Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

On the assumption that the Minister is not going to speak to her amendments in the group at this point, I would like to speak to my Amendment 344.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about Clause 58 as it is in the Bill at present, but the effect of two amendments in this group—government Amendments 278A and 346E—is to delete the current Clause 58 and replace it with the new clause proposed in Amendment 346E, which will come before Clause 88. Just so that noble Lords are aware, that new clause more or less reproduces Clause 58, but extends it. The Minister will want to explain why that is the case. However, the point made by the noble Lord is exactly the same for the replacement text.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who tabled Amendment 275A in this group, is unable to be with us this morning. The purpose of the amendment is very straightforward and it will, I hope, be agreed on all sides of the House: when making an environmental delivery plan, regard should be had to small house- builders—indeed, so far as possible, account should be given and possibilities exercised to enable small housebuilders to conduct their business. The most important thing when the Government publish viability assessment guidance is that, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, the objective of the EDP is not to make development economically unviable. That being the case, this is an issue for smaller housebuilders, which find it most difficult to bear the burden of regulation and cost when preparing development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on the point about small housebuilders made in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the viability assessment guidance will specifically mention them and make allowance for them.

My Amendment 344, which is also about making an environmental delivery plan, makes a very simple point: at some point, Natural England needs to know in which potential developments it needs to consider making an environmental delivery plan. I do not see that in the Bill at the moment. The purpose of my amendment is to say that when local planning authorities are ready to put sites forward in, for example, a submission to the Secretary of State for the adoption of a local plan—not when they call for sites or are considering sites; this can be in guidance—they should notify Natural England of sites which have protected features, with protected sites or protected species involved. We know those sites are going to be pretty evident, so they should identify those themselves and notify Natural England.

I hope the Minister will say that this is intended to happen anyway, but it would be a good idea if it were expressed in the Bill, so that local planning authorities, which, of course, operate in their plan-making processes according to statutory timetables and statutory provisions, have a statutory requirement to notify Natural England about the potential need to make an environmental delivery plan. That is all I wish to say about this.

I just want to note something so that noble Lords are not surprised: when we get to Clause 58, we are going to take it out. But it is now that we are discussing what is effectively the language of Clause 58, and it is worth being aware that this is the case.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 242B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I strongly support the part of his amendment that inserts proposed new subsection (2A), but I am not so sure about proposed new subsection (2B)—(2B) or not (2B), that is the question he is proposing. Nevertheless, my suggestion to him is that I do not think anybody concerned about nature should then also try to limit growth; the two can be done hand in hand.

If Natural England or the Secretary of State for Housing need more resources or decide to subcontract to any designated person, that could be a private developer, which could come up with an EDP under the laws proposed by the Government. I am not saying that would be right, but people should be aware of the scope of where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment on Report to the full extent.

I think proposed new subsection (2A) is a very sensible approach on nutrient neutrality, the consideration of which is one of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development. This is the reason the Government have given more broadly. Of course, they have also latched on to a variety of things like jumping spiders and even ancient woodland, while still expressing concern for irreplaceable habitat. Nevertheless, we should have that very specific focus on what has been holding up the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised to deliver by the end of this Parliament. We should keep focused on where these potential EDPs need to be, and that will keep Natural England focused as well.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support several of the amendments and will speak to most of them. Amendment 146, the lead amendment, is, in essence, the right approach. The importance of chalk streams has been mentioned. I used to live near the chalk stream in Hampshire, the River Test, and as a Minister I visited many.

I welcome the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the importance of local nature recovery strategies and the land use framework. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Caithness have gently teased the Minister—often it is easy to say things in opposition and then, all of a sudden, you have to face the realities of government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked about the land use framework. A couple of years ago, I wrote quite a substantial LUF. MHCLG—DLUHC at the time—was concerned about the impact it could have on housebuilding, when we were trying to get a combination of food security and the development of homes and the like. The good news is that it was Steve Reed, who was Secretary of State at Defra until a few days ago, who put out this consultation. Now, of course, he is Secretary of State at MHCLG. I hope that, in his new department, he will not put a barrier in the way of the land use framework, and that together with the new Secretary of State for Defra, Emma Reynolds, this can be published as quickly as possible. I am conscious that new Secretaries of State often want to have a look at these things, but I am sure that Emma Reynolds will trust the judgment of Steve Reed and have an excellent land use framework, which should absolutely be incorporated into spatial development strategies.

I will not say more about LNRSs, other than to say they will be one of the most critical things to happen as a consequence of local government. Therefore, it is a no-brainer that they should be an integral part of SDSs.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who tabled the amendment, cannot respond, but I will pick up on that separately. I want to get clarity on permissible activities. I would not want the SDS to start getting into the nitty-gritty of where there are existing rights. For example, there will be challenges around abstraction rights for a lot of landowners and farmers in 2027, when there will be a significant reduction in abstraction. The people putting together the SDS should be aware of that and need to think carefully about how that interplay goes. However, while it should be considered, I am not convinced the SDS should be the way in which permitting starts to happen—though I may have misinterpreted the amendment.

One reason why the Test is the best place in the world to go fishing for various kinds of trout is that it is a chalk stream. It was fishing that got Feargal Sharkey into the whole issue of water. Through my friend Charles Walker, who used to be an MP until the last election, when he retired—it happens to be his birthday today, so happy birthday to Charles—I know that anglers are very protective of those rights and substantially concerned about the water. My noble friend referred to the importance of good eco status. The Environment Agency’s principal measure in assessing eco status is the size of fish—it is a classic measure. There is a reason for that, and, as a consequence, that is why anglers are so involved. I would be nervous if the spatial development strategy started to get involved in aspects of licensing in that regard.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard tabled the related Amendment 355, which is more strategic and will be debated in a later group, but in one fell swoop Amendment 354 would give formal designation and protection status to rivers, which at the moment only 11% of chalk streams have. That is a clever device in order to achieve the outcomes your Lordships would want.

I wish the Minister well in making sure that her new Secretary of State gives a clean bill to what he proposed in his previous role, and that we get the land use framework as a welcome Christmas present, not only for this House but for the country at large.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I make one suggestion to the Minister, if I may. One way of achieving the objective that many of us seek for chalk streams would be to include specific reference to them in footnote 7 to the National Planning Policy Framework. That would carry through very successfully into many other decisions.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I intend to speak to Amendment 103ZA in my name and to Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has just spoken. While I intend to reserve my comments more broadly on Clause 51 until group 4, where we will debate whether it stands part, I am astonished that we are in the situation where national park authorities are in effect the only kind of local government that this would not apply to. I say that because no one is directly elected on to a national park authority.

Some of the board members may indeed be elected councillors but, by and large, they are appointed as a proportion and the majority are appointed by the Secretary of State and central government. A great irony of this wider debate is that we are most likely removing ways for locally elected councillors to make determinations, but where the Government have already appointed people, they can carry on. It seems an odd thing in this whole set-up.

I have tabled Amendment 103ZA—as I say, I will get on to the merits of the clause in the next group—because I am concerned that with the pressure of the increasing housing targets that have been imposed on local councils, the pressure about aspects of five-year supply, it will be too easy for officers to simply say they have to go beyond the plan that has already been agreed. As has been set out regularly by Ministers in this debate, the local plan is agreed by local people. It is not really, but at least there is an opportunity for the public to contribute towards that determination and it is then decided and voted on by locally elected councillors, who are therefore accountable to their constituents.

The issue of going beyond the boundary of the local plan is important. I see this happen quite a lot in parts of rural areas where developers take a bit of a chance on trying to keep extending the boundary, including by making housing go beyond the local plan boundary and then trying to say that for economic reasons this should all be approved, even though it has already been through a process. I am concerned about that, and I think officers would be less hesitant to simply brush it aside.

The other issue I am very concerned about is housing density, and I have put my name to an amendment attached to Clause 52 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which will be debated later on in the Bill. One example is part of a town called Felixstowe, in Suffolk, where the previous councils had agreed a pretty ambitious local plan building on greenfield to expand the town in what they perceived to be a controlled way but still making sure that the town was going to be vibrant and sustainable. Within that, they specified a particular housing density for the building of some 2,000 houses. That was to constrain it within the envelope of what was deemed to be land suitable for development. It was about 150 houses per whatever the geographic dimension was to reach 2,000. An application was made for outline planning permission. Developers had indicated that of course they would stick within this housing density, but the officers in their analysis presented to councillors considering the outline planning application anticipated the housing density would really be only about 50 if they took into account the extra bits such as access to nature, sustainable drainage and all the different things. So, there we go—and, by the way, I am pretty sure the officers recommended that they accept that outline planning application, knowing full well that they would not get anywhere near the 2,000 houses that had been allocated to the fields on the outside of Felixstowe.

The consequence of that would be that considerably more land would be needed to build the other houses that were due to be built in that part of the district. My concern is that by not being very specific about housing density—and we will come on to this later—we will end up with a lot more sprawl and issues connected with not having gaps between villages and towns.

The reason I have tabled this amendment is to make sure that, if these regulation-making powers do go through to the Secretary of State, for determinations of planning applications such as that, it really must be down to the elected councillors to be able to determine it—in effect, to go against their own plan that they, or their predecessors, had already voted on to approve. We are already aware of how many decisions are delegated to officers in a routine way that is right, but on these things, where the application is contrary to what had already been agreed in the overall strategic purpose, that must be done by elected councillors, who will be accountable to the wider electorate.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 105 in this group. We are not debating that Clause 51 stand part in this group, but I intend to speak to it regardless, because it should be grouped with this, and it will save me having to make another speech on the same subject in the next group.

I do not object to Clause 51; indeed, I support it. There should be a national scheme of delegation. It is an important mechanism by which some of the planning reform policies being pursued can be reinforced in practice in the decision-making processes in local government and assist in the process of speeding up planning decisions.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) says is said in strong terms.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Many parents will not have been able to get their children to school today. May we have a debate on whether to make it a statutory duty of governing bodies that schools stay open?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. This matter is a cause of considerable regret, an inconvenience to many parents and completely unnecessary. The National Union of Teachers, proceeding as it is on a mandate from a ballot way back in September 2012, is taking unjustified and intemperate action. I hope it will reconsider taking such action in future, but if it does not it will be important for Government to consider all the circumstances involved in such events and whether the law is right in this area.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, not least from the answer the Prime Minister gave to a question yesterday, the HMRC is rightly trying to ensure that it is as efficient as possible in collecting tax and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. In the process, sometimes, changes inevitably have to be made to the structure of the business it undertakes. However, I will ask Treasury Ministers to respond to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as there is any particular information relating to Cumbernauld.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or a statement on civil partnerships, which currently can be dissolved in only a certain number of courts? Only barristers are allowed to make representations, and for a constituent of mine, going to London adds costs. We should be looking for equality of treatment and allow such cases to be dealt with at county courts.

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot give that commitment. In the Gracious Address we explained the Bills that we were proposing to bring forward. In a Session that, by its nature, can last no more than nine months and has a number of carry-over Bills, and with no scope to carry over Bills from this Session, there is a limit on the number of Government Bills. We have announced where our priorities lie, and, for the moment, time does not permit us to go beyond that.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

So much happened in Suffolk over the recess but I will restrict myself to one matter: actions being taken by the Food Standards Agency on outdoor pigs, of which there are a lot in Suffolk. I am very concerned about heavy-handed regulations, and it seems that a deal has been done with the marketing agency to require only outdoor pigs, as opposed to the vast majority of pigs, to be tested for trichinella. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on this important matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to my hon. Friend on that matter, but if she wishes to raise it, I point out that DEFRA questions next Thursday would provide a suitable opportunity.

Parliamentary Standards

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I would reassure the public by saying that, yes, there is a small number of legacy cases, but we now have a fully independent system that has all the powers it needs to take the necessary steps when anything goes wrong, now and in the future. Echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about the retiring chief executive of IPSA, Andrew McDonald, objectively speaking, IPSA has come a long way in creating a situation that should command greater confidence about expenses.

So far as the regulation of Members’ other conduct is concerned, the public have to look at individual cases—for example, those relating to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and conflicts of interest, or to a Member behaving in a way that brings the House into disrepute—and decide whether the independent Commissioner for Standards has pursued the matter robustly. It is certainly her job to do so, and I hope that Members and the public will agree that she does. When we read the reports following her investigations, they are often very detailed and thorough. The public also have to decide whether the decisions are proportionate. That is a matter of judgment, but I believe that the Standards Committee has put in place robust sanctions in recent cases involving that kind of poor behaviour.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Two years ago, the Government introduced a Green Paper on parliamentary privilege, which was considered at length. It led to the introduction of lay members, and a lengthy discussion on whether or not voting rights should be granted to them. The Leader of the House has already explained the situation in that regard, but will he also recognise that it was the Standards Committee that reopened the investigation into a former Member, which led to that Member eventually being charged and sent to jail, therefore showing that the Standards Committee will, without fear or favour, continue to try to uphold the integrity of this House?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right on that latter point. The issue relating to the question of whether lay members should have voting rights on a Select Committee was recently considered and reported on by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. We agreed with it when it said that to do that

“could have unintended consequences: principally that, by explicitly confirming that privilege extends to the Committee on Standards, it could be interpreted to mean that the same extension did not necessarily apply to other committees that include lay members.”

There is a risk that including lay members with voting rights on Select Committees could be held in the courts to have removed from that Committee its access to the exclusive cognisance and parliamentary privilege. That is a risk we do not need to run. The lay members on the Standards Committee have the power they need, but if they have any doubt about that, they should tell us and we should consider and perhaps strengthen their power. If, by offering a dissenting opinion, they have the power to act effectively as a veto on decisions made by the Standards Committee, then they have the power they require.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I look forward to the opportunity to visit Hull as the city of culture. I would certainly appreciate that, but I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Lady on her first point. It does not patronise or disparage anybody to recognise that in a Budget we address the issues that people care about. We talked earlier about Back-Bench motions. There was a considerable Back-Bench effort on the part of Government Members to secure a reduction in bingo duty, and they got what they were looking for. In fact, they got more than they were looking for from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is in the context of a Budget that was about supporting hard-working people, not least because all of those who are basic rate taxpayers, by virtue of a personal tax allowance rising to £10,500, will have seen their tax reduced by £800.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I was recently in a pub enjoying a pint with local farmers, and I am delighted that I will go back and do it again. The topic we discussed then was water abstraction and the changes that are coming into force. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to discuss that matter, which was not particularly considered during the Water Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is the very person, in the sense of having recently had a debate on bingo duty. I congratulate my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the House of Lords is completing consideration of the Water Bill, and the future of abstraction reform may well arise on consideration of Lords amendments on that Bill.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, I have heard my hon. Friends making it very clear that there are statistics relating to the number of those in part-time employment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and others have definitions of things such as zero-hours contracts. There were never statistics under the previous Government. I am not sure why the hon. Lady imagines it is a fault on the part of this Government that we do not have those defined statistics, but she is right to say that we come to this Dispatch Box to trumpet the number of new jobs: there are 1.4 million more private sector jobs under this Government.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

A few weeks ago, St Jude’s storm resulted in several thousand households in Suffolk being disconnected from electricity. The storm that is gathering in Scotland today is coming to Suffolk, with the entire coastline under a severe flood warning. I know that the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to chair a Cobra meeting. When will the Secretary of State be able to come to the House to make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Ministers are very aware of the risk associated with a surge tide and the risk that the current storm presents to my hon. Friend’s constituency and others. Many Scottish Members’ constituents are already experiencing the effects of the storm. I cannot at this stage say when the Secretary of State may be able to update the House. At the moment, he is engaged in considering precisely how every measure that might be taken is taken to help support those who may be affected.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the House fully appreciates his concern for his constituent. I had read the early-day motion to which he refers. Of course, this is a matter for the transport and local authorities in Greater Manchester, and I know that he has been in touch with them about the situation involving Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd. If I may, through discussions with his office, I will ensure that I draw the attention of the relevant authorities to the issue and to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is it possible to extend the duration of Transport Question Times to an hour, because the sessions are heavily oversubscribed? During today’s Transport questions, I was unable to raise BBC Suffolk’s “Don’t Be a Tosser” campaign on reducing road litter, and support for such an issue deserves to be raised on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

These things are considered carefully, but the allocation of time for questions is a matter for the Procedure Committee in the first instance. However, I will by all means look at the point that my hon. Friend raises and the campaign in Suffolk to which she refers.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The A14 links my constituency with that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Will he allow a debate in Government time on road tolling, in that area but also more widely?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I share a close interest in this matter, and I declare a constituency interest. I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend at the Department for Transport. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I know that the Government will take the opportunity to discuss this matter with the House ere long.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change about this, but I would hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the green deal. It is going to have a positive impact on up to 8 million homes over the next eight years and create up to 60,000 jobs in the insulation sector over the next three years. The further roll-out of the green deal is going to take place over the months and years ahead, but I hope that early in the new year we will have an opportunity for him and others to see how the green deal will be having a positive impact.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

When I visited Kyson primary school in Woodbridge for a belated Parliament week question and answer session with year 5 and year 6 students, I was struck by how often the issue of the Belfast riots came up among 10 and 11-year-olds. Given that these events are still continuing, with some disgraceful things occurring, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State to make another statement early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows how our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has come to the House and, quite rightly, made statements. Of course, I have no doubt that in the new year, if need be, she will do so again. We all condemn the lawlessness and thuggery we have seen. It is not in defence of the flag; it is a disgrace to the flag, frankly, and to Britain that this is happening. We want to see it stop. In particular, the threat to our elected representatives and the threat to and attacks on the police are attacks on democracy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working with the Executive to ensure that local solutions, led in Northern Ireland, are leading the approach. We all support that, as we respect the devolution settlement, but I know that as a House we are very concerned and that the Government will take seriously their responsibility to report to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I would hold myself or my predecessor responsible for whether people put themselves forward. I think it is perfectly reasonable to give Members that opportunity. If they do not take it up, that is a matter for them.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I note what my right hon. Friend said earlier about responses to e-petitions with 10,000 signatures. Will he clarify that by telling us what time frame would be involved, and can he give us any more details?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that it will be possible to respond rapidly to petitions with 10,000 signatures. I cannot tell the hon. Lady at this stage how quickly we will do it, but I hope that we will do it in a matter of weeks. I want members of the public to feel that they have a genuinely interactive relationship with scrutiny of the Government in the House, which involves direct responses to their use of the website and, indeed, to their e-mail addresses.

Care and Support

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will see in the progress report that we need to discuss both the universal options for paying for the Dilnot model of care and voluntary, opt-in systems. The latter could have a character not dissimilar to that he describes.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I welcome many measures in the paper, including on the transition from being a child needing care to becoming an adult needing care, and on allowing people to choose where they want to end their life in palliative care. I represent a coastal constituency. Many people retire to the coast to enjoy the benefits of the sea air. Will he assure me that Suffolk county council will not be penalised by the fact that, in bringing families together, they will not take on extra care burdens for which they had not planned?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. We very much reflect the need for care and health care in the allocation of resources to local authorities through the formula grant, and the allocation of resources to the NHS through the NHS resource allocation.

Health Transition Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No. The hon. Gentleman should know that in accordance with the FOI Act, if a ministerial veto were to be considered, it would be considered on the merits of any individual case.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has followed the policy laid down by the previous Government on the application of the Act and that nothing has changed in that respect in policy terms?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, Mr Speaker, I cannot comment on the policies of the previous Labour Government. I would be happy, if the right hon. Member for Leigh agrees, to publish the risk management strategy that the Department of Health had in place in 2009, which was not placed in the public domain at that time.

NHS Future Forum

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that that is a further repetition of invention by Labour Members, who appear to have been given one or two figures of their own. It is complete nonsense. In the impact assessment associated with the Bill, which we will now revise to reflect these changes, we explained that there was an estimated £1.4 billion total cost of reorganisation, but that that would lead to a £1.7 billion recurring annual benefit in savings, which would accumulate to more than £5 billion over the course of the Parliament.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Building on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), HealthEast pathfinder consortium in my constituency crosses two district councils—in fact, it crosses two counties—and it might be appropriate for GPs from a third council area to join it. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no barriers will be put in the way of what should be effective care for patients rather than simply political boundary lines?

[Mr Lansley]

As I have said, we will expect, and the Future Forum says, that commissioning groups should not normally cross local authority boundaries—in this respect, boundaries for social authorities—but they should be able to make a case for doing so based on benefit to patients. The one thing I would urge is that they are very clear with their local authorities about how they can secure the continuing integration of health and social care at a local level.

NHS Reform

Debate between Lord Lansley and Baroness Coffey

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the public support the principles of the Bill. The public want patient choice. When they are exercising their choice over treatment, they want to be able to go to whoever is the best provider. Patients believe that general practitioners are the best people to design services and care on their behalf. Patients, the public and professionals support the principles of “no decision about me without me”, focusing on outcomes and delivering an outcomes framework, and the devolution of responsibility. What we are talking about now is ensuring that other important principles, such as governance, accountability, transparency and multi-professional working, are genuinely supported by the structure of the Bill.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My constituents in Suffolk were very concerned at the last election about the fact that only two doctors covered them for out-of-hours care, and that was for 600,000 patients. They welcome the reforms in the Bill. Indeed, Waveney and Great Yarmouth have come together as one pathfinder consortium and resumed out-of-hours care. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such important changes will continue to be important for patient delivery in the new Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. When people talk about primary care trust commissioning, they might care to look at the report produced by the Care Quality Commission on how primary care trusts went about commissioning out-of-hours care. The answer is that they pretty much did it on the basis of cost and volume, rather than quality, and once they had a contract they did not monitor it, follow it up or ensure that the right quality was there, including the right calibre of doctors. It is clear that general practice-led commissioning consortia will take a wholly different and preferable approach to that kind of commissioning.