that this House can have the debate—including the votes—that will enable it to resolve the issue, I hope very positively, so that all of us who are concerned to ensure that the Leveson report is implemented in principle see that happen. The Prime Minister set out some very clear proposals that will enable that to happen. I do not suggest for one moment that we will vote on those and not on other amendments, if others are presented. But the House should be given that opportunity.

NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No. Let me reiterate to the hon. Gentleman the point I have just made, because what he describes is not my policy. If there are proposals, they are proposals that have been generated in north-west and west London, and the safe and sustainable review is an independent review. It is not establishing the Government’s policy; it is an independent review in the NHS, looking at how services can be improved.

The review was not in any sense about costs; it was entirely about how we sustain the highest quality of excellent care for patients. The same will be—needs to be—true in relation to services in west London for emergency care. I will not go through this all again, but I reiterate that, if people object and say that such an aim will not be achieved, it is open to a local authority to refer the matter to a mere Secretary of State on the basis that the tests I have set down have not been met.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I welcome the encouraging and successful results of the work of our NHS staff in delivering the outcomes that the Secretary of State has reported in this first annual report. A vox pop in one of our local papers last month showed that everybody bar one thought that the NHS was doing a good job. The only complaint was that one person had to wait a little too long to be seen by their GP.

One thing that would encourage people also is to know that, if there ever are proposals to discontinue NHS services or to transfer them from NHS management to private or voluntary sector management, they will always be subject to consultation and proceed only with the consent of the public.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Let me just separate those two parts. First, when there are changes in a service, such as when there is a proposal to change the provider of community services from, for example, an NHS-owned provider to an independent sector provider, they will be a subject for local consultation.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when there is any proposal not to provide a service, the Secretary of State is responsible under legislation for the provision of a comprehensive health service. It is not open, as I have made clear to the right hon. Member for Leigh, to the NHS to discontinue the provision of NHS services. It has to—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position, “It is doing so,” but he is completely wrong. I wrote to him this morning.

We have stopped precisely the things that he said used to happen under the Labour Government, and it is precisely the case that trusts and future commissioners will have to maintain a comprehensive health service. They can apply clinical criteria and judge certain treatments to be of relatively poor value, but they must always maintain a service and show how they are responding to the clinical needs of their patients.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

That is indeed true, and my hon. Friend will also be aware—the Future Forum was clear about this—that the NHS benefits from the transfer of competition powers. The Bill does not create any new competition powers in the NHS; it transfers the exercise of competition powers from the Office of Fair Trading to Monitor, as a sector-specific regulator, as we agreed in the coalition agreement. That is what the Bill does, and that is a better protection for the NHS compared with what would otherwise be the application of competition rules, and before—[Interruption.] Labour Members mutter, but it has become apparent over recent weeks that in 2006, when the right hon. Member for Leigh was a Health Minister, it was their Government who received legal advice that demonstrated that their changes had introduced the application of EU competition rules into the NHS.

[Simon Hughes]

Will the Health Secretary amplify his answer to our Scottish National party colleague, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), and make it quite clear that both Government policy and, now, the construction of the Bill not only prevent private sector activity from going out of the health service in terms of finance, but restrict the method of expanding private sector activity? The controls are now in the Bill, even if they were not at the beginning.

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

At the last election the average waiting time for in-patient treatment was 8.4 weeks. In December 2001, when the most recent data were published, it had come down to 7.7 weeks. The right hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment in the NHS is now more than half what it was at the last election.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for accepting many of the amendments to the Bill proposed by our colleagues and others and thank his colleague in the House of Lords for accommodating not only Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, but Labour peers who have joined us in bringing forward such amendments. Will he give an undertaking to continue to work collaboratively to improve the Bill to the very end and reject Labour’s allegations that it did not force privatisation on the NHS, which we are definitely not doing?

NHS Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand my right hon. Friend. My colleagues and I very much look forward to the conclusions of the Justice Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Further advice from my right hon. Friend, not only to me but to the Prime Minister, is always welcome.

[Simon Hughes]

I defend the Government’s record on the openness of information, and I am a clear believer that the Freedom of Information Act, which I and many Liberal Democrats supported, is the right way forward. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the Government are doing nothing other than following the policy provided for in the Act, which is that when there is a dispute, including when the Government and the Information Commissioner have a different view, the matter properly goes to the tribunal, and the Government respond positively to the tribunal’s decision?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because I had not intended to quote the Information Commissioner, who wrote an article in The Observer in which he rightly states that he is not infallible. The Government have the right to appeal to the tribunal and we have exercised that right. The tribunal is a proper place in which the public interest test can be applied.

Let me return to the reasons why we do not publish high-level risk registers, the first of which is candour. To be effective, a risk register requires all involved—not necessarily the officials responsible for the policy, but others—to be frank and open about the potential risks involved. It is their job to think the unthinkable and to look at worst-case scenarios. It is vital that nothing is done to inhibit the process of identifying risk. If people are in doubt about the confidentiality of their views, they will inevitably think twice before committing themselves to such direct and candid language in future. Without full candour, risk registers across the Government would be bland and anodyne. In effect, they would cease to be of practical value. Inevitably as a consequence, that would lead to a reduction in the quality of advice given to Ministers.

The second reason is that disclosure can increase the likelihood of some risks happening—it is like a self-fulfilling prophesy. When some risks are made public, those potentially affected are likely to act in a way that could increase the likelihood of the risk actually happening. Let us imagine publishing the risk registers of banks—no doubt the shadow Secretary of State would tell us that the risk registers of banks owned by the Government should be published. The consequence of publishing such risks would be to precipitate financial events.

Lord Turnbull, former head of the civil service, and not under this Government, said in another place:

“Managers might be reluctant to be frank in public about operational difficulties if that would undermine their ability to make contingency plans or could trigger an event before their plans are ready.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2011; Vol. 733, c. 729.]

The purpose of a risk register is to secure mitigation of those risks, not to precipitate them.

National Health Service

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is a shadow Treasury Minister, so he must know that the expression “real terms” has consistently been used in relation to the GDP deflator, which is independently estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That is the basis on which we do these calculations, so the Wales Audit Office will have calculated the real-terms changes in budgets in each of the countries of the United Kingdom on that basis. John Appleby from the King’s Fund has estimated an 8.3% real-terms cut in the NHS budget in Labour Wales.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is, justifiably, giving a robust performance. He said that his job is to shine a light into the NHS to make sure there is a better service for patients. Can he assure us that the recent findings about the care of the elderly in our hospitals and the recommendations of the Cavendish report on that issue will receive the Department’s full attention, as that is one of the areas where the NHS often fails to fulfil the expectations of patients and their families?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk with Camilla Cavendish and to read much of what she has written.

In January, I asked the Care Quality Commission to undertake dignity and nutrition inspections. They were nurse-led, unannounced inspections across NHS hospitals. The reasons for doing so were clear. I do not say this to denigrate the NHS, but many of us were concerned about two issues. First, although patients admitted to hospitals might get very good clinical care, the standards of personal care were often not as good as they should be, and they were seriously deficient in some cases. Secondly, the last Labour Government had star ratings for hospitals, the net effect of which was as follows. On the Healthcare Commission website, there would be a green dot against a hospital, which was often taken to mean, “This hospital is fine.” However, we all knew that some hospitals had tremendous reputations and world-beating clinical care in some respects and some wards where care was fantastic, but that care in neighbouring wards could be seriously deficient. The dignity and nutrition inspections have addressed that.

The CQC will follow up wherever it has found concerns. In addition, it will undertake similar unannounced inspections of learning disability services and there will be 500 unannounced inspections of care homes, to seek out and expose poor performance or poor care in those areas—and, I hope, demonstrate where good care is provided. There will be an additional follow-up inspection of a further 50 NHS hospitals.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. May I raise a linked point? One of the issues most frequently raised with me both in my constituency and elsewhere is that families and patients often do not feel that they have consistent contact with just one person who is responsible for the management of the care in a hospital. Instead, there is a range of people whom they do not know, except for what is printed on their name badges. They know the consultant, but they do not know who is responsible on a day-to-day basis for the delivery of 24-hour care. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that is also on his agenda?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is not only the case in hospitals, where people can sometimes ask, “Under whose care is my husband?” It is also especially true in community care. I hope that there will be more integrated services in the community, but although there may be a range of providers, there must be an integrated service with a clear line of accountability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that we published a quality standard for ovarian cancer, and that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), published the outcomes strategy for cancer, which will have been relevant to many of the issues to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I continue to look forward to the results of a major trial on screening for ovarian cancer, but I am afraid that I anticipate that we shall not be able to see the results and recommendations for nearly three years.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

4. How many 24-hour GP services are in operation; and if he will make a statement.

NHS Future Forum

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Today’s proposals are clearly winning the support of the health professionals and of political colleagues, but to win the support of the public and the patients I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give one further assurance that these plans will give greater local democratic accountability for the NHS than ever before and will therefore mean no enforced local privatisation of services, which happened under the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that in our response to the Future Forum we will strengthen the role of health and wellbeing boards, deliver more integrated care and ensure that the local health and wellbeing strategy is a central document in determining the shape of commissioning in the NHS, social care and public health. The powers, including those for service reconfiguration in an area, will be maintained so that they must continue to meet the four tests I set out last year. The public voice will therefore be at the forefront of the response to any changes in the local service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

3. What processes he has put in place to allow lay members of the public and elected public representatives to contribute to discussions on the reform of the NHS.

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

Following formal consultation last year, and as I told the House on 4 April, we are taking this opportunity to pause, listen, reflect and improve the Health and Social Care Bill. A total of 119 events have already been organised centrally, and the regional and local NHS will organise many more. Those events will allow us to hear a full range of views from professionals, the public and patients.

[Simon Hughes]

The Health Secretary knows that colleagues welcome the pause and the opportunity to reflect on what changes might be beneficially made to the legislation. Will he assure us that lay people and elected representatives, such as councillors and others, will be fully engaged in the process? The professionals have had their say, and they have very strong views, but the patients and elected people need to have their say, too.

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between Lord Lansley and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No.

The fact is terribly clear that before the election the Labour Government said that in three years the NHS would have to save between £15 billion and £20 billion. The Labour party never said in government that that money, if saved in the NHS, would be reinvested in the NHS. The other point is that when we came to the spending review, in which we agreed £10.7 billion extra for the NHS over the life of this Parliament, the shadow Secretary of State’s friends, who were then responsible, said that we should cut the NHS. We do not need to speculate about what they said they would do, because we can look at the example of Wales. The Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government are proposing to cut the NHS budget in Wales by 5%, while we are increasing it. We know exactly what Labour would do if they were in charge of the NHS: they would cut it. We have not cut it and are going to protect it.

[Simon Hughes]

I share absolutely my right hon. Friend’s view that the protection of the budget and the commitment to the principles of the NHS, which he has just enunciated, are really valuable and that Labour’s record in forcing privatisation undermines its whole argument. He knows that there are concerns. Having come back from the debate in my party, I ask him straightforwardly whether he will take on board the concerns expressed and look at ways to strengthen and further improve the Bill as it passes though this House and the House of Lords.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend was busy in Sheffield over the weekend, but he might have heard me say on Sunday that where there are legitimate concerns, founded in reality rather than myth, about how we will secure the NHS and its modernisation for the future, we will listen. We have listened and changed the policy before the Bill was introduced. We have already amended the Bill during the course of its passage so far and will always look to clarify and improve it as it proceeds.