Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

16. Cancer Research UK estimates that by 2035 there will be over half a million new cancer cases—up by 150,000 a year on 2015 levels. To meet the Government’s ambition of diagnosing 75% of cancers at an early stage, does the Minister accept that the NHS will need a proper training and recruitment plan for its cancer workforce, which must be fully funded in the upcoming spending review?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right: early diagnosis of cancer is vital for successful outcomes. The Government are absolutely committed to a cancer workforce with the skills and expertise to ensure that 75% of all cancers are diagnosed early, not just the top 10. As I have said several times, that is why we asked Baroness Dido Harding to develop a detailed workforce plan to ensure that that can be delivered.

Cervical Cancer Smear Tests

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in a debate in which there have been so many thoughtful and personal contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her detailed opening. I tried for some time to secure a debate on this subject, in order to raise the concerns of my constituents and others who were denied smear tests because they were under 25 and so did not receive a diagnosis of cervical cancer. My hon. Friend raised the case of a young lady who died of cervical cancer around Christmas. She believed that had she been allowed a smear test earlier, the cancer might have been caught at an early age.

My understanding of the campaign under way at the moment is that it does not necessarily aim to extend access to smear tests to all women under the age of 18; it argues, more simply, that a smear test should be carried out when a doctor believes it is necessary. I know of the case of a young woman, Lucy, who lives in a constituency neighbouring mine. She had a history of cervical cancer and so was given a smear test, but the lab did not even test the sample and destroyed it because she was under 25. She went on to develop cervical cancer—it was detected when she went for a private smear test. I am happy to report that it was eventually cured, but not without the difficulties of treatment.

My constituent Sophie wrote:

“I’m 23. I have two children (aged 5 and 16 months). When I was 17, I fell pregnant with my first son and my midwife asked for a smear test a few months after I gave birth, as I was suffering from abnormal pains in my pelvis area. My sister had been diagnosed with cervical cancer that year and my nan sadly died from it a few years before”—

So there is a family history. Sophie went on to say:

“I wasn’t given one, due to my age. Three years ago, I was suffering from pain again and they refused a smear, again due to my age, but used a cotton wool bud for a swab. This came back with abnormal cells and I was given antibiotics to clear these up and take the pain away. The doctor advised me if it carried on I would develop cervical cancer and may not be able to have further children. However, he did not refer me for a smear.

I had my daughter in June 2017 and still suffer from strange pains and, again, my midwife asked my doctor to refer me, but my age has always been a massive problem. I’m 23. I have two kids. I’m a law student, and it’s always in the back of my mind that, due to my previous abnormal cells, which they didn’t look further into, and my family’s history, I could potentially have cancerous cells I don’t know about, which would completely ruin and change my babies’ lives.”

Sophie concluded:

“I totally back you, Chris, with this, and hope that this legislation is changed. It’s totally against women’s human rights and discriminatory in age.”

The proposal is that women under the age of 25 should have access to cervical smears if they are needed. Objections to the proposal suggest that smear tests that are done too early might be inconsistent and inaccurate, and throw up false positives, as other hon. Members have mentioned. The campaign is not about testing all young women by extending the testing programme to 18 to 24-year-olds; it is about allowing a test only when the circumstances require it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North talked about the current regulations, which she believes are not being implemented. The regulations behind the 25-year age limit are now 13 years old, and they have not been reviewed in that time—my hon. Friend therefore asked the Minister that they be reviewed. The Smear on Demand campaign has prepared an extensive research paper that shows that the initial figures used 13 years ago to justify the 25-year age limit may have been incorrect, as they related only to when patients were diagnosed with stage 1B onward, as opposed to stage 1A. Many of the high-profile cases that we have heard about today were initially diagnosed with stage 1A. The campaign looked at figures for women under 28. The number of women diagnosed with stage 1A is highest in those aged 25—the figures start only at 25 and are not collected before then.

The smear test is supposed to be a preventative measure, but women can access it only at 25. It makes no sense to remove the possibility of prevention for the lower age limit. I do not think that it is in dispute that 25 is a good age at which to start routine smears, but when a doctor believes that a woman under that age needs a smear test, it should surely be allowed on the NHS. The campaign is not asking for all women under 25 to be tested; only those for whom that is recommended by a doctor. Some 99.7% of cervical cancers are treatable, because cervical cancer goes through three stages of pre-cancer, which means that it can be very slow growing. Currently, a smear test is the only cancer-detection test available that can detect pre-cancers.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to prevention in the NHS strategy that he recently presented to the House. I also welcome his commitment, which he gave to me in the main Chamber, to asking Mike Richards to look into the issue. I have not yet heard from Sir Mike, but I am sure that he will soon be in touch following the Secretary of State’s commitment. The House is currently dealing with some very difficult, intractable and divisive issues. This is not one of them. It is an easy issue for which a Minister can perhaps change the regulations and direct that if a doctor believes that a young women under the age of 25 has symptoms that require investigation, they are investigated. That is a minor change that could have major consequences. In these difficult times, I urge the Minister to apply some common sense and grab that chance with both hands.

NHS Long-term Plan

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady is dead right. Of course, health visitor numbers went up very sharply between 2010 and 2015. In fact there is a proposal in the plan, and the NHS will be discussing with Government the best way to commission health visitors. Health visitors are clearly a health service but, at the moment, they are commissioned by local authorities. We look forward to working with the NHS and with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how best we can commission health visitors in future, because they are a critical part of maternity services.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Over the holiday period, another young woman tragically died of cervical cancer, which she contracted before the age of 25; therefore, she was not able to have a smear test. Will the Secretary of State, as part of this review, remove that ridiculous and utterly arbitrary age limit so that, where a GP believes a female patient needs a cervical smear, they can have one irrespective of their age?

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Second sitting)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

The Minister and I will not agree on that, unfortunately. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already gone through, but I will remind hon. Members that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the powers and regulation as “breath-taking”, and said that

“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere.”

The scope of the clause is breath-taking. Although the Minister is trying to reassure us, as parliamentarians, we need the security of the affirmative procedure.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Would he have been a little more reassured by the Minister’s attempts at reassurance if this was not part of a process and of a pattern of behaviour by the Government? There have been power grabs and the use of Henry VIII clauses throughout the Brexit process.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right. One of the things that was stated during the referendum campaign was that Parliament should take back control, and that is what I believe should be happening following the result. Parliament needs to make sure that, as much as possible, the legislation that will be necessary in the coming months is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. That is why the affirmative procedure should be included in the clause, which we cannot support as it currently stands.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Prevention of Ill Health: Government Vision

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am quite certain that the Secretary of State will want to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I welcome the focus on prevention. Of course, the next best thing is early diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State look again and remove the arbitrary age limit of 25 for women’s smear tests?

[Matt Hancock]

We are reviewing questions around that issue, because we want to ensure the best possible prevention and early diagnosis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of the public sector pay cap on staffing levels in the NHS.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effect of the public sector pay cap on staffing levels in the NHS.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

NHS staff do a fantastic job in tough circumstances, and pay restraint has been challenging for many of them. However, given the financial pressures, it is also true that the NHS would not have been able to recruit an additional 30,000 staff since May 2010 without the cap.

[Christian Matheson]

The NHS is short of 3,500 midwives and 40,000 nurses. What proportion of those numbers does the Secretary of State put down to the public sector pay cap?

[Mr Hunt]

As I said in my previous answer, without pay restraint we would not have 11,300 more doctors in the NHS and 11,300 more nurses on our wards. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recognise that it was not sustainable to carry on with the 1% rise going forward, which is why we have been given the leeway to have more flexible negotiations next year.

Adult Social Care Funding

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In fact, he has got it.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Did the Minister see the recent “Dispatches” programme featuring Bupa’s Crawfords Walk care home in my constituency, which had shocking levels of care? If large, well-known providers such as Bupa are caught putting profits before patient care, what can the Minister do to ensure that smaller, less high-profile providers are not doing the same?

[Steve Brine]

I am sorry, but I did not see that programme. I shall look out for it on “watch again”. What we can do is put in place the toughest, most rigorous assessment and inspection regime, and that is what we have. That has come from this Secretary of State, not from the previous Government, who ducked the issue. What we can do is ensure that there is rigorous inspection to root out poorly performing services. That is the same in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as it is in mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine]

I thank the hon. Lady for her sensible question.

[Christian Matheson]

Mine was sensible.

[Steve Brine]

They have not all been sensible, but yours was marginally more sensible.

As I said earlier, this is a rapidly growing sector and it is imperative that we get the right people into the right jobs. That is why it is so important to work with organisations such as Skills for Care to improve the level of skills, and people in this sector are expected to benefit from the national living wage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

2. What estimate he has made of the number of patients who waited more than 12 hours for treatment in A&E in the last 12 months.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours to be admitted to A&E in the last 12 months.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Between February 2016 and January 2017, there were just under 3,500 waits of longer than 12 hours from decision to admit to admission. That is completely unacceptable, which is why the Government took urgent steps to free up NHS bed capacity in this month’s Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To continue, let me say that in this so-called “drastically underfunded NHS”, the hon. Lady’s local hospital—St George’s in Tooting—now has 36 more doctors working in A&E than there were in 2010. However, we also think that as a lot of people go to A&E departments with minor injuries and things that can be dealt with by GPs, we need to have GPs on site, and this Parliament we are planning to have 5,000 more doctors working in general practice.

[Christian Matheson]

In January, more than 1,000 patients at the Countess of Chester’s A&E unit had to wait more than four hours and only 81% of patients had to wait less than four hours. Now that the 95% target has been abandoned, until at least midway through next year, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give my constituents that we will not get a repeat of this next winter?

[Mr Hunt]

On the contrary, we have not abandoned the 95% target—we have reiterated its importance. There is, however, one part of the United Kingdom that has said it wants to move away from the 95% target—Wales. The Welsh Health Minister said last week:

“You can go to A&E and be there five hours but have…a good experience.”

That is not looking after patients; it is giving up on them.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I commence in the same vein as others by paying tribute to the leadership and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on this issue. I see other Members across the Chamber today who have also played a part, including the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who has been in meetings with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). This is not a party political issue. The core of it is simply about doing the right thing, and it shows all-party groups and Parliament at their best. Members have come together on the basis of the difficult personal stories of our constituents, such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

I have two constituents who have provided me with an inspirational lead in tackling the problem. My constituent Debra has HIV. She received it from a partner who had received contaminated blood products. In fact, he did not tell her at the time, and it took her several years to work out that all her health problems derived from that infection. He obviously became her ex-partner, and that person later died of his illness. Debra has never been able to hold down a job because of the continuing, persistent nature of the illness. In common with the constituent described by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, Debra was asked to leave her job, and her career has been badly threatened.

My constituent Neil has hepatitis C, which he contracted as a haemophilia patient as a child. Again, he is unable to hold down a job, which means he cannot hold on to decent housing. Another aspect of the problem is that Neil’s body retains water, and he has to go regularly to hospital to have his body drained of excess fluid. He can work, but he suffers from fatigue and his whole life has been dominated by these problems.

The only mistake these constituents of mine and of other Members have committed is to be unlucky. That is the only thing they have done. They were unlucky when they received these contaminated blood products or, in the case of Debra, were infected by a partner, without being told the circumstances. They are the victims of what could be considered, as we have said, a crime. We cannot get away from the fact that we still need to do more for people whose basic problem is that they were unlucky at a difficult time in their lives.

The current system is chaotic. We are simplifying it, although I fear that when we simplify systems of this kind, they may also become less valuable. As other Members have said, when it has been simplified and the various schemes have been brought together, no recipient should be any worse off. I approve of such an amalgamation, but I cannot help feeling that so far there has been almost a policy of divide and rule—perhaps unwitting, perhaps deliberate—with different types of scheme for different types of sufferer. There are also different schemes, and different levels of schemes, in the different countries of the United Kingdom. The situation is absurd: someone living in England might qualify for a Scottish scheme because it relates to the country that the recipient was in when he or she was infected.

We need some consistency and fairness. People who, rightly, feel angry and let down are being forced to compare their circumstances with those of other victims rather than looking to the real culprits: the private companies, described so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, which put profit before patients’ safety all those years ago and have never been brought to account. For that reason, I support the calls for a proper inquiry. I tabled some questions to the Department of Health recently, and it transpires that those corporations have never paid any compensation and no compensation has ever been sought from them. Someone said earlier that it might be difficult to pin down exactly who was responsible and when, but there should at least be an effort to track down those who are responsible and force them to pay for their misdemeanours.

I asked Debra and Neil for their comments. There is no doubt that Debra will lose money under the current proposals. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said in the House:

“Today I am proud to provide them with the support that they deserve.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 291.]

Debra found those words rather distasteful. Her response was angry, and she had every right to be angry. She gleaned from what the Prime Minister had said that she, as an HIV-infected partner, deserved to be worse off. She knows that her support will be reduced, but she wants to know what will happen to the money that Macfarlane Trust beneficiaries are losing. Will the amounts be the same? Victims of this scandal who are losing money are being asked to turn in on themselves rather than directing their fire at the real culprits. The Minister can deal with that by ensuring that no one loses out.

Debra believes that the schemes will take financial support from HIV and co-infected victims: those whose condition has no cure, who are forced to take toxic medication that helps to keep them alive, who struggle with mental illnesses as a result of living with stigma and discrimination, and who every day face the reality that, despite medication, people are still dying from HIV and AIDS. Debra has the impression that moving the schemes around is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Neil supports the idea of a Hillsborough-style inquiry, but says it is important to ensure that the level of support payments is maintained. He says:

“£15,500 is far too low and does not take into account how much expense being ill and travelling to and from hospitals across the country is!”

He also says that the payments should be linked to inflation, because otherwise they will grow ever smaller.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Hillsborough-style inquiry. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), I should like the Government to consider that. I took up the case of Ms Sullivan-Weeks’s stepfather, who received unheated Scottish blood products in England after they had been withdrawn in Scotland because there was a time lag in England. We do not know how many people were affected in that way, but he ended up dying. That prompts a particular sense of injustice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is another reason why a Hillsborough-style inquiry is necessary?

[Christian Matheson]

Absolutely. We need to get to the truth. The victims and the surviving members of their families deserve the truth, and the culprits must be held to account as well. As has already been pointed out, it seems that there was knowledge of what was going on at the time.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) rightly said that this matter is not going to go away. The longer it goes on, and the greater the sense of injustice felt by the victims and their families, the stronger will be the calls for a final resolution. I am glad that the Minister is present, because the Government have an opportunity to do the right thing: to lift the black cloud of uncertainty, and to end what was eloquently described by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire as a “drip, drip” approach. We need a final answer to this question, which will provide the certainty that has been missing for so long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood]

I have had no meetings on this issue, because it is obviously not within my departmental brief. I am happy to try to find out about that issue, if the hon. Lady would like.

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

Land Registry

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago, I joined Public and Commercial Services Union members and representatives from the campaigning group 38 Degrees to hand over a petition with more than 200,000 signatures to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, calling on the Government to abandon plans to privatise the Land Registry, which has its main offices in Swansea, where many of my constituents work. Why on earth are we here again, just two years after the previous attempt at privatisation?

It is not simply employees of the Land Registry and their PCS and First Division Association representatives who are very concerned about the privatisation. Back in 2014, we had a meeting in the House of Commons—it was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who then shadowed the BIS Minister with responsibility for the Land Registry—at which real concerns were expressed by representatives of the Law Society and the Council of Property Search Organisations. Jonathan Smithers, deputy vice-president of the Law Society, and James Sherwood-Rogers from the Council of Property Search Organisations explained that, in their analysis, a privatised land registry would inevitably end up being a private monopoly that could impose rip-off fees and provide a worse service for its clients.

We then discovered from leaked documents that the Government were determined to push ahead with privatisation plans and that the recent consultation had in fact been a sham. They had clearly not listened to respected independent bodies, such as the Law Society, never mind to their employees, who were represented by the First Division Association and the Public and Commercial Services Union. Two years later, it seems that the Government are determined to push through privatisation of the Land Registry, because the consultation is focused on how to do so, not whether to do so.

To me, privatising the Land Registry would be nothing short of daylight robbery: it would rob the taxpayer of millions of pounds. The Land Registry currently brings £100 million into the Treasury in profits each year, so it is madness to steal that from the Treasury and stuff it into the pockets of private contractors, who would probably then add insult to injury by hiking the fees and ripping off the public. The enthusiasts of privatisation cite the benefits of healthy competition in providing a better service for the public, but we all know what happens to a privatised monopoly, which is exactly what the Land Registry would become. There would be no control over the service provided, and prices would be hiked.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is part of a pattern with this Government in which debt is nationalised and profit is privatised?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend puts it concisely.

Let us remember what happened with Royal Mail. Who is to say that this Tory Government will not be wilfully incompetent and will not sell off the Land Registry at a bargain basement price, as they did with Royal Mail, depriving the public purse of the true value of the asset? Even worse, we hear that the private companies interested in taking over the Land Registry have links with tax havens. It would be a double whammy: first, the Treasury may lose the revenue that the Land Registry brings in; and then, to add insult to injury, the Treasury may lose out because profits are offshored. We would lose not only the revenue but some of the tax take. As other Members have pointed out, in situations such as that with the Panama papers the public interest would be seriously hampered if FOI did not apply, as I understand it would not were the Land Registry a private company.

All in all, it would be an absolute disaster, and that is before we even come to the issue of trust. Currently, the Land Registry’s customer satisfaction rating is enormously high—some 98%. People trust it because they know it is impartial, as only a Government body can be. How could we possibly guarantee that there would not be conflicts of interests if it were a private company? Then there is the issue of data protection. I am advised that there is nothing in law to prevent a private company from selling on personal data to buyers who wanted that information.

For all the reasons mentioned both by me and by my hon. Friends, I implore the Minister to think again. He should listen as well to Government Members who also have concerns. Privatising the Land Registry is simply not the right thing to do. It is not just us who are saying that. The Law Society has set out its concerns very clearly. We have already heard concerns from practising solicitors. We really must keep the Land Registry in public ownership, so that we can maintain its integrity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister, from a sedentary position, points out that that would not have been him. Perhaps we can take that as him agreeing that the Minister responsible should have been there to meet us all on that day. He can choose whether to respond to that point when he replies to the debate shortly.

The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) made a point about the importance of the Land Registry’s success to her constituency. That is true for each and every one of us in every constituency in the country.

The Land Registry has existed for 150 years. Currently it does not cost the taxpayer a penny. It makes a significant profit and delivered a surplus in 19 of the past 20 years. A one-off fee from its sell-off is no strategy for deficit reduction, as Conservative Members have acknowledged. It would allow for only a one-off reduction of debt. This is not an economically coherent approach to Government finances. Worse, it is cynical to pretend to taxpayers that the proposal constitutes the responsible management of the economy. I am afraid that, driven by the Treasury and the Chancellor, privatisation is exactly what the Government appear to be trying to do.

The consequences of selling off the Land Registry are far wider and more dangerous than losing a profitable public sector enterprise. Having a trusted impartial register of land underpins our economy. I do not need to repeat to Members the uncertainty and danger that has been caused by the Brexit decision that was taken a week ago. We have seen that uncertainty in the markets and it is spreading to the real economy, with job losses already announced. That uncertainty applies right across our economy, as well as to the role the Land Registry plays.

Any house that families or companies buy or sell relies on the Land Registry granting and transferring title deeds. It is the only proof of title or ownership recognised by law for £3 trillion of UK property. By virtue of it, every property sale, purchase, repossession and mortgage in the UK is carried out transparently and in confidence by the seller, buyer and lender. The Land Registry’s independence is fundamental to the trust that homeowners, mortgage lenders and solicitors place in it. How could that trust remain if the very basis of that trust—the knowledge that the Land Registry is utterly impartial—is removed? How could the Government maintain that its impartiality will remain if it is taken over by private interests?

Let us look at the potential buyers who are showing an interest. Of the private investment firms reported last month by The Times to be interested in running the Land Registry, all have links to offshore tax havens. That makes a mockery of the Government’s claims of being serious about clamping down on tax avoidance and tax evasion. Canadian pension company OMERS, American private equity firms Advent International and Hellman & Friedman, and General Atlantic each have links to such jurisdictions, not least the Cayman Islands. When the Minister responds, will he tell us if he agrees that the Land Registry’s absolute transparency and independence from private interest is fundamental to the trust placed in it by homeowners and mortgage lenders? Does he also agree that this trust would be fundamentally undermined if such firms took over? That is what people up and down the country can see happening.

[Christian Matheson]

It strikes me that the companies that my hon. Friend has just cited as potential owners are also all foreign based. Does he share my concern, apart from their being tax dodgers, that we should resist placing something so fundamental to the UK in foreign hands?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, we have seen a steady direction of travel towards foreign ownership of British interests for a great many years. It is surprising that we have anything of any substance left in this country that is not foreign owned, given the way the Government proceed. He puts his finger on an important aspect of the debate and another good reason why the proposal should be turned down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned the timing. The way in which the Government time their announcements is normally a good indication of how conscious they are that they are on thin ice. The proposal to relax Sunday trading laws is one such example, because they slipped out that unpopular policy at the last possible moment—the night before it was debated and after legislation had gone through the Lords, where the relevant Bill started its life.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

The right hon. Gentleman is a canny parliamentary operator. Let me continue my speech and deal with the various points that have been raised, because in so doing I may be able to reassure him that this Business Minister is listening and has heard what has been said loud and clear.

[Christian Matheson]

I am a little confused. If the Government have no plans to privatise the Land Registry, why hold the consultation in the first place?

[George Freeman]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman asks that. Let me explain.

It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice for the purposes of this debate that the present Government and our predecessors, the coalition Government, have had to confront a very serious crisis in our public finances on behalf of us all, but on behalf in particular of the young of this country, whose debts these are not and who did not make the decisions and are not responsible for incurring them, but who have entered a society and an economy mired in debt. That creates a situation that any responsible Government have to deal with. If the Opposition want to form an alternative Government, they will have to deal with this question, which sits at the heart of the reality confronting any serious candidate for Government. As a Business Minister in the present Government, I would not be doing my job properly if, with my colleagues, I did not keep under review the functions that we currently carry out within Government and ask whether there is a way to put them on a footing where they can raise the investment they need off the public balance sheet and attract stronger and better management—Whitehall is not always the best place to manage every function in the state. We have to be creative about how to generate more revenue, so that we can support higher quality services for UK customers, citizens and taxpayers. I do not think a modern Government would be doing their job if they did not ask those questions.

A Government also have to consider the points made by parliamentarians and take into account the issues that might arise from such a move in terms of the delivery of the service. That is what the Department is doing right now. We are considering the responses to the consultation and the submissions made today in this debate, which is why I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham for securing it. Let me reply now to the points raised.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the public concern and questioned the motive for having the consultation. I hope I have dealt with that: there is no illegitimate motive. It is appropriate for a Government to ask the question. He made a really important point, which others have echoed, about transparency. The register sits at the heart of our democracy because it is a register of land ownership. It is important that it is transparent and interrogatable and that people can see that it is.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the need to ensure that the operating surplus is reinvested and to allow the organisation to grow and develop. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was very amusing in his summary of the quinquennial reviews that plague all Governments, asked the important question: what is the compelling case for this? I have tried to set out the bones of what a case might be; whether it is compelling or not, it is required to be considered alongside the other points that are being made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made an interesting speech. As he pointed out, he is someone who one would normally expect to be on the barricades for more privatisation. Indeed, he was a great champion of it in decades past. He made the point that this is critical infrastructure and goes right to the heart of our ability as a society and a political economy to keep track of our land rights.

Issues were raised about integrity, stability and the importance of open data and transparency. I am the Minister who, with other responsibilities, is in charge of ensuring that the country is able to use our health data to modernise the NHS, to attract the investment we need in new medicines, and to make the NHS and the UK world leaders in developing new medicines. We are absolutely clear that, in doing that, one of the things that we will not do is sell any state or private data. We are building databases on which industry can work with us to interrogate the conditions for new diseases, but we are seeking to take royalties and rights from commercialisation to put that money back into providing additional services. However, we are absolutely clear that it is a reference library, not a lending library. That principle of not selling core data is important. We want data to be open and used to support innovation and greater research. I know that my hon. Friend cannot be here for my speech; he did give me his apologies—he had to be somewhere else.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), a solicitor himself, who has used the Land Registry and indeed relied on it, was pretty powerful when he referred to this as a privatisation too far. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has been a property lawyer—once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—made a similar point and echoed the concerns, referring to this as potentially anti-competitive and said that he would have concerns on those grounds.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) raised a chuckle or two when he referred to his belief that every Englishman’s home is his castle. He referred to this as quasi-judicial, which may be a reference to the name of the new Lord Chancellor in the next Administration, but he talked powerfully about the Government having bigger fish to fry. He is right that any Government formed to deal with the scale of the ongoing crisis, which is affecting this economy and others across western Europe, with ageing societies, the need to reform and update our public services, and to get rid of deficits and to pay off the debt, will face substantial issues, and this is one small part of looking at how we can refresh and modernise our approach to 21st century Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made a powerful point about this debate being something of a symptom or an emblem of a new politics and mentioned our late, much lamented and respected colleague Jo Cox, whom I suspect would have spoken in the debate with her much respected blend of passion and local responsibility. She would have spoken for her constituents. My hon. Friend made the point that if any reforms were to be put in place, it would be important not to make the mistake of creating a private sector monopoly. That is partly why I repeated the rationales for those early privatisations. They were never about creating private monopolies; they were about choice and competition where those would be advantageous for the consumers and users of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) powerfully endorsed those points.

I am conscious that the House’s time is precious. Although I would love to stand at the Dispatch Box all afternoon and talk about how we might embrace more interesting, bolder and innovative models for delivering private and public sector innovation, I am conscious that colleagues are distracted by events beyond this Chamber. [Interruption.] I assure Members that whoever it is, is not behind me, in more ways than one.

I confirm that the Government have merely consulted in the last few weeks and months on this question; for the avoidance of any doubt, I also confirm that no decision has been taken and that Ministers are listening carefully to the views that have been expressed. As a Government we have a serious responsibility to ensure that we constantly keep under review the arrangements we have in place for the delivery of services such as these.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, we were elected on a mandate to balance the books. That requires some careful judgments about the timing and the way in which we do it. My ministerial portfolio is all about driving a different model of innovation between private and public, working together and ending the apartheid of private productive and public not; I do not think that that is appropriate or sensible for 21st Government. We need to find ways of working together. It is right that we constantly look at these issues. Colleagues have touched on a range of different models. Were one to look at taking forward a way to put the Land Registry on a footing that allows it to invest faster, to develop new services and new leadership and to tap into global markets, one could consider a range of models, including mutualisation and the new structures that are being developed.

We have heard the concerns expressed in the House loud and clear. Others elsewhere, in those other rooms I referred to, will determine in due course what the Government will decide to do in this case later in the year. I am aware, as all of us painfully are on the Government Benches, that the majority is 12. It does not require many people to take a different view from the Government of the day in order for us to assess the likelihood of getting a measure through. I have no idea what those currently looking to form the new Administration will want to do when they are in office, but anyone listening to the debate will have heard loud and clear the view of those who have spoken on both sides of the House. If anything is to be done to look at the future of the Land Registry, it will need to be clearly focused on solving particular problems that exist today and dealing with specific issues that need to be addressed. I think it was one of the Members on the Opposition Benches who said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle called for clarity on what the case would be. I hear him loud and clear. We would need to set out clearly the problem that we were trying to solve to take the matter forward.

I hope that I have addressed the points that have been raised. I again thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham for securing the debate.