Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point very clear. ACOBA is coming to its determination and it will consider all the evidence in the round. It is important that it does so without my prejudicing its decision by passing comment.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is excessive noise, which is rather discordant and very unseemly. Let us have a bit of order for Mrs Sheryll Murray.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T5. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should strive to be as efficient as possible? To that end, perhaps he can assist the Lib Dem/Independent-led Cornwall council in prioritising the interests of residents rather than political vanity projects.

[Ben Gummer]

I am very concerned that the Liberal Democrats in Cornwall are not seeking to use the One Public Estate programme, which is set up precisely so they can save public money and direct it to the frontline. That is where they should be directing their efforts.

[Mr Speaker]

Fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, he is not responsible for the Liberal Democrats—either in Cornwall or anywhere else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that it was this Government who introduced new guidance to make sure that we could support the UK steel industry wherever possible. That has been well received by the industry, and I hope to be able to write to my hon. Friend quite shortly with the results of where we have got so far.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So must the voice of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments/Ministerial Code

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Whatever the conflict may be, I am the determinant of what is an orderly question. I ask the hon. Gentleman graciously to accept that I am trying to do the right thing in balancing different considerations, but we must adhere to order. The Minister is a dextrous fellow, and he will answer in a way that is orderly—I know he will not answer in a way that is not.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is incisive in how he asks his question. I agree that we all obviously have a challenge in raising the reputation of our democratic institutions and the people who serve in them. That would not be served by a Minister of the Crown coming to the Dispatch Box on a Monday, following an announcement the previous Friday, to set out a new policy just to suit the particular agenda of the day. It is for the House to have a wide consideration of whether it thinks that it is right or wrong for people to have outside interests—I think that there are arguments on both sides. In the meantime, we all need to consider our individual duties to the wider body politic in the way in which we behave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

I congratulate—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must give a fair hearing to Members on both sides of the House, and to the Minister. Earlier, Members were moaning that the Minister needed to speak up a bit. That is as may be, but the Minister is immensely courteous, and just as he is courteous to the House, so the House should be courteous to him.

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend on moving himself up the speaking order for the next debate.

Many Members discharge their responsibilities to their constituents incredibly well even though they have interests outside Parliament, while some Members—albeit a very limited number—do not do much work on behalf of their constituents even though they have no outside work. This is not a binary debate but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it is a matter of public concern and one that this House is right to discuss. It should do so with time and with dignity, and I suggest that this is not the right place now—in an urgent question off the back of one story about one Member.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)]

The Government are striving towards their manifesto commitment to achieve £20 billion of annual efficiency savings by 2020. Cabinet Office functions are supporting Departments by providing expert support and advice in all areas, including commercial property, infrastructure, fraud and error, and debt. In addition, I will be leading a review with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to see whether further savings are possible over that period.

[Mr Speaker]

I know the House will want to join me in congratulating the Minister on the recent arrival of his second child, a brother for Wilfred.

[Huw Merriman]

May I add my congratulations as well? I thank the Minister for his answer. How much did the Government deliver in efficiency savings over the last term and how much is to come?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

It is not for me to revisit the arguments over the House of Lords, and as our manifesto made clear, that is not a first priority of this Government. The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that, over the past few years, we have reduced the cost of the House of Lords quite considerably. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the House were as courteous to the Minister as the Minister is to the House, that would be a great advance for all of us.

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady asks both in her urgent question and from her seat about our actions. All I can say is that I personally have implored the leaders of the BMA to come to talks on a number of occasions, but there is a point at which it is not possible to continue discussions, first because the counter-party refuses to talk, and secondly because the BMA has promised to talk on so many occasions, only to renege on that promise at a future point. We have to move ahead with a contract that is better for patients and better for doctors.

The hon. Lady asked about the reasons for the contract and claimed that it has nothing to do with seven-day services and something to do with the pay bill. Not only is this contract cost neutral, but transition payment is being funded from outside the pay envelope. This has nothing to do with the pay bill; it is about recognising a core concern of the British Medical Association, the Government and NHS Employers that the current contract is not fit for purpose and needs reform.

One of the many reasons for that is to make sure that care can be delivered more consistently across seven days of the week. It introduces for junior doctors terms for Saturday working that in several senses are more generous than those afforded to “Agenda for Change” employees. It could be a judgment for the House as to whether it is equitable for that to be the case, but that was the negotiated position, as far as we reached one, with Sir David Dalton. I ask the hon. Lady and junior doctors to think carefully about resisting a pay offer that is more generous in form and in number than the one that is given to porters and nurses working in the same teams.

The hon. Lady asked whether she was wrong to say that this was part of a wider narrative to reduce the pay bill for “Agenda for Change” unions. I say to her unequivocally that she is. This has nothing to do with the form or payment of “Agenda for Change” staff. It is to do with the terms of contract and employment for junior doctors. It is about making a contract that is safer and fairer for them and better for patients.

Finally, I return to the point that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question. It is not the Government who have caused the industrial action. We have bent over backwards to try to avert it, and I suggest that we have done more than some previous Labour Secretaries of State to avert industrial action. The one thing that will help to stop this industrial action is clear condemnation from the Labour party. There is one remaining question in the whole debate, and that is the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

The hon. Lady has been assiduous in holding the Government to account. She has been right to do so, and she has done so with the decency that has earned her respect on both sides of the House, but she has not yet told us what the Opposition’s position is. I can understand that, although I do not agree with it, when industrial action is to do with elective, non-emergency care. The call for strike action on emergency care is of an altogether different order, however, and it demands a response from the Opposition, because this is about emergency cover for patients. The Opposition need to say clearly whether they support or condemn the action. If the hon. Lady remains silent on the matter, I will only be able, as will the House, to draw the conclusion that she supports the action. If that is so, it is a very sad day for the Labour party.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the Minister, whose emollient and statesmanlike tone is widely admired across the House, that briefly to refer to the stance of the Opposition is legitimate, but dilation upon it is not. I know that he is drawing his remarks to a close.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

That is exactly what I said.

[Ben Gummer]

I am glad to see, Mr Speaker, that you are in agreement with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner).

[Mr Speaker]

No, I think the hon. Member for Bolsover is in agreement with me.

[Ben Gummer]

We have mutual agreement, in that case. You were right to draw attention to this, Mr Speaker. All I will say is that the strike would be more easily averted if Her Majesty’s Opposition were to condemn it absolutely. If they do not, all that says is that Her Majesty’s Opposition are in thrall to the militants within the unions and are putting decent members of the Labour party in an impossible position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

It is clear that the Government are in a very difficult position, hence the Minister’s attack on Opposition Front and Back Benchers. I have to say that, from my experience of nine years on the General Medical Council, I do not recognise the various descriptions of the doctors’ profession that the Government have given over the past few weeks, including as being radicalised. We all know that this dispute should and will be settled not by imposition but by negotiations around a table. It seems to me that instead of using, at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, rhetoric that has fired this up, Ministers would do much better to react to what the BMA said yesterday, which is that it wants

“to end this dispute through talks”.

Why do the Government not get on with it, keep us out of it and just do what people expect them to do?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister replies, may I remind the House that this is an urgent question, not a debate under Standing Order No. 24 or a series of speeches? There seems to be predilection among colleagues to preface whatever question they ultimately arrive at with an essay first. A number of Members say, “Oh, I have to say this.” No, Members do not have to say anything; they have to ask a question, preferably briefly. That is all we want to hear.

[Ben Gummer]

The right hon. Gentleman should know that we have negotiated with the BMA for more than three years. We have a choice either to cave in, which would produce a bad contract—much like the 2000 and 2003 contracts, which we are trying to correct, because everyone agrees they are wrong—or to move forward, accepting the fact that 90% of this contract has been agreed. We believe that it is in the interests of patients and doctors to do the latter.

NHS Trusts: Finances

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Public Health was in Whiston last year. I was in Manchester a few weeks ago, and I plan to go back there and to the north-west in the next few weeks. I will be doing a regional tour, and I would very much like to meet the hon. Lady and talk to her trust’s chief executive. She raises an interesting point, which is that chief executives in many trusts across the NHS are of exceptional quality. It is often easy to knock managers in the NHS, but there are some fantastic managers, and I am sure that her constituency has one.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the Minister in all friendliness that I hope the region is aware of his upcoming tour. It sounds a most exciting prospect.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister think carefully about what has happened up and down the country? Health trusts such as mine in Calderdale and Huddersfield have run successfully for many years, but recently—I think this is something to do with the destabilisation of clinical commissioning groups—many problems have entered into the general life of those trusts. In Huddersfield we do not want the closure of A&E in our hospital, or the closure of the main hospital and its replacement by a much smaller one. Will the Minister look carefully and forensically at what has happened in the Huddersfield and Calderdale area? It is not just the whipping boy of the unfortunate independent financial arrangement that was negotiated under John Major but signed under Tony Blair.

NHS: Financial Performance

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is right to point to this area of health policy as one that is of interest. That is why the Law Commission reported on professional regulation before the last election. It is being kept under close review within the Department.

[Mr Speaker]

We are straying a tad from the relatively narrow terms of the urgent question, to which I know colleagues will be eager to return, and none more so than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. This is a question for Members across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where there are pressures on the NHS, because while we all have passion and love for the NHS, we must ensure that there is enough money for it. Will the Minister confirm the amount of money that will be there for accident and emergency departments and say what will be done on waiting lists?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister conduct a review of car parking charges? Patients in Dudley are absolutely furious after the people running Russells Hall hospital put up prices by as much as 50% for a short stay. Will he get together with NHS civil servants and the people running the hospitals to sort this out?

[Mr Speaker]

Because of the impact of parking charges on those seeking to access acute services.

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you Mr Speaker—helpful as ever.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that those who seek to access acute services on a regular basis require special treatment. That is why we issued guidance in the previous Parliament. I very much hope that his local hospitals will be looking at that with due care and attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Questions do need to be shorter, otherwise they will eat into everyone else’s time.

[Ben Gummer]

There are two parts to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is about the high-pressure tactics employed by providers. They will be covered by the new regulations brought in on 1 April by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is now the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, by which we have given powers to the Information Commissioner. I suggest that my hon. Friend refers his question to our right hon. Friend. On the second point about failed procedures, refractive eye surgery operators are governed by the same regulators as hospitals, and achieve exactly the end that my hon. Friend wishes.

[Mr Speaker]

Pithiness personified, I hope—Mr John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The regulatory procedures are not working. Ten years ago, our late colleague Frank Cook introduced a ten-minute rule Bill calling for regulatory reform, and I reintroduced that Bill three years ago. The Keogh report called for regulatory reform two and a half years ago, and nothing has happened. People are losing their eyesight as a result of some of the companies operating in this field. Will the Minister meet me and the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) to talk about progress in this field?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

Is the Minister aware of the case of my constituent, little George Pegg? At one time he could not walk, but this drug has made his life 100% better and he can now walk. Why are we dithering? This has been going on for at least a year, so why don’t you get off that backside of yours and get it approved?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just exhort Members to have some regard to considerations of taste? This is a new Minister. I call Minister Gummer.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. In relation to posteriors, it is good to see his in its rightful place. I have heard of his constituent’s case, which is as distressing as that of Jagger and of all those suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a terrible disease that causes lasting pain to the sufferers and their families. That is precisely why we are pushing hard for a decision from NHS England by the end of this month—it could not have come as quick as he had hoped—and for interim NICE guidance by the end of this year. I am pushing officials to move as quickly as they can on this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the Minister, for next month the answers should be a bit shorter. They are just a bit too long.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the Minister for that careful reply. He will be aware of the Justice Committee’s recommendation that contracts should follow the offender through the criminal justice system, rather than attach themselves to the various institutions through which he or she might pass. What progress has the Department made in considering those proposals?

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about cavalier language. At the last election, Harriet Harman, the Member for—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that they should not name other Members? The reference should be to the constituency represented; I think that the hon. Gentleman was about to get on to that.

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for correcting me.

At the time, the lady of whom I spoke came to Ipswich and told my constituents that children’s centres would be cut in Ipswich. Since the election, every single centre has stayed open and two more have been added. The right hon. Gentleman is a decent man. Will he apologise on her behalf for having misled people, because I have tried to get her to apologise and she has refused to answer my letters?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. I hope he shares the excitement of many people in this country at seeing people stand up to one-party rule in Tunisia and Egypt. Will he explain what steps the Government are taking to encourage the spread of democracy—not just in the middle east, but in north Africa?

[Mr Speaker]

We will focus on the middle east for now.