Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Steve Barclay

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

What is very clear is that after the election we actually managed to eliminate many of the long waits that patients were experiencing. Approximately 180,000 people had been waiting over a year for treatment and we have reduced that figure to below 1,000. That is what people across the country are experiencing in the NHS. The NHS, with rising demand, is managing to use its resources more effectively to sustain the quality of services.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Nikki Sams was just 26 when she died of cervical cancer. Her doctor failed to spot the symptoms eight times but escaped any disciplinary action by retiring, despite having been investigated previously. May we have a statement on when the General Medical Council will get the powers it needs to change the Cohen judgment, which restricts accountability, and allow it to appeal against lenient sentences, as doctors can appeal against sentences they regard as too harsh?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall discuss with my colleagues in the Department of Health. My hon. Friend will recall, not least following the Law Commission report, that there are plans and legislative proposals for the further reform of health professional regulation. I will discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health what progress has been made and whether we will be able better to answer my hon. Friend’s precise questions.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Steve Barclay

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that we did have a statement from the Justice Secretary at the time when the failings of the companies concerned were identified. He made clear our determination to secure redress for the taxpayer, and I pleased to say that it is evident that he succeeded in that regard.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the proposed sale at auction of Wisbech magistrates court? One taxpayer- funded body, the Ministry of Justice, is selling it at a reduced rate because a second taxpayer-funded body, Cambridgeshire police, is refusing to vacate it as a sitting tenant, thus preventing a third taxpayer-funded body, the local authority, from redeveloping the site, and therefore not offering the taxpayer value for money.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Steve Barclay

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a debate at this moment. I heard the Information Commissioner talking about this on the radio this morning. One of the most important things is for there to be clarity in the minds of those in organisations, and those who advise them, on what the 1998 Act requires and what it does not require. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard in the exchanges after the statement yesterday, there are clear exemptions under the Act relating to the public interest.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Further to the concerns I raised on the Public Accounts Committee 18 months ago about whether Care Quality Commission inspectors had the clinical experience to understand the industry they were inspecting, and given that the comments on the radio yesterday by the new chair suggest that that is still the case, may we have a debate on the Care Quality Commission and, in particular, the way in which senior officials have escaped accountability, including some who chaired that body and now sit in the other place?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has examined the work of the Care Quality Commission carefully and critically through his work on the Public Accounts Committee. What is clear from what we saw yesterday, as well as the report produced by Grant Thornton, is that decisions were made—in fact, under the last Government—relating to the generalist character of inspection and the disbandment of the specialist investigations team, which is one of a number of a things that, on reflection, contributed to a very poor regulatory performance at that time. The CQC has new management, new chief inspectors and a lot of opportunities. I hope we will have an opportunity at some point for a debate that not only looks at the causes of that regulatory failure in the past, but gives an opportunity to the CQC to demonstrate how it can be a changed organisation.

Health Transition Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Steve Barclay

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I took the decision to veto the publication of the risk register, in justification of the Government’s view that it should not be disclosed, in December 2010. I am now making it very clear that I have put all the risk areas covered in the risk register in the public domain in the document that sets them out. The issue is not about the publication of the risk register now; it is about whether it was right to refuse its publication in December 2010. He knows perfectly well that that is the question and that is the judgment we made.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

If the position of Labour Members is that the ministerial veto should apply only to Cabinet discussions, is it not odd that the legislation they passed does not contain that description? Is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) spoke for the reality of government rather than the opportunism of opposition?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have recently made it clear that where there is unsustainable PFI debt—as is the case for seven PFI contracts—we stand ready to support those trusts in meeting some of those costs, which we inherited from the last Government. Beyond that, working with the Treasury, we have undertaken a pilot project that has demonstrated how 5%, on average, can be taken out of the cost of PFI contracts through the better management of them. I hope that will be applied across the country. I welcome, as I know my hon. Friend does, the way in which Northumbria Healthcare, with its local authorities, is looking at resolving its PFI debts, and if that represents value for money, I am sure that others across the country will benefit from the experience.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to develop more effective performance management of GPs.

Contaminated Blood

Debate between Lord Lansley and Steve Barclay

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know from the response that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to October’s Back-Bench debate that we intended to place a note in the Library. We have done so. She has had further occasions to discuss these arrangements with colleagues in the House. The discussions between my officials and officials in the Republic of Ireland have confirmed that a figure of about £750,000 is not inappropriate as an estimate of the level of compensation per individual paid in the Republic of Ireland. That would support the view that we took in the House that the cost of providing compensation, if one were to do so, on the scale required in the Republic of Ireland would be in excess of £3 billion. As I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), it is not on the basis of cost alone that we have reached that view; it is on the basis that the circumstances in the Republic of Ireland are unique and do not apply in this country. Therefore, we have assessed the case for support on the basis of the circumstances here and on an ex gratia basis, not on the basis of liability and consequent compensation.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I also thank the Minister for the welcome measures announced in the statement and for the progress that has been made after so long. May I return to the average figure of £750,000, because there is a concern that that figure could be confusing the average and the mean? If we take a figure between 500 and a million and say that it is the average, it does not provide an average figure. Such an approach is akin to saying that the price of a car ranges from £10,000 to £1 million and therefore the average price of a car is £500,000. In relation to the discussions that the Minister has had with officials in Ireland, will he confirm that the total paid in Ireland—the total payment in terms of Irish settlements on this matter—is less than £1 billion?

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said in response to previous questions, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friends have done in support of their constituents and others. It is not simply a question of trying to calculate what the level of compensation is in Ireland; that is not the issue. We are not making a comparison with Ireland; we are making a judgment. In this case, we have especially done so in relation to hepatitis C, on the basis of the report of the clinical expert group, to try to assess the level of harm and the consequences that have flowed from the transfusions that took place, albeit that in this country the NHS acted on the basis of its best efforts to provide the best possible care for patients. The Republic of Ireland is a unique, and quite distinct, case in that because of mistakes made, a finding of liability was arrived at which leads to compensation. In our case, we are not in that position. We are in the position of recognising the harm and distress that has occurred and, through an ex gratia scheme, providing support to those who have been harmed and their families.