National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It slightly pains me to call an Everton supporter today, but I do so nevertheless.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I will keep the gloating to a minimum, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State is dressing it up very well, but the reality of what she has announced is that some schools in the most deprived parts of the country, which face the biggest challenges, will have money taken away from them and given to schools elsewhere. Would it not have been much fairer for her to have asked the Chancellor for more money to bring the gap up that way? Instead, she is making schools in the toughest areas make teachers redundant to pay for this change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I had thought that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) would require a degree of intellectual dexterity to relate the question to Leigh or Manchester, but he might have been saved by the Secretary of State’s referring, perhaps gratuitously, to all regions. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a beneficiary of that.

[Andy Burnham]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

One cannot help but notice that all the talk these days is of the midlands engine. Suddenly, the northern powerhouse is about as popular on the Conservative Benches as its originator, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). Although I am not against investment in the midlands, will the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee that manifesto commitments to invest in the north, including in High Speed 3, will not be delayed or diluted by new commitments to the midlands?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I gently remind Front Benchers that we must accommodate Back Benchers. I am not having the time eaten up by Front Benchers.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is right: the terrible scenes of violence in Marseille this weekend have soured what should have been a great celebration of football. As ever, the vast majority have been let down by a hard-core minority, and their actions are all the more inexcusable given the serious terror threat hanging over the tournament. Although, as the Home Secretary has said, the England fans are not blameless, it is also the case that they were the subject of extreme provocation and that there were severe failings inside the stadium and concerns about policing. Given that this is a complex matter and that we need to establish all the facts ahead of the England-Wales game on Thursday, will the Home Secretary commit to making a fuller statement at her earliest opportunity, to ensure people’s safety and that there is no repeat?

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

It happened close to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I will give way.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) intervenes, I advise the House that, although everything is being done perfectly properly, and the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman have been generous in giving way, 48 Back Benchers wish to contribute. Those who have or seek the Floor might wish to take account of that point. I call Mark Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard]

I will be brief, Mr Speaker.

The shadow Home Secretary is quite right to point out that abuses, where they have taken place, are absolutely wrong, but does he also recognise that the Bill contains a new offence of misusing communications data, which is something he should welcome?

Point of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for testing your patience; I would not have done so were it not an important matter. During the previous exchange, news reached me that the Secretary of State is in Liverpool announcing the scrapping of the 18-week target, presumably because the Government know they can no longer meet it. I was not in business questions, but I am led to believe that the Leader of the House said that Ministers should always make major announcements to this House, and that he had indeed reminded them of their duty to do so. What advice could you give me about making sure that this edict sticks? Before the Minister leaves his place, should he not confirm to this House whether the 18-week target is indeed to be scrapped?

[Mr Speaker]

There are three points to make. First, the right hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern forcefully in his own way, and it is on the record. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to ask the Minister to respond, because we cannot have interrogation through point of order and the continuation of debate. Thirdly, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on one point: he has not missed anything said on this matter at today’s business questions for the very simple reason that business questions is about to happen—so he was perhaps ahead of himself. He has made his point and it is on the record, and we will now proceed to business questions.

Barts Health NHS Trust

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I note the interest—

[Andy Burnham]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, in a moment. I notice that the interest in this debate grew as it was taking place. The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) have toddled into the Chamber. [Interruption.] Yes, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest, and that others have taken a keen interest.

I will now allow a point of order, because it relates directly to the exchanges that have just taken place. I know that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will not abuse his privilege.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this point of order.

In the Minister’s non-reply to my questions, she inadvertently misled the House. She said that, before the last election, I had blocked a report on Basildon hospital. I wish to place it on the record that I made an oral statement to this House about Basildon hospital and published reports on it on 30 November 2009. I followed that up with a written statement to the House on 5 March 2010. I would be grateful to the Minister if she withdrew her comments.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the shadow Secretary of State has said. He has put it on the record. The Minister is welcome to respond if she wishes, but she is not obliged to.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not for me to control who remains in the Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, I am sure that he will be interested to hear the reply. I think that I just about heard, amidst the noise, the gravamen of his point, which related to a claim that the Deputy Prime Minister gave an answer that was not based upon fact. I simply say that were the Chair to be held responsible for answers, or even for questions, on account of the presence or absence of facts, the Chair would be even busier than he already is. I think that one has to be reasonable about this. Look, it is a point of debate. I say in the gentlest and most festive spirit to the hon. Gentleman, who was becoming extremely excited and excitable while awaiting the answer to his question, that I have always regarded him to be something of a cerebral academic, and it is most unusual for him to become over-excited. I wish him a very enjoyable Christmas and a happy new year.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When it comes to accuracy, the Deputy Prime Minister appears not to have had a particularly good outing this afternoon. He said during the course of questions that I privatised an NHS hospital when Secretary of State for Health. That is not a point of debate; it is a point of sheer inaccuracy. The contract for Hinchingbrooke hospital was signed under the coalition, and when the previous Government left office there was still an NHS bidder in the competition. Do you not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister might have inadvertently misled the House and that he should return right now to correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is his own best advocate, and he has put the position on the record with crystal clarity. If a Minister feels that in the circumstances it would be prudent or courteous to return to the Chamber now or at some other opportunity to correct the record, it is open to that Minister to do so. We will leave it there.

Health

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State is clearly not going to give way at the moment.

[Andy Burnham]

The Prime Minister set his own test for his reorganisation: its effect on waiting times. This month, waiting times hit a six-year high. Almost 3 million people are now on the waiting list for treatment, up by half a million since 2010, but that is not all.

[David T. C. Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Health Secretary does not seem to want to give way to anybody from Wales. Is there any reason for that, and could it be a case of discrimination of some sort?

[Mr Speaker]

I am always interested in the ingenious interventions of the hon. Gentleman, but that is not a matter for the Chair and I will not speculate on it or in response to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). We will return to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andy Burnham]

I just gave way to somebody from Wales. What is the hon. Gentleman on about?

That is not all. As I said before, the NHS is now missing its standard to ensure that cancer patients start their treatment within 62 days. That will cause huge distress to thousands of families up and down this country.

Another way in which the NHS has got worse, and every patient knows this to be true, is that it is becoming harder and harder to get a GP appointment. It is a common experience for people to ring their surgery early in the morning only to be told that there is nothing available for days. A survey has found that almost half of GPs predict that the average waiting time will exceed two weeks by next year.

The clearest measure of growing problems in the NHS is what has been happening in A and E, which is the barometer of the whole health and care system. Problems or blockages anywhere in the health and care system will manifest, in the end, as pressure in A and E. If A and E is the barometer, what is it telling us? It is warning of severe storms ahead. Hospital A and E units have now missed the Government’s target for 46 weeks running. For the last four weeks, the NHS overall has missed the Government’s target, suggesting that the winter crisis has now been followed by a summer crisis.

Why is that happening? The fact is that cuts have been made to general practice, social care and mental health, which are pushing more and more people towards the acute hospital and placing it under intolerable pressure. Today, many hospitals are operating way beyond safe bed occupancy levels, and not surprisingly this is taking a toll on A and E staff. Today, we reveal that three times as many A and E consultants left the NHS in 2013, raising the worrying prospect of A and E now being trapped in a downward spiral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. I am trying to raise a relevant point with the shadow Secretary of State. I want to point out that A and E waiting times in Wales have not been hit since 2009—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use an attempted point of order to try to make a point that he would make in the debate if he got the chance to contribute. He said that he wanted my advice. My advice to him is that persistence pays and he should keep at it, as I am sure he will.

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before the end of my speech, but not now; I will do so when I am ready, because I want to develop my point, which is this: a successful NHS was thrown into chaos by reorganisation. Four years after Lansley’s big bang, the dust has still not settled. People out there are struggling to make sense of the 440 NHS organisations that have replaced the 163 that the Government inherited. They cannot make it all fit together and so are still sweeping up the mess. It was always nonsense to commission local GP services from a national level. To correct that, NHS England is now suggesting a new round of structural changes. This is the reorganisation that never ends. It is now rumbling into the fifth year of this Parliament. In fixing one problem, I fear the Government are going to create another—a local conflict of interest with GPs commissioning GPs. The truth that they do not like to face is that the former Health Secretary presented a defective and confused plan, and they now know, in their heart of hearts, that instead of pausing it, as they did, they should have stopped it altogether. They did not, and however much they tinker it will never make sense.

That is why the only Bill in the Gracious Speech with any link to health is the one that tries to clear up the mess of reorganisation. The small business, enterprise and employment Bill restricts redundancy payments to public officials. If ever there were a Bill that locked the stable door after the horse had bolted, this is surely it. When the Health and Social Care Act 2012 went through the House, there were repeated warnings from Labour Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), that the reorganisation would result in primary care trust staff being made redundant and then rehired, with, as a result, a huge waste of NHS resources. In June 2011, the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister in this House on precisely that point. The Prime Minister failed to act on the warning. As a result—these are shocking figures; Government Members should listen to them—over 4,000 people have subsequently been made redundant and then rehired within the NHS. In the first three years of the reorganisation, there have been over 32,000 exit packages, averaging £43,500, and 2,300 six-figure pay-offs, 330 of which were worth more than £200,000. The total bill is £1.4 billion and counting. What a scandalous waste of NHS resources when people are waiting longer for cancer care.

We always know when this Government are on the ropes: it is when they furiously try to blame the previous Government. This time, they cite employment contracts, but that excuse will not wash. Given that they were explicitly warned about this when their health Bill was going through the House before the reorganisation took place, people will ask why on earth they did not bring forward the measures on redundancy in this Queen’s Speech before the NHS reorganisation, not after it. It all adds up to mismanagement of the country’s most cherished asset on a spectacular scale.

NHS

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman should climb off his high horse for a moment. In answer to an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I pointed to the increase in cases of scurvy, rickets and malnutrition. If he wants—[Interruption.] If he wants to deny that that is the case, that is up to him—[Interruption.] If he speaks to A and E staff, he will hear that people who are not eating properly are turning up in ever greater numbers—[Interruption.] I have answered his point and I will now make some progress.

It is the case that too many older people are arriving at hospital in the first place. A recent Care Quality Commission report found avoidable emergency admissions for pensioners topping 500,000 for the first time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The exchange between the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and the hon. Member for Taunton Deane is most unseemly. I remind the latter that he is a distinguished former member of Her Majesty’s Government and he should comport himself with appropriate dignity. That is what we look for in an hon. Member who aspires to be a statesman.

[Andy Burnham]

I suggest—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not dismissing the statesmanlike potential of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, but I think his journey has some way to go.

[Andy Burnham]

The beard is certainly helping. I suggest that the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) visit Liverpool Walton, because he will see more food banks there than anywhere else in the country. He will meet families who cannot afford to put enough food on the table to give their kids a decent diet. He will see the direct effects of some of his Government’s policies on some of the most deprived communities in the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but his answers almost invariably suffer from the failing of being far too long. It is nothing to be smug about; he really has to improve.

[Andy Burnham]

Mr Speaker, sometimes it takes a long time to rewrite history, which was what the Minister was just doing. The first warnings did not come in 2004. Dr Mann said:

“The first warning signs were three years ago when we failed to recruit 50% of our posts. Those concerns were raised at the time.”

Why does he believe his concerns were ignored? He blames “decision-making paralysis” caused by a top-down reorganisation no one wanted and nobody voted for. Ministers dismantled work force planning structures, making redundant the very people who could have done something to stop the locum bill spiralling out of control. Will he now concede that breaking the coalition agreement promise of no top-down reorganisation has weakened the NHS and made the A and E crisis worse—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

We’ve got it. We’ve got to have an answer.

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to misrepresent the views of the previous Government and previous Ministers, and refuse to take interventions? He has just said that I refused to change and strengthen the regulation system of hospitals in England—that is factually incorrect. I brought forward a new system for the registration of all hospitals in England in autumn 2009, on the back of recommendations from the CQC. Again, he should get his facts straight at that Dispatch Box.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I make two points in response. First, every Member and every Minister must be responsible for his or her comments in the Chamber—the accuracy and appropriateness thereof. I am afraid that, however angry people feel, on either side of the argument, these are matters of debate. Secondly, the situation would be greatly helped if the Secretary of State now, immediately, turned his mind to the presentation of the argument in support of the introduction of the Bill, which is, ordinarily, the matter upon which one anticipates a Secretary of State will focus his remarks. This is not an occasion for a historical legerdemain; it is an occasion for the presentation of the case for a Bill, to which I know that, without delay, the Secretary of State will turn his mind.

Health Services (North-West)

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Answer the questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have order from those on the Opposition Front Bench, and I know that the Secretary of State will want to respond to the questions asked of him. I just remind the House that it is not a generalised debate; it is a statement and a response to questions.

Point of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I trust that this will be a point of order rather than a continuation of the argument.

[Andy Burnham]

I am sorry to test your patience, Mr Speaker, but I want to ask you whether it is in order for the Government to brief newspapers about a major change of policy, to bring it before this House so that questions can be asked about that major change of policy, and then to fail to provide any details to hon. Members about the changes they have in mind. Is that acceptable behaviour, Mr Speaker, or is it indeed a major discourtesy to this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, I attach great importance, as have all previous Speakers, to the timely announcement of Government policies in the House first and not to the media. I made a judgment that this matter warranted the urgent attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will also have noticed that the level of interest in the subject was such that I thought it appropriate to run the urgent question very fully. As to what has or has not been disclosed elsewhere, I do not feel able on this occasion to say, but I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and all colleagues for their participation. We will leave it there for today.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

This debate is flushing out the Government’s position, is it not? The Under-Secretary of State keeps heckling from the Front Bench, but we now know—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order. Let me say once and for all to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has been conducting a running commentary since she sat down on the Front Bench at the start of the debate, “Stop it.” I do not wish to hear it, and neither does the House. The Secretary of State will respond in due course. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with what has been said, her right hon. Friend will have a chance to respond. I do not want the sedentary chuntering, the finger-wagging and all the rest of it. The hon. Lady can say “pooh” if she wants, but she will accept the ruling of the Chair, and either behave or get out of the Chamber. I do not mind which it is.

[Andy Burnham]

The Government’s position was indeed made clear in Westminster Hall this morning, and perhaps we shall hear it again from the Dispatch Box in a moment.

The south-west trusts’ initial document stated that the consortium would explore

“radical changes to terms and conditions of the workforce”.

It went on to say that this would not be a negotiation, and that

“trusts would be obliged to dismiss and re-engage staff to secure such changes”.

That is disgraceful, and it is simply not possible for the Government to have no view on it. It is provocative, destabilising and divisive. However, it gets worse. In the vacuum left by Ministers, the chaos is spreading. We have identified a further 12 trusts across England that are actively considering opting out of “Agenda for Change”. There are five in the north-east, which gives rise to fears of a second emerging pay cartel. North Tees and Hartlepool has issued 90-day notices to 5,452 staff as a precursor to forcing them to sign new non-“Agenda for Change” contracts—staff who refuse to sign by March 2013 are threatened with the sack—and South Tees is considering a similar move.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I seek leave to propose that the House should discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration—namely, whether the House of Commons should defer consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill until after the disclosure of the transition risk register. The other place is debating this issue imminently, and my colleagues and I thought it important for this House to have the opportunity to debate the matter, too. In just 24 hours’ time, this House will be asked to agree far-reaching changes to the NHS in England, drawn up, in large part, in the other place. As of now, however, Members find themselves in the highly unsatisfactory position of not being in possession of all relevant information needed to make a full and considered judgment on whether those changes should be allowed to proceed.

Reorganising the NHS at this time of financial stress might expose it to greater risk, and to establish the precise nature and scale of those risks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for its transition risk register on this reorganisation. Along with colleagues on the Opposition Benches, we have consistently argued that this information be published to inform the public and parliamentary debate.

That is not just my opinion; it is the considered opinion of the Information Commissioner, who has had the benefit of viewing the transition risk register. He ruled that

“disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published.”

The commissioner’s ruling has, in turn, now been endorsed by the Information Rights Tribunal. Indeed, the tribunal was brought forward presumably so that its deliberations could be concluded in time for its decision to influence the debate in Parliament. Ten days on, we have had no substantial response from the Government to this ruling, save to say that they await the tribunal’s detailed reasons. We note that the Government’s ability to appeal is limited to a point of law, not to re-open the merits of the case.

This is not a matter of the rights and wrongs of the Bill. It concerns the fundamental principle of the primacy of the elected House of Commons and its opportunity for scrutiny. Parliament has a right to know before it is asked to make a final judgment that will have huge implications for every person in our country. Many people would feel it wrong if the Government were to use procedural devices to prevent the House from seeing the transition risk register before the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament.

This is the last opportunity for this House to urge the Government to publish the register. If this House allows this situation to go unchallenged or even to pass without comment, it would represent a major weakening of the role of this House in scrutinising the legislation before us. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make this request and I hope you will look favourably on it.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely whether the House should defer consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill until after disclosure of the NHS transition risk register. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s application, and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I thus put the application to the House.

Application agreed to.

NHS Risk Register

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that there is a lot to get through, many Members wish to contribute, and interventions in any event should be brief.

[Andy Burnham]

I have never believed in a free market in the NHS. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now. That is why I oppose the Bill that the hon. Lady supports.

I was saying, before I was rudely interrupted, that we say it is dangerous to reorganise the NHS at this time. On the day the White Paper was published, I stood opposite the Secretary of State and described his plans as

“a huge gamble with a national health service that is working well for patients.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 663.]

He never has explained why this successful NHS needs to be turned upside down. From day one we have asked the Government to be up front about the precise nature and scale of the risks that they are taking. Their failure to provide a full assessment of those risks to inform the House’s consideration of their Bill led my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), to initiate a freedom of information request for the transition risk register. I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend did not request the full departmental risk register, which was subject to a similar request in August 2009 at the height of the swine flu pandemic.

Let me now directly answer the question that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) asked. There are three crucial differences between that situation and the subject of today’s debate. The first important difference—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen, as the Prime Minister got his facts wrong at Prime Minister’s Question Time.

The first important difference is that the debate relates to a different document. This debate is about the transition risk register, not the strategic risk register held by the Department. They are different things. The transition risk register relates solely to the reorganisation and the effects that the reorganisation could have. That brings me to my second reason why the situation is different. I did not initiate the biggest ever top-down reorganisation of the NHS. It is the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government to do that. We on the Labour Benches who care about the NHS have a right to know what damage that reorganisation might cause. The Government are not just launching the biggest ever reorganisation; they are doing it at a time of the biggest ever financial challenge in the history of the NHS.

The third reason—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I make it clear to Back Benchers that the shadow Secretary of State is clearly not giving way at present, and that in the circumstances they should exercise some self-restraint?

[Andy Burnham]

They do not want to listen because it does not suit their argument. This was meant to be their whole reason today, and we heard it from the Prime Minister earlier, but now they do not want to hear the reasons.

The third reason this situation is different from the one in August 2009 is that at that time there was not a precise ruling from the Information Commissioner, but there is a clear ruling from the commissioner in this case. Those are three important differences. Let me remind the House of that ruling. It stated:

“The Commissioner finds that there is very strong public interest in disclosure of the information, given the significant change to the structure of the health service the government’s policies on the modernisation will bring.”

That is where one of the Government’s key arguments for withholding the register falls apart. The Minister in another place has repeatedly defended the Government’s action by saying that they had published a full impact assessment for the Bill—[Interruption.] “It’s true”, says the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). Let me answer that point. Having had sight of the impact assessment and the transition risk register, the commissioner said that

“disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published.”

In other words, the impact assessment that the Secretary of State has published is not good enough and the public deserve to know the full truth about his reorganisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I quoted from the policy, but the Secretary of State is not publishing the risk register—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt, but I must say to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who no doubt is an immensely brilliant individual, that in her capacity as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, at this stage in her career her role is to fetch and carry notes and nod in the right places, not to conduct a running commentary on the debate. I trust that she will now exercise a self-denying ordinance for the remainder of the debate.

[Andy Burnham]

As I was saying, the Government clearly are not following the statement of policy set out on the Treasury website, but the strange thing, as the House will hear shortly, is that NHS bodies across the country at local and regional level are following the policy closely. As I understand it, the Treasury’s theory is that the more widely the risks are understood and shared, the greater the ability to mitigate them. Indeed, I recall the Minister stating in a press release as recently as last October, the month before the commissioner’s ruling, that an open and transparent NHS would be a safer NHS. Two simple questions follow: why is the Department for Health not following stated Government policy and what it said in October was its own policy; and is the Department in breach of Government policy, or has it secured an exemption from it? I hope that the Health Secretary will shed light on this point today, because at present it does not look too good.

Let me turn to the Government’s other reasons for fighting publication. First, it is claimed that disclosure would

“jeopardise the success of the policy”

That is a moot point. The Information Commissioner said that it is a strange defence, given the Government’s other statements on openness and scrutiny building more robust plans. Secondly, it is claimed that it could have a chilling effect and that officials would be less frank in future. Given that risk assessment is a core part of all public servants’ responsibilities, not an optional activity, that claim was not accepted by the commissioner. Thirdly, it is claimed that the names of junior officials could be disclosed, but the commissioner has said that he was satisfied that the register would identify only senior civil service or senior NHS officials.

Fourthly, it is claimed that disclosure would set a difficult precedent and could lead to the publication in future of information relating to national security. The weakness of this argument, as the commissioner pointed out, is that a precedent has already been set, and it was set by the Labour party when we were last in government. A comparable risk register linked to the specific implications of a particular policy—the Heathrow third runway—was released by the previous Government in March 2009 following a ruling by the Information Commissioner on a request from the current Transport Secretary. Why are this Government not following the clear precedent set by the previous Government? That is the answer to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. In truth, these four reasons seem to me to be the desperate defences of a desperate Government who have something to hide and a desperate Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

It is, it would seem, the Secretary of State’s new top-down bullying policy, and it is happening right across the NHS. How does he reconcile that with what he used to say about whistleblowing? I remind him of what he once said:

“The first lines of defence against bad practice are the doctors and nurses”,

who

“have a responsibility to their patients to raise concerns if they see risks to patient safety. And when they do, they should be reassured that the Government stands full square behind them.”

Full square behind them so that he can plunge the knife straight into their backs! The truth about his mismanagement of the NHS is coming out: staff bullied into silence, professionals frozen out, crucial information in the risk register—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We get the gist.

Life Sciences

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and start by setting out two points of common ground with the Government? First, we too have pride in Britain’s life sciences industry and its strength. We agree that the industry needs Government support and focus if its potential to contribute to the country’s industrial future is to be maximised. Secondly, we agree that there are huge potential benefits to British patients from closer collaboration between the NHS and the industry. We all want patients to have the quickest possible access to the latest life-saving and life-enhancing treatments.

It was for those two principal reasons that Labour, when in government, prioritised the life sciences sector and established the Office for Life Sciences. In Lord Drayson, we created a life sciences Minister who was a contact point for the industry—someone of huge experience and with real personal commitment to the industry. One of our criticisms of this Government is that they have allowed the momentum that Labour had established in promoting the industry to fall away. Progress has stalled because of the Government’s failure to understand that economic growth needs a proper partnership between the public and private sector and because of the combined effect of a number of their policies. Such policies include: damaging 15% real-terms cuts to the science budget; the loss of the regional developments agencies, many of which were heavily involved in this area; cuts to regional investment; and the destabilising effect of the unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, particularly the disintegration of the strategic health authorities, which played a role in promoting research. The unexpected closure of Pfizer earlier this year exposed a Government asleep at the wheel and was a wake-up call, and now we see a Government playing catch-up.

Although we welcome their belated recognition of the importance of the sector, there are sensitive issues involved and Ministers need to tread carefully so as not to undermine public trust. What they are fond of calling red tape are, to others, essential safeguards. Some areas will always need proper regulation and the use of patient data is most certainly one of them. As we have heard from patients groups today, some have been caused real anxiety by this media-briefed statement from the Government and the lack of accompanying detail.

Ministers need to be aware that people with terminal illnesses and long-term conditions will react differently from others to a statement of this kind, so for them we seek direct assurances today from the Secretary of State that he failed to give in his statement. Will all patients have the ability to opt out of the sharing of their data, even in anonymised form? Surely that fundamental principle of consent should form the bedrock of any new system, and that control of data should be possible in today’s information age. If the Secretary of State cannot give that assurance, why not? How can he justify that?

Did patients’ representatives walk away from the Department of Health working group on these important matters and, if so, why? One representative said on the radio this morning that the whole process “stinks”. Does the Secretary of State not accept that he and his Department will need to do better than this to uphold public confidence in the process or risk undermining trust in the whole principle? What safeguards will there be to ensure that patient data are stored securely? Does he not need to articulate a more positive statement of patients’ rights in this important area, rather than the loose opt-out he proposes in the NHS constitution?

Is it the case that the anonymity of data cannot always be guaranteed? If so, what are those circumstances and, again, why not? Even within anonymised datasets, particularly dealing with small numbers of very specific conditions, it is possible to identify individual patients. What steps are being taken to guard against those risks? Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that data cannot be used for purposes other than research—passed on to third parties or used by the same company to target people for other products and services?

Today’s announcement also needs to be considered in the context of the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS. Does not a more market-based health system with a greater number of private providers create much greater challenges for the control of data? I had many dealings with senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry in my time as a Minister. They were clear that it was the national structure of the NHS, and the ability to collaborate and share information across a whole health system, that was a huge attraction to the industry and a competitive strength for this country.

Does not the Secretary of State’s Health and Social Care Bill risk turning the NHS into a competitive market, where collaboration is discouraged in an any-qualified-provider free-for-all? So how can he guarantee that that competitive strength will be there in the future and will continue to be used by the pharmaceutical industry? Although he will not admit it today, were not many of the measures he has announced, particularly the expansion of telecare, made possible by the steps that we took to invest and modernise NHS IT?

More broadly, this announcement raises questions about the Government’s policy on the involvement of the private sector in the NHS. The Government need to set out what, if any, limit they see on the involvement of the private sector in the NHS. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the NHS to be a fantastic business. Let me quote from a recent leaked document on NHS commissioning, “Towards Service Excellence”. It says:

“The NHS sector . . . needs to make the transition from statutory function to freestanding enterprise.”

It is no wonder that, on the back of these worrying words, the British Medical Association has adopted a position of outright opposition to the Secretary of State’s Bill. Our worry is that, in their desperation to develop a credible industrial strategy, Ministers seem ready to put large chunks of the NHS up for sale.

Patient data are not the Secretary of State’s to give away. The NHS is not his to sell. The truth is that the Government are running huge risks with patient confidentiality and patient safety by opening up the NHS to the private sector and reorganising at a time of financial stress, but we do not yet know the full scale of those risks.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am pretty sure that the shadow Secretary of State is on his last sentence, which is almost certainly a short one.

[Andy Burnham]

It is.

The great irony is this: while Ministers are happy to offer up other people’s data, they continue to withhold the NHS risk register, which shows the risk they are running with our NHS. Is that not why people are increasingly asking what the Secretary of State has to hide?

National Health Service

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must preserve the proper parliamentary terms. Nobody has written to me and I have not made a severe error. We will leave it at that.

[Andy Burnham]

It is clear that we will get to the bottom of this, because the Secretary of State has committed to publishing the minutes, and if he is suggesting that the RCN has been inaccurate, he needs to produce the evidence.

That takes me to the Prime Minister’s second personal promise on the NHS, which deals with hospital reconfiguration and the mythical moratorium.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to name my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) without telling him?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, it is.

[Andy Burnham]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman, with his clever point of order, that I did contact the office of the hon. Member for Bury North and, indeed, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois).

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but perhaps this is an opportunity for me to make the position clear. I am not cavilling at the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), but the position is basically this: if a Member is going to impugn the integrity or attack the record of an individual hon. Member, the Member who is the subject of the criticism should be notified in advance. The fact that someone simply intends to refer to another Member and something that may or may not have happened in his constituency during an election campaign, or at any other time, is not something of which prior notification is required.

[Andy Burnham]

After that rude interruption from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), I shall get back to my script.

Just days after the election, the Prime Minister went to Chase Farm hospital, with the Secretary of State, to announce the coalition’s new policy of the moratorium and the following commitment in the coalition agreement:

“We will stop the centrally dictated closure of A&E and maternity wards.”

I have with me the photograph from that very visit of the Secretary of State holding up a placard stating his opposition to any changes to the A and E at Chase Farm hospital. However, he has recently failed to prevent those changes to the A and E department and maternity unit at Chase Farm hospital, leaving the new hon. Member for Enfield North writing a desperate letter to the Prime Minister stating that his constituents had been utterly let down by them both. I do not know whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State have the decency to feel embarrassed today, hearing these cynical promises repeated in the House. The proposed moratorium and opposition to closures were purely political and designed to help the Conservatives win votes in marginal seats. That is a fact.

Delegated legislation

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will take more points of order if they are on the same matter—or, indeed, on other matters—and then I will respond. I will take a point of order first from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and then, of course, I will take one from the Leader of the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), Mr Speaker. The debate on 17 October will be an unprecedented occasion, because 140,000 people signed an e-petition asking for an issue that has not been properly debated here for some 22 years to be brought back to the Floor of the House. They will regard what has just happened with great dismay. People have already booked travel to the House on that evening, and the families of those who died will be attending our proceedings. Surely it cannot be right for one Member to stand up—because he wants to talk about his own pension—and deny those people the opportunity to debate the important issues relating to the Hillsborough disaster, and the huge, huge injustice that was done to the families and the people of Liverpool.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

Education Bill

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State’s first Bill was rammed through with unseemly haste, under procedures normally reserved for counter-terrorism measures, when the odour in the rose garden was still pleasant and Labour leadership candidates were still on the hustings, so we can at least say that this Bill has had a more thorough airing. I therefore thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work on it, and I thank the Officials, Officers and other staff of the House who have enabled the Committee’s work to take place. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who have done an excellent job.

The Schools Minister has been assiduous in his replies, and I thank him for that, but his courtesy has not extended to the production of the essential documents, such as the draft admissions code, that are needed to give this Bill the fullest possible scrutiny. That is highly regrettable—it is insulting, even, to Members of this House—and I trust that the same discourtesies will not be repeated towards Members of another place. Talking of discourtesies, it is a shame that the Secretary of State could not dignify us with his presence this evening. He made a cameo appearance earlier, but he obviously has something more important to do than be here to see his own Bill through. I do not know whether he has a good reason—perhaps he does—but we should have been able to expect him to be here.

Like the Health and Social Care Bill, the Education Bill threatens a free-for-all in our public services. It is a reckless gamble with standards and with the life chances of our children, with no evidence to support it. That is why we will vote against it tonight. Our principal objection to it is based on the fact that it takes power away from parents and pupils and hands it back to providers and to the centre, in the form of the Secretary of State. That is the flaw at the heart of the Government’s vision for public service reform. If they give more freedom and autonomy to providers, be they general practitioners or hospitals in the health sector or head teachers and schools in the education sector, they have to balance that with a corresponding empowerment of the public—parent and patient guarantees—and more ability for service users to hold providers to account. That is what is completely absent from the Government’s vision: this is a provider-led reform with an accountability deficit.

The health reforms have been paused, partly because of fears that the system being created lacks moderating checks and balances. Many people working in education, who will be watching these proceedings, have exactly the same fears about these schools reforms, but sadly the House, in its votes this evening, has failed to respond to them. This is a right-wing reform of our education system, a ripping up of the fabric and frameworks that have stood our services and our children in good stead for years.

Tory Cabinet Ministers are now boasting about this radical right-wing agenda. Iain Duncan Smith has said:

“We’ve got a lot—my welfare reforms, the education reforms…all of these are big, big Conservative-driven themes.”

I believe he said that today. William Hague went as far as admitting that the Lib Dems were crucial—

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the shadow Secretary of State that he is quite an experienced Member, and he should not refer to serving Members of the House by name?

[Andy Burnham]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.

The right hon. Member—I am struggling to remember his constituency now—[Hon. Members: “Richmond.”] That is it; I was going to say for North Yorkshire. The right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) said:

“A Conservative government with a very small majority or in a minority would have been massively constrained in what we could take through parliament.”

There we have it: this is a right-wing agenda propped up by the Liberal Democrats.

We heard today a bid from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), supported by 35 colleagues on his side of the House, to extend selection to our state education system. We know that the Secretary of State, although he could not be here this evening, attended a reception in Parliament—I think it was just before Christmas—where the hon. Gentleman asked him whether he would extend selection through his free school movement. The Secretary of State said:

“My foot is hovering over the pedal; I’ll have to see what my co-driver Nick Clegg has to say”.

Those of us who read Mrs Gove’s entertaining columns in the newspaper know what happens when the Secretary of State puts his foot on the pedal: utter chaos and disruption ensues for anybody in his vicinity. In this case, I think the co-pilot would be better off getting out of the car before the Secretary of State puts his foot down on the pedal—but as we know, the co-pilot is still unfortunately locked in the boot.

We were expecting a bit of muscular Liberalism today—indeed, we were promised it—but sadly there was none. It was just as we suspected. Parents watching this debate want to know that their child has a fair chance of getting into the school that they choose, that they will have good teachers, and will be able to get good careers advice to support them in their choices. Instead, they are getting a free-for-all with no guarantees, a weakening of the admissions system, unqualified teachers in state schools and a withering away of face-to-face careers advice.

I am sorry that we did not get the chance tonight to move an amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West was going to take on, about the need to have qualified teachers in our state schools. I hope that Members of the other place will return to that issue to stop this risky gamble with standards in our schools.

The Bill exposes a curious contradiction in this Secretary of State’s approach to school reform. He has not decided yet whether he truly believes in freedom and really wants local people to get on and do the job that they want—as the Minister just said he did—or whether he wants to dictate to them what they must do and how they must do their jobs. We have an Education Secretary who preaches freedom, but then wants to dictate the books that children read in primary school. He says that teachers know best, but then demands that they use synthetic phonics to teach reading. He lauds professional autonomy, but makes it clear which subjects he approves of in his English baccalaureate and which are second best. That is not good enough: he needs to decide. If he wants teachers to get on with their job, he should let them do it. We should not have this contradiction at the heart of policy that is causing people across the country to lose patience with him.

I gather that the Secretary of State is downstairs at a function or party this evening. I find it hard to believe that he is not here to speak up for his own Bill, to defend it and to tell us why I am wrong and why he has the right vision for our schools. The fact that he is not here means that he cannot face this House to ask for the 50 powers that he is taking in the Bill. We might have thought—might we not?—that he would have the courtesy to come and ask the House for those powers. It is a sorry state of affairs, and shows something of the arrogance that increasingly characterises the Government.

I believe that the Secretary of State is failing to take the education profession with him. They need stability and he is providing chaos. He is losing the confidence of head teachers and teachers. The Education Bill will now move to the other place and I know that their lordships will seek to moderate it, protecting fairness and promoting high standards in every school for every child. I urge them to do so and to give the Bill the fullest possible scrutiny, because this House of Commons, as it has shown today, is in danger of sleepwalking towards an elitist two-tier education system that will be good for some children and some schools, but not all children and all schools.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I do congratulate Labour-led Liverpool city council and its leader, Joe Anderson. Sure Start is clearly close to his heart, as he said when he set the budget. I am delighted that it is working to keep all its centres open.

Perhaps our calling this debate has led some people at local level to have a change of heart. Perhaps it has led to some U-turns at local level, of the kind we have become familiar with from the Government. The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) mentioned Hampshire. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) laughs, but only yesterday, Hampshire decided that its centres would remain open, but that the budget would be cut from £17 million to £11 million. [Interruption.] I do not read the Hampshire local press every day. Does the Under-Secretary? The council had a plan to close—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will say two things. First, it is not necessary for the Under-Secretary to behave like a child to demonstrate his empathy for children. That is not a requirement of the job. Secondly, although I am very much enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s geographical tour of the United Kingdom and always relish his exchanges with the Secretary of State, I am conscious that Back-Bench Members also wish to contribute. I am sure that those on the Front Benches will take account of that and apply a certain self-denying ordinance.

[Andy Burnham]

I agree, Mr Speaker, and will bring my remarks to a close.

Liverpool is doing well, despite facing difficult budget cuts of £90 per child. Hampshire is losing just £30 per child and is in a mess at local level, as is clear. These are the real politically motivated cuts. Hampshire is cutting its budget from £17 million to £11 million—a council in a more affluent area siphoning funds out of Sure Start and away from children who are facing the biggest challenges.

The evidence is racking up. Sure Start is being starved and is shrinking. Coalition policy is turning a much-loved, universal service into a patchy postcode lottery, which breaks the Prime Minister’s promise to parents. The ministerial team are making a mess of this successful policy in precisely same way as they mangled EMA and school sport partnerships. The Government say that they accept the Field and Allen recommendations, but the rhetoric does not match the reality. Early intervention services are under intense pressure as councils wrestle with impossible choices. Later this week, Labour will publish a survey of 70 directors of children’s services, which reveals a worrying picture of the quality and coverage of child safeguarding services in the current climate. It is becoming increasingly clear that Sure Start will not survive if the removal of the ring fence continues.

The motion makes the reasonable request for the Government to consider the emerging evidence and change course. We were right about school sport and we were right about EMA. If the Government care about the promises they have made, it is time for another U-turn and the reinstatement of the ring fence. I hope that they will listen, but somehow I doubt that they will. The decisions to shrink Sure Start fit entirely with the direction of Government education policy: at every stage of the education journey, they are making life harder for those who face the biggest challenges. They are breaking the promises that they made. We have heard what is happening to pre-school education, despite the fact that the programme for international student assessment has shown that all the best school systems in the world are based on the most extensive pre-school provision.

On four-to-16 education, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box on the day of the spending review and promised more resources for schools, and said that the pupil premium would be “truly additional”. Heads know how hollow those words were, as they have to use a static or falling budget to buy back central support services previously provided for free by the local authority. Most schools are facing 80% cuts in their buildings budgets, as the Secretary of State showers extra money on his free schools.

On 16-to-19 education, the Prime Minister made a personal promise to young people at a further education college to keep the education maintenance allowance, but the Government scrapped it. Even the OECD has recently called on the Government to reinstate it. The effect of scrapping it will be that education and the route to a better life will now be closed off to many young people.

On higher education, holier-than-thou promises from the Government that £9,000 fees would be the exception rather than the norm have proved utterly false, as we will debate later today. Universities such as Cambridge are left to say what the Government will not—that state school pupils will start to drop off and find it harder to gain access.

What is the combined effect of all those misguided education policies? I can almost hear the sound of falling aspiration in my constituency and in former industrial areas where so much was done to lift expectation, and I can tell the Secretary of State that it terrifies me. The Government are breaking their promises to parents and young people, and the effect will be to reinforce disadvantage at every stage of the education journey. Families with a little extra money will probably be able to insulate themselves from the worst of the changes, but the combined effect on the children who have least will be that the odds are stacked even further against them by an old elite, slamming the door in their face and kicking away the ladder.

What about when young people try to move from education into today’s more competitive workplace? The Deputy Prime Minister made a feeble promise to open up work experience and internships, and days later the Prime Minister laughed in his face and reassured his old network that it would be business as usual.

The coalition’s true colours are slowly being revealed, and what we see is the same old ruthless Tories. Promises were made to soften their image—“We will look after the NHS.” “EMA will stay.” “Sure Start will be strengthened”—but they have all been cynically abandoned after less than a year in office. The Government are acting as though they got a mandate last May. They did not, but we have a Liberal Democrat party that is letting them behave as though they did. Last May, the Liberal Democrats sacrificed everything and sold the shop for a referendum on the voting system, a change that they want in their own electoral interests. Now we see how viciously they are prepared to fight to secure that self-interest, while we remember how meekly they sold down the river millions of young people whose votes put them in Parliament.

Children and young people deserve a lot better than this. Labour will stand up for young people and give them all a fair start in life, and we will be their voice in tough times. I commend the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State mentions the OECD, so let me quote from last year’s PISA—programme for international student assessment—report, which says:

“Most successful school systems grant greater autonomy to individual schools to design curricula and assessment policies”.

That is in direct contradiction to what he has just said. I support the right of every child to take these five GCSEs, but it is a narrow selection, and not right for everybody, and the way in which he has introduced it is restricting student choice right now. Many feel that it is not a fair way to judge all children and all schools, suggesting that some are second best. So is he really saying to young people and employers today that dead languages are more important than business studies, engineering, information and communications technology, music and RE? Will he not listen to the call from the Chair of the Select Committee, made just a few moments ago, to allow a broader and more flexible English baccalaureate?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but these questions are becoming excessively long. I hope that we can have a pithy response, and I am sure we will, from the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I have seen enough of the right hon. Gentleman in action to know that weak jokes clearly mean he is in trouble. I think we can now safely give him his end-of-year report card. On Building Schools for the Future, school sports and now the education maintenance allowance he has shown poor attention to detail and a failure to do his homework. On the big decisions, things that people care about, he is cavalier—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is Question Time. We must have short questions and short answers, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to conclude his question?

[Andy Burnham]

Let me quote briefly from the Secretary of State’s White Paper. It states:

“No-one is helped when poor performance remains unaddressed.”

Will he make a new year’s resolution today to live by the same exacting standards as he expects schools to apply to their teachers?

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman overestimates my influence, although I am grateful to him for doing so. He has registered his concern forcefully and it will have been heard by senior Whips on the Treasury Bench. I have a feeling, knowing the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, that he will return to this matter, and more than once.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister, I am sure unintentionally, misrepresented the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench with regard to a constructive offer that we made to discuss the future of school sport with the Government. He said that we had said that the current system was unaffordable and not working. That is not the case. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that last week the Secretary of State for Education agreed to meet us to talk about school sport. That has not happened. I raised this point of order to put those facts on the record and to say that I am seeking an apology for the misrepresentation of the Opposition’s position on school sport that occurred at Prime Minister’s questions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. He has put his point very clearly on the record and I dare say that he will want to share it more widely. As an experienced Member and a former Cabinet Minister, he will be aware that a variety of ways are open to him further to pursue this matter and, as appropriate, to seek a correction. I hope that that is helpful.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, I believe very strongly, on behalf of the House, that statements of policy should be made first to this House and not through the media. He will appreciate that I keep a very attentive eye on these matters and I seek to perform the role of a detective such as I am able; I am always on the lookout for decisive evidence. But as to the specifics of today, I have nothing to add. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have his interests at heart—I hope he will realise that—and these matters are continually under review. If there are no further points of order—

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State cannot resist.

[Andy Burnham]

I cannot. Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked for evidence. The Financial Times was given drafts of the White Paper and I can supply that evidence to you. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) is right that on this occasion there seems to have been a widespread breach of your stricture about making announcements first to this House. I will provide that evidence, but I would be grateful if you would then raise this matter with the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to quibble with him or any other Member, but I did not ask for evidence; I simply said that I am always on the lookout for the evidence, which is not quite the same thing. I think that the matter must be parked for today. I have referred previously to the fact of the Procedure Committee inquiry into statements, to which he and other of his colleagues, and other Members from across the House, might wish to submit evidence. The matter will be kept, on an ongoing basis, under review. If he wants to bring to me particular instances of alleged abuse, he can do so. For today, that must not be done on the Floor of the Chamber, but on another occasion. If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion; the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has been patiently awaiting her opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State must bring himself to a question, and I am sure he will now do so.

[Andy Burnham]

The Library note states:

“The impact is likely to be a shift in funding from generally more deprived to less deprived local authorities.”

At this time, how can the Minister possibly justify taking money off schools in those deprived parts of England?

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will recall that on 5 July the Secretary of State for Education announced the closure of the Building Schools for the Future scheme and the cancellation of 700 school building projects. Six hundred had reached financial close and were described in a list published by the Department as “unaffected”. However, last Friday local authorities received phone calls to tell them to make 40% efficiencies in those projects, threatening to throw local plans into chaos.

On the “Politics Show” yesterday the Education Secretary said that schools were informed back in July of the potential for further large-scale cuts. However, councillors in Salford, Leicester and Nottingham dispute that claim, which is at odds with the statement given to this House back in July that the remaining projects would be “unaffected”. There is a great deal of confusion in communities throughout the country about Building Schools for the Future. The projects matter greatly to children and teachers in those communities and to Members in this House, so I request through you, Mr Speaker, that the Education Secretary makes an urgent statement to the House to clarify matters.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his point of order. I confess that here and now I detect nothing on which I should rule. That is a narrow interpretation of my responsibility, but it is a direct response to the point of order that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I have heard very clearly what he has said. He has in a sense put his request for a statement on the record. That will have been heard by Members on the Treasury Bench, and I hope that it is helpful, both to the right hon. Gentleman and to others who have expressed an interest, if I remind the House that there is an upcoming debate on the comprehensive spending review, within which the concerns articulated by the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be more fully aired.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Health questions yesterday, the Health Secretary misrepresented my position on NHS Direct. He referred to a Department of Health press release dated 18 December 2009 and quoted partially from it to imply that he is simply implementing my plans. Let me quote a crucial sentence that he left out:

“111 will not replace…NHS Direct”.

By contrast, his Department’s press release of 29 August states:

“NHS 111 telephone number will eventually replace NHS Direct”.

That is a huge change of policy that affects thousands of staff in the NHS and, of course, millions of patients who rely upon the services of NHS Direct every year.

Is it in order for an announcement of that kind to made on the eve of a bank holiday weekend and for no written or oral statement to be made to the House? Will you, Mr Speaker, intervene in this matter to ensure that there is a detailed statement laying out the Government’s plans for NHS Direct, and do you agree that carrying on in that cavalier way is no way to run the NHS or to treat dedicated NHS staff?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The response is as follows. First, it is entirely a matter for the Government to choose the timing, and indeed for the most part, the location of statements that they wish to make. It may well be that Members are unhappy about the timing, but the timing itself was entirely legitimate and proper, so there was no cause for me to intervene on that account.

Secondly, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that in so far as he was—and remains—concerned that his position was misrepresented, the point that he has raised must constitute a point of debate rather than a point of order. He has now very forcefully placed on the record his own position for others to observe. I have a feeling that this very controversial subject, on which there are strong views, is one to which the House and individual Members will regularly return, and it is open to him to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The remainder of this exchange—on both sides— needs to be shorter.

[Andy Burnham]

Let us first get some facts straight. I asked PCTs to set aside money to invest in patient care, changing patient pathways and better services. I did not say that a Labour Government would cut the NHS budget; I said that we would maintain it in real terms, not increase it, as the Secretary of State proposes. The effect of his increase will mean severe cuts to councils, which need to provide care support to older people to get people out of hospital.

However, the Secretary of State would not today tell us what his proposals would cost. Is it not the case that the plans were not in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos, and that there is no democratic mandate for the break-up of the NHS? Given that there is now a chorus of protest at his plans, will he step back, listen to patients and staff and consult on those reforms before taking them forward further?

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State thinks he can behave any way he likes with the NHS, the most beloved institution in this country, but we will not let him—we will give him a fight every inch of the way. The latest example of his high-handed and arrogant behaviour came on the eve of a bank holiday weekend, when he casually let slip that NHS Direct would be scrapped. NHS Direct is a valued service that receives 27,000 calls every day and saves millions of pounds for the NHS, and that has more than 3,000 staff working for it. Will he today apologise for making that statement in such an outrageous manner? Will he listen to the 14,000 people who signed a petition to save NHS Direct, and going forward, stop acting in such a cavalier manner with our NHS?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A question should be a question—it should not really be three questions.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the points raised during business questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), we have heard this week, 20 years on from the Hillsborough disaster, that there are still misconceptions about the tragedy, even in the Cabinet. That is precisely why I, together with my two hon. Friends, called for the full disclosure of all public documents relating to the disaster and the establishment of the Hillsborough independent panel to give the people of Merseyside the full truth and to end the misconceptions once and for all.

Together with the former Home Secretary, we signed off the terms of reference and the funding for the Hillsborough independent panel before the election. The policy was settled. Today in the Daily Mirror I read that sources in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport say that the Secretary of State is taking a new look at the issue and

“Things are not as simple as before”.

Is it in order that on an issue of this significance and importance a change of policy can be dealt with by off-the-record briefings? Do the people of Merseyside not deserve the courtesy of a Minister of the Crown coming to this House to tell them exactly what they are up to?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it. I reiterate at the outset that if a Minister intends to make a new commitment in terms of policy or to change a hitherto understood public policy, he or she is expected to make that clear first to the House, as I hope experience earlier this week testifies.

I appreciate the extreme importance of this matter. I am not aware thus far of any intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to table questions—[Interruption.] Order. The request that the right hon. Gentleman has made will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and I repeat that if a new policy is planned we had better hear about it here first.

Finally, and more widely, it might be of interest to the House to know that applications have already been made for an Adjournment debate on this subject. Those applications were not successful in the ballot, but knowing the persistence and indefatigability of colleagues who are interested in this matter, I have a hunch that they might apply again and, who knows, they might be successful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Burnham and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently ask the Minister to face the House? I am sure that Opposition Members will want to see his face.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We do, Mr Speaker, very much; we want to see him squirm.

First, let me say that we welcome the Minister back to the Department of Health; he was a Minister in the Department 13 years ago. As I have said before, we trust that he finds the NHS in much better condition than when he left office. Last week we had an independent verdict on those 13 years. The independent and respected Commonwealth Fund said that the NHS was one of the best health care systems in the world, and, indeed, that it was top on efficiency: a ringing endorsement of Labour’s stewardship of the national health service. That verdict reflects the huge progress on waiting times that has been made over those 13 years. So does not the abolition of the 18-week target, which the Minister announced last week, put all that progress at risk? Will he today give us a straight answer to this question: can he guarantee that waiting times will not rise, and that patients will still be treated within 18 weeks?