Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

We are increasing the number of junior doctors and the number of other doctors, consultants and nurses over the next five year years in order to meet the increasing challenges facing our national health service.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister said that he had reached agreement on 90% of matters, including some that were not on the table, and he is to be warmly congratulated on that. Perhaps he has a future at ACAS. What my constituents would like, however, is for him to go back to negotiate the other 10%. Is it not the case that the junior doctors want a resolution and have said that they will negotiate? The Minister should square the circle: he says they will not negotiate; they say they will. Will he give it one more chance?

[Ben Gummer]

The credit that the hon. Gentleman has kindly given me is due to Sir David Dalton, who achieved the 90% agreement on the contract. As for the remaining 10%, his judgment was that the junior doctors committee would refuse to negotiate. At that point, the Government had to make a decision about whether to proceed or to cave in. We decided to proceed, which is why we will implement the contract later this year.

BMA (Contract Negotiations)

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Slaughter

Monday 21st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and it has been a pleasure to hear some of the contributions to the debate, which have included measured speeches, as ever, by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). However, it disappoints me as much as it does many other hon. Members that we need to be here today. We would all have wanted the issue to be concluded some time ago. I hope that in the next few minutes I can describe why we are in this position and what we plan to do about it.

I will start by discussing something that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) touched on, because I know he wants to leave early. I want to make these comments before he does. We are all here because we are interested in the future of the NHS, but, among various silly outbursts and fits of laughter, he described the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) as tragic. There is indeed tragedy behind my hon. Friend’s interest in patient safety, and that is that her father died as a result of a failure of patient safety. It is no coincidence that she is here today and that she cares so much about this important issue. It behoves hon. Members, and especially the hon. Gentleman, who is barely able to contain himself on matters of this kind, to pay a little attention to the motivations of Members, on whichever side of the House they sit, and the reasons why they feel strongly about the matter. That includes the Secretary of State, who considers it to be a question of patient safety through and through. A portion of that is about the delivery of seven-day services, but more broadly, to reflect on the wise words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, it is about the fact that tired doctors who work bad rotas are dangerous. That is at the core of our reasons for wanting to change the contract.

It was not just the present Government who decided that it would be right to change the contract. It was the British Medical Association that confirmed, in 2008, that the contract was not fit for purpose, just a few years after the Labour party had introduced it.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

I will in a second; I will just answer this point.

From that point, as many Members have pointed out, considerable progress was made through the negotiations that we had under ACAS from December 2015 to February 2016—far more progress than in the previous negotiating period, partly because the BMA knew that an imposition would have to come if there could be no agreement. As the shadow Minister will understand, at some point an employer needs to move both on issues where there is agreement and on those where there might not be.

The fact that the Secretary of State chose Sir David Dalton to lead negotiations undermines the argument that somehow he was not trying to come to a negotiated settlement. He asked one of the very best chief executives in the NHS to lead the negotiations on his behalf. Even Sir David Dalton was unable to come to a final conclusion of the negotiations with the BMA, because the BMA refused to discuss the last remaining substantive issue—the rates of Saturday pay.

Herein lies the rub: in the heads of terms of the talks it began through ACAS, the BMA had agreed to discuss Saturday pay rates, yet it withdrew that agreement at the end. Sir David Dalton was therefore forced to write to the Secretary of State saying that in his judgment, there was no prospect of agreement on the remaining matters because the BMA was refusing to discuss them. When the Secretary of State or any negotiator has no counterparty with whom to negotiate, it is impossible to negotiate.

Far from the title of the e-petition, which suggests that the Secretary of State has somehow been unwilling, he has been negotiating in good faith all through the period since 2013. It was the BMA, right at the last minute and at previous moments that has refused to do that. I myself have called on it a number of times, both personally and in public, to come back to the negotiating table.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ben Gummer]

I will not, because I know that the hon. Gentleman needs to go. I said that I would give way to the shadow Minister.

NHS Trusts: Finances

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Slaughter

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

There are many examples of success in the NHS, and hospitals, CCGs and community health organisations are delivering exceptional care within existing budgets. We must ensure that we spread that practice and approach to care across the NHS. Some parts of the NHS are not doing that, but with our ability to level up and “universalise the best”, as Bevan coined it, we will ensure that everyone gets the level of care that those in the best areas of the NHS already receive.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Last week Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust reported a £25 million deficit, and announced a non-clinical vacancy freeze on top of 10% vacancy rates, and above-target use of agency staff. Its solution was to pay its chief executive £350,000 last year to oversee the downsizing of the major local hospital, Charing Cross. What is that other than a short-sighted and dangerous attempt to undermine the NHS?

[Ben Gummer]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s record of statements given to his constituents, whether on housing or hospitals, I would prefer very much comments from the clinicians running Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust, than I do his own comments about this.

Contaminated Blood

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Slaughter

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that treatments, including new treatments, will be provided on the basis of need, but again, it will be for NHS England to determine how they are released to the service. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences will give my hon. Friend further details if he requires them.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Contrary to the Minister’s assertion, there is a lack of urgency, which is shown by the fact that there was no statement by the Prime Minister, as had been promised. We know the defects of the current schemes—they are not redeemable—and we know what needs to be done. Will the Minister confirm what I think he said, namely that there will be a final assessment by next March? Will he also guarantee that the money will be available, and will not be ring-fenced or offset against other departmental spending?

[Ben Gummer]

What I have said, very clearly, is that we will launch a consultation in the autumn, and that we hope it will be as short as possible so that we can arrive at a settlement as rapidly as possible. I also hope that it will be in the tightest possible timeframe, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

As for the issue of money, I know that the hon. Gentleman may not understand this, but the money has to come from somewhere, and it will come from the health budget, which is where it is designated to derive from.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

May I just finish my point? At the beginning—

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

I will give way to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Slaughter]

I hope that we can make some progress in this debate now. This is not helping—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is laughing. I hope that he is not going back on his earlier promise that we would make progress today. Had the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) been here earlier, he would have heard me deal with that point, in terms and at length, in response to an intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. Will he stop wasting time?

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman is a little previous. Had he allowed me to continue my point, as I had asked, he would have heard me address exactly what he said. I did hear what he said, albeit outside the Chamber. Let me deal with this point about the Opposition. If they are to be credible, they have to make alternative proposals for cuts to legal aid, which they promised in their manifesto and have promised since, to this Chamber. A few months ago, during the Public Bill Committee, they clung to the proposals made by the Bar Council and the Law Society, until those proposals fell apart. They fell apart to the extent that the Bar Council and the Law Society have had to revise them in a resubmitted document provided earlier this week. That was the Opposition’s first cost-reduction plan and it was not one of their own making—it was made by others.

Some £245 million-worth of amendments were tabled by the Opposition in the Public Bill Committee, along the lines of those proposed by the hon. Member for Makerfield, but with no suggestions as to where cuts might be made elsewhere. So we get to a point where there is a complete absence of the other side of policy from Her Majesty’s Opposition—it might provide some credibility to what they propose—until perhaps today, when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) appears before the House saying, “We are going to bring in accelerated competitive tendering in criminal defence work.”

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Slaughter

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

If he wishes, I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene on me, and to reply to the hon. Lady, or he may wish to deal with the matter subsequently. I have nothing like her experience, but I have had the experience many hundreds of times of explaining undertakings and their seriousness to clients. She is absolutely right. In law, there are clear differences, but in practice the effect of an undertaking is the same in relation to perpetrators as the outcome of a trial in terms of the penalties available against them. Excluding undertakings is a huge and glaring omission from the Bill.

The other criteria are

“a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence…a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation…or…other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses.”

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

On paragraph (j) of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I can see where he is heading, but would that require a state registry of domestic violence organisations to exist so that they could be validated in order to put in a claim legitimately?

[Mr Slaughter]

I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he is over-complicating matters. He is also missing the central point, which is that our issue is not, as the Mayor of London’s appears to be, with self-referral or with the Minister’s point about false claims, but with the scope for evidential support. We believe that organisations, whether they be medical or domestic violence organisations should be sufficient to be regarded as evidence, just as they often are in trial processes.

[Ben Gummer]

I am genuinely trying to helpful, though I know that the hon. Gentleman might find that difficult to believe. All his other examples—general practitioners, hospital doctors, undertakings from a court, social services departments—are instruments of the state, as it were. I would be happy for many organisations in my constituency that support women in a domestic violence situation to give evidence to a court, but that does not mean that all organisations that claim to speak for women should be able to do so.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman is being a little pernickety. It is a practical reality that in many cases voluntary organisations, which have vast experience of supporting women, will be providing that support, not only in an emotional and a practical sense but in an evidential sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

Again, the hon. Lady speaks with far more experience than I on this matter, and I was getting to her point. I am merely suggesting that the idea that we can address all these problems of domestic violence through an overheated politicised discussion about where the Government are heading on this Bill not only misses the point, but will damage the cause at hand.

On amendment 74, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, I return to the point I made in my intervention. I regret the fact that he said that I was being pernickety, because many of the things that he is driving at have reason and substance behind them. However, there is a problem if we include, within a list of organisations that would help women to report, a general definition of

“a domestic violence support organisation”

without providing clarification about the efficacy of that organisation.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that that definition is perfectly acceptable to the UK Border Agency, as are the others. It is a composite of definitions acceptable to Departments, so that is a rogue point. May I add that he is doing no service to this House by padding out this debate, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) did, when we have several other serious debates to come? If the Conservatives are afraid to debate social welfare legal aid, they should say so. Otherwise he should get on with it and allow the House to debate these important amendments tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

The right hon. Gentleman misses my point about the Public Bill Committee. There are many issues that needed to be raised that we could have fleshed out at greater length, but the Opposition tabled so many specious amendments, many of which were completely contradictory—largely in the name of the shadow Minister, not that of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is shaking her head—that we did not get to the meat of some of the issues in the amendment we are debating. Had we been able to discuss sub-paragraph (10)(j) of amendment 74, which the shadow Minister has tabled, we might have been able to improve the Opposition’s amendment so that it could be acceptable to Members on both sides of the House. Instead, we have an amendment that was tabled a couple of days ago with aspects that clearly would not hold up to further legislative scrutiny. It is a pity that we did not have that discussion in Committee instead of discussing a series of amendments, some of which I doubt the shadow Minister had even read before he started speaking to them.

Putting all that aside, a principal issue for me is that many of the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister in Committee would have committed his party to spending increases costing £245 million, but whenever I or other members asked whether the Opposition had any alternative spending plans, they told us to look at the Law Society’s plans. Unfortunately, the Law Society has had to revise its plans, which were found wanting.

[Mr Slaughter]

What does this have to do with the debate?

[Ben Gummer]

I am just coming to that if the hon. Gentleman will listen.

When they table amendments, the Opposition have a duty to explain how their changes would be paid for and what balances would be made elsewhere in the Bill, but so far we have had nothing to substantiate how they would do that, and neither do we have any idea how their changes would fit into the general pattern of the Bill. I cannot therefore vote for their amendment or that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion—amendment 113 —as neither is complete and nor have they been properly discussed.

In conclusion, I hope that we can continue our proceedings without trying to politicise the issue of domestic violence. I hope we can discuss the precise provisions in the Bill without throwing what I feel have been intemperate and sometimes misjudged accusations at one side purely because they happen to disagree with the assertions put by the other.