Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I cannot promise a debate, but it is an issue about which she and colleagues might wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee, as debates on important health issues have been among the more successful of those it has been able to promote. I will speak to colleagues about responding directly to the hon. Lady on the issues she raises about the guidance.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

As I came 17th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, if I introduced a Bill to confirm that prisoners should not be allowed to vote, would it have Government support?

[Mr Lansley]

I wish my hon. Friend good luck in the private Member’s Bill process, but I will adhere to the convention that the Government respond with their view on such Bills on Second Reading.

House of Commons Business

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is free to make his own contribution to the debate. For my part, I hope I have explained what we intend to achieve through the motion. Colleagues will have had the opportunity to look at the debate in the House of Lords, and I hope that exactly the same was clear from the nature of that debate. The purpose is to ensure that we have, in both Houses, an understanding that we should not have mutually conflicting approaches to legislation. We should approach legislation in a consistent fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) told us, we should have a way of recognising the application of parliamentary privilege to the proceedings of this House. We should also ensure that, in so far as we intend legislation to apply to this House and where it may have an impact on the boundaries of parliamentary privilege, we put express provisions in the legislation to show, for Parliament’s purposes, what we believe the nature of those provisions and their application should be. That is what we are setting out to do.

On proposed new Standing Order No. 33, Members may recall, from the debate on the motion for an address in answer to the Queen’s Speech last May, that the current Standing Order does not provide absolute clarity on the number of amendments that may be selected on the final day of the debate. To be clear, a revised Standing Order is not an attempt to prevent you, Mr Speaker, from selecting an amendment, as you did on that occasion. It would not prevent you from doing that. As you will recall, you selected an amendment signed by Back Benchers on the omission from the Gracious Speech of an EU referendum Bill. That was, in fact, the second amendment selected, in line with normal practice. The third amendment selected, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members, was the one beyond normal practice that would not, under previous practice, have been allowed.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall that he put down a motion on the Order Paper last autumn to restrict Mr Speaker’s discretion to accepting only three amendments. I am glad, as the person who blocked that original motion, that he has had second thoughts and is now going to allow Mr Speaker to select up to four amendments. Can my right hon. Friend explain why he feels we need to inhibit Mr Speaker exercising his discretion in this matter?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend asks me to complete my speech, which, happily, is what I intend to do.

The interpretation of the Standing Order that allowed the selection of the third amendment on that final day leaves open the possibility of an unlimited number of amendments for separate debate. That introduces both an unwelcome element of uncertainty, in particular if Members were to table several amendments regretting the exclusion of their favourite Bill from the Queen’s Speech. I am not sure that Members or the Chair would want such a rich choice; nor do I think it was the intention of the Standing Order, when it was originally drafted, to permit votes.

What I am seeking, for the benefit of the House, is greater certainty. Members will want to know the maximum number of amendments that may be selected in order to judge whether to table one themselves. It is a matter of degree as to whether the total number of amendments selected should be limited to three or four. Do we want to spend more time debating or voting? The question in my mind originally was: what is the purpose of amendments, principally when the debate on the motion for an address is concerned? It is, essentially, an opportunity for competing views on the legislative programme as a whole to be debated. Therefore, my original preference is for what we had thought was the status quo—that is, three amendments under the Standing Order—but I am congenitally relaxed about the number being four.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, I have had an opportunity to read the report of the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee. As his Committee was sitting earlier this morning, he was not in his place for business questions, when I took an opportunity to refer to the report. His Committee pointed out that the certainty surrounding a fixed-term Parliament provides greater opportunity for the planning of legislation, with a greater understanding of how much legislative time will be available. When he hears the Queen’s Speech early next month, he will see that a substantial legislative programme is intended for the full Session. That will not prevent us from meeting our obligations under Standing Orders for Back-Bench debates, Opposition time and other requirements. Indeed, in this Session, we have exceeded them, so we are already providing time for precisely the things that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Mr Chope]

Let me draw out my right hon. Friend further on whether he thinks it is a good idea that Back Benchers should be able collectively to table amendments in the Queen’s Speech debates. It obviously struck a chord with the people when that happened—on the issue of the EU referendum—during the last Queen’s Speech debates. Were there no coalition after the next election and three Opposition parties with reasonable representation, Mr Speaker might feel that his discretion had to be exercised in favour of those Opposition parties. It is possible that, even with four amendments, the opportunity for Back Benchers to put forward amendments in the hope of their being selected by Mr Speaker would be excluded. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he thinks it is important that Back Benchers have such an opportunity? If, after the next election, there were more official Opposition parties, would he recommend returning to the issue to allow for more than four amendments?

[Mr Lansley]

I would say two things about that. First, it is open to the House to reconsider these issues in the future. The original drafting of Standing Order No. 33 was partly a product of the political and party composition of the House in the 1970s. One could consider circumstances in which the House might think it appropriate to expand the opportunities in future for parties, were there a multiplicity of them, to express their collective view on the legislative programme as a whole through amendments.

That brings me to my second point. At the outset of this part of the debate, I want to emphasise that the issue did not really arise in relation to the Back-Bench amendment last year, because it was selectable and selected on the basis of the previous interpretation of the Standing Orders. That was not the issue—the issue was the additional Plaid Cymru amendment. However, were we to go down the path of thinking that on each motion for an address, it would be appropriate to debate the inclusion or exclusion of individual Bills, that would posit the question whether the purpose of the motion for an address is something other than an expression about the legislative programme as a whole. Amendments designed for that purpose should relate to the whole legislative programme rather than to individual Bills.

I have expressed my view on Standing Order No. 33, and I hope that the House will support the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in that respect. There are a number of motions before us, and I hope the House will support the making of these changes, which I believe will be positive. Notwithstanding the fact that we will have a good debate about them, they were intended to be brought forward in a consensual spirit.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and endorse what she says. I am pleased that in this Session we have been able to allocate more time for debates determined by the Backbench Business Committee than the Standing Orders required, just as we provided three more days for Opposition day debates than is required by the Standing Orders. The Clerk’s letter to Mr Speaker made clear the scrutiny that this House is undertaking, and the Backbench Business Committee’s progress in this Session has demonstrated an essential part of that enhanced scrutiny.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend, in the oodles of time available, make sure that there is a Government statement next week on holiday pay? Does he know that there is much concern among employers about the interaction between European Union law and British law? It is causing confusion and leading people to believe that holiday pay will have to be based not just on basic salaries, but overtime and additional work? This is a complex issue, but at the moment the Government do not seem to have a clear policy.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I may, I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply to him, and if, as he says, there is widespread confusion on this issue, to let the House know what it can do to dispel that confusion.

Business of the House (2 December)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think I have explained straightforwardly the judgment I have made, which is that the two motions relating to the work of the Backbench Business Committee in the House can be brought together perfectly sensibly. The latter motion, which I understand has the support of the Chairs of the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee, would not detain us at any great length. From my point of view, in order to protect Government time, it is important for us to ensure that we have allowed these motions to be brought forward for the House to debate. I freely admit to the House that it has been difficult to find Government time. The Backbench Business Committee, as my hon. Friends will know, does not have the capacity to use its own time to bring forward its own motions relating to itself. [Interruption.] That is a separate debate, but the Committee does not have that capacity under the Standing Orders. For these motions to be debated, Government time has to be used, and so I have looked, along with my colleagues, to ensure that we find such an opportunity. That has been difficult and we have made the appropriate judgment in securing the possibility of time.

It is entirely a matter of speculation as to whether the Mesothelioma Bill will absorb all the time through to 10 pm. The assumption being made is that it will do so, and if it does, so be it. If we commence this debate after the moment of interruption, I do not want it to extend for a long period beyond 10 pm, although I am happy for the debate to go beyond 10 pm if necessary.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point—he says that he does not want the debate to go on for more than one and a half hours after the moment of interruption. Unfortunately, that is not what his motion says. His motion says that it cannot go on for more than one and a half hours after it starts. Perhaps he would be willing to withdraw this business motion and table an amended motion saying that we could have the maximum of one and a half hours after the moment of interruption.

[Mr Lansley]

I point out to my hon. Friend that I have said two things. I have said, first, that I do not think that the debate requires more time than one and a half hours, and it is Government time that we have found for the purpose. I have said, secondly, that I would not wish it to go for more than one and a half hours beyond the moment of interruption. It does not follow that I think it requires three hours—in any circumstances.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch questioned the need for the Standing Orders to be amended. He knows that this motion exempts the business from both the moment of interruption and the Standing Order relating to deferred Divisions, and he will understand that Standing Orders are amended regularly for such purposes. The motions for debate next Monday result from the work of the Procedure Committee, and it is right that the House is given the opportunity to resolve those issues.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker, because I might have imagined otherwise from what the hon. Gentleman said. I am always honest with the House. This is an emergency business statement because it is not a business statement in the normal course of events. The structure of the business will give the House the opportunity to debate and vote on these issues in the way that we had anticipated.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I press my right hon. Friend on when the motion will be tabled, because if it is tabled tomorrow it will enable Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about this issue to see whether we can reach an agreement about an amendment?

[Mr Lansley]

When my hon. Friend looks at the Command Paper that is published today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he will see what will be the substance of the debate on Monday. That is what it will focus on. The motion will be published in good time. He can take it that the effect of the motion will be to support the Government’s proposals, as set out in the Command Paper.

Business of the House (26 February)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly respond, simply to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), that we are debating this now because an objection was taken to the motion providing for opposed private business tomorrow that was on the Order Paper and considered after 10 o’clock, the moment of interruption, on 13 February. I am sure that the House is quite amused by my hon. Friend’s support for the promoters of the private Bill and the certainty they require about its progress; with that solicitude from him, they must feel a little like someone in the embrace of a particularly large boa constrictor—[Interruption.] I would never impute any negative motive to my hon. Friend, that is for sure.

I think that I might reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that the intention is not to do any serious damage to the time at which the opposed private business is to be taken on a Tuesday. The intention tomorrow will be to ensure that the House considers the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and agrees the time that is available for it. I am sure that the usual channels have made sure that the House has an opportunity to consider the Bill to the necessary extent. Therefore, if the programme motion is agreed to and consideration of the Bill is concluded after four hours, the House is likely to start considering the opposed private business at about 4.40 pm, if there are no urgent questions or statements—[Interruption.] I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, who says “Ah” in that way from a sedentary position, that we are always subject to the question, as he rightly said, of whether there will be a Standing Order No. 24 motion, whether an urgent question will be sought and granted and whether a statement will be made. Those matters will inevitably give rise to a degree of uncertainty, so although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is talking about the certainty that is required, very rarely in this place do we have absolute certainty about the timing of proceedings.

[Mr Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, because I always want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, but then I must conclude.

[Mr Chope]

I am going to practise my snake-charming, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the doctrine of reasonable expectations is now being regularly undermined by the Government, because when the House voted to change the sitting hours the expectation was that it would rise on a Tuesday, subject to the Adjournment, at 7 o’clock? Now it almost invariably sits much later than that. It is almost as though the Government were changing the policy.

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. On the contrary, I think that we are meeting our expectations with regard to the sittings of the House with considerable regularity and certainty. On that basis, the worst-case scenario tomorrow, without urgent questions or statements, is that business will conclude at 7.40 pm. Of course, he must remember, and Members will be aware, that the programme motions and this motion show a maximum amount of time. The motions do not require us to debate the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill for four hours, nor do they require us to debate opposed private business for three hours—we can choose to debate for a shorter period.

While debating the City of London (Various Powers) Bill and its important measures tomorrow, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others to remember their urging tonight that the House should conclude its business at 7 o’clock—and it may be in their gift to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not correct in that respect. The coalition agreement is clearly a relevant issue, but it is not encapsulated in the ministerial code. The code is very clear—he will no doubt be familiar with it—and makes clear the requirements for Ministers to accept the obligations of ministerial collective responsibility save when it is explicitly set aside. I am simply making it clear that collective ministerial responsibility has been set aside in relation to this debate and for these purposes.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has answered questions about ministerial responsibility in front of a Select Committee. Can he tell us who set aside collective responsibility and, if it was the Prime Minister, why he did so?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the ministerial code. Indeed, when ministerial collective responsibility is explicitly set aside, it is the Prime Minister who makes that decision. He is clearly doing it, as the House will understand, in the context of coalition government. As we know, that can give rise to occasions where there is not a collective view, and where by extension it is therefore not possible for a collective view to be the subject of collective ministerial responsibility. Let me turn to the substance of the issues.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may recall that in the summer of last year, when I was Secretary of State for Health, one of the things that I set out as part of the further measures to improve maternity services was a focus on post-natal depression. I entirely share his view. There is still, as I know from my knowledge of the health service, variable access to specialist services for some of the most severe cases of post-natal depression. I know my colleagues will be looking at that, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter at Health questions next Tuesday, I am sure that would be helpful too.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will it be possible to have a debate next week on collective ministerial responsibility? I tabled a number of questions to the Prime Minister on the subject, which have been ducked. Surely it is important that there should be clarification of what we mean by collective ministerial responsibility, and how and to what extent the Prime Minister feels obliged to enforce the provisions of the ministerial code in relation to collective ministerial responsibility.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not had the opportunity to see the questions to which he refers, although I would be glad to. As far as I am aware, collective ministerial responsibility continues to apply as it always has done, as has the ministerial code.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, not least for her concern about my whereabouts at the Cabinet meeting. I felt like a reverse Forrest Gump: instead of being always in the picture, I was suddenly out of it. The hon. Lady’s reference to the railway timetable is correct. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) that I have an insufferable knowledge of Letchworth Garden City railway station, where I spent an hour and three quarters. If anyone were to ask me for a debate on recent failings in performance on the east coast main line or by First Capital Connect, I would be very sympathetic to that request.

The hon. Lady will recall that there was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on food banks in Scotland and, indeed, that reference was made to the subject at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions. I think the availability of food banks is an illustration of how we care for each other in our communities. We do not want people to need them, but as discussed in Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier, there are many reasons why people access them—including money problems, debt management, the ability to manage their resources and so forth. As the shadow Leader of the House says, the Trussell Trust has rightly been working across the country to establish better awareness of, and access to, food banks, and we should recognise and support that.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said about the Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement on a further investigation into Hillsborough and about what the Prime Minister said yesterday about VAT. She asked about legal aid. I can tell her and the House that the Government will provide funding for the legal representation of the bereaved Hillsborough families at the fresh inquests.

At Christmas time, we look back at the past year and forward to the next one. After a year in which we have had the diamond jubilee, the Olympics and the Paralympic games, 2012 will be a year to remember for many positive reasons. At this time, however, we also need to think about the people who might be looking on 2012 with less happy memories—people who are bereaved, people who are lonely, people who are in trouble or in pain and, indeed, people who are in poverty. There may not be such great events next year as there were this year, but I hope that in 2013 we will have many smaller positive events that will enable us as a country to live in greater peace and progress.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When do we expect to consider the amendments made in the other place to the Bill on individual electoral registration. Did my right hon. Friend see the circular from the Electoral Commission yesterday, warning that if the Bill does not reach the statute book by the end of January, it will not be possible for the Electoral Commission to guarantee the introduction of individual electoral registration in time for the 2015 general election? Will he assure me and the House that the Bill will be in a fit state to achieve Royal Assent before the end of January?

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed see the Electoral Commission statement to which my hon. Friend refers. It is not for me to refer to business in the other place, but he will be reassured to know that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which has to complete its Committee and remaining stages in the other place, will be considered in mid-January.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Sir Ian may well have been reflecting the public’s perception. They understand much more about what we do as constituency Members of Parliament and, frankly, they value it more. I know from conversations with Sir Ian that that is something that he, as well as we in this House, hopes to remedy. One of the substantial number of criteria in the person and role specification that was agreed between Mr Speaker and Ian Kennedy, which would have been reflected in the panel’s judgments, was a candidate’s understanding and awareness of the role of Members of Parliament.

[Mr Chope]

Is it not correct that in that radio interview, Sir Ian Kennedy had the opportunity to explain to the public who were listening what we do here? He could have told them about his understanding of what Members of Parliament do, but instead he chose to use a cheap jibe, pandering to public prejudice.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand what my hon. Friend says. Sir Ian must speak for himself as this is his responsibility. The shadow Leader of the House and I were just reflecting our own conversations with him. He would have wanted to reflect his desire for the public to know more about what we do here and his belief that IPSA should fully understand the nature of the work that we do. If he did not reflect that in his interview on the “Today” programme, he will no doubt have an opportunity to remedy that in future.

I am grateful to Members for the points that they have made in this debate. I hope, along with other Members, that the members nominated in the motion take forward the important work that IPSA has to do in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, particularly on the arrangements for a debate, provisionally set for Monday 3 December, on the Leveson inquiry. We now have a date for the publication of its report, and she asked further about that. The House will have heard what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. As the report will be published in just a few days, it is absolutely right that we should wait and see what Lord Leveson says in it, and very shortly thereafter the House will have an opportunity to express its views.

The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on that, and there were further questions at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House fully informed. The Prime Minister said yesterday what we made clear last year at the United Nations General Assembly: that it would not be helpful for the question of observer status for the Palestinian people to be brought to a vote. None the less, if that question is brought to a vote, the Foreign Secretary will, of course, want to tell the House about our judgment on it.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the progress of the Justice and Security Bill in another place. I and my colleagues will make it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place how we propose to respond to the progress of the Bill. We will look carefully at the votes and think carefully about them, but there is an important principle, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio and others have made clear: that in cases before civil courts the judge should have access to all the evidence. That is also a principle of justice that it is important to seek to maintain.

I am very tempted to have a debate on police and crime commissioners, not least because it would allow us an opportunity to set out clearly how, under this coalition Government, crime across the country is falling. Police and crime commissioners will be democratically elected and democratically accountable to enable us not only to sustain that reduction in crime, but to translate the priorities of the people directly into the priorities of policing in their areas. I do not understand why Labour Members now want a debate about this. The Labour party did not seem to be able to work out whether it wanted to debate it, deny it, support it, oppose it, say it was the wrong thing to do and then stand candidates for it. A debate would give us the opportunity to debate the position not of the current Deputy Prime Minister, but of the former Deputy Prime Minister.

I was interested in what the hon. Lady said about Mr Winston Roddick as the police and crime commissioner elected in north Wales. As it happened, my wife met him in Menai Bridge during the fair. He came up to her and asked, “Do you know anything about the police and crime commissioner elections?” She said, “As it happens, I do.” Curiously—I have checked with her— Mr Winston Roddick did not disclose any party affiliation whatever. So there we have it.

I share with the House our admiration for many of those who were the recipients of awards from The Spectator last night, but especially so for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who is an inspiration to all of us.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate a motion next week setting up a Committee of MPs who could educate the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about the work of the House? Did my right hon. Friend hear the admission by that gentleman on this morning’s “Today” programme that although he understood a lot about what MPs do in their constituencies, he was totally ignorant about what they did in the House, other than, as he put it, attend a zoo for one hour every Wednesday? In the light of that amazing demonstration of his ignorance, if he is to continue in his post is it not essential that he gets educated properly?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know from the statement that I made about forthcoming business that my expectation is that in the week after next we will be able to debate the appointment of Members to the board of IPSA—not the chair of the board of IPSA, whose tenure continues. In my conversations with Ian Kennedy he has made it clear to me that one of the things that he regards as most important is that there is a better understanding of the work of Members of Parliament. I will further encourage him in that process.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lord Lansley

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the lack of accountability of NHS foundation trusts? The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals Foundation Trust is proposing to merge with the Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The Office of Fair Trading has given a two-week opportunity for public comment, but the trust has refused to supply me, under the Freedom of Information Act, with the 50-page document purporting to set out the public benefits. Without that document, it is very difficult for a Member of Parliament to comment constructively on the merits or otherwise of such a proposed merger. Is this not an outrage?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that the arrangements reducing the accountability of NHS foundation trusts to this House were established in legislation passed under the last Government, but in the future the NHS competition provisions will be transferred from the OFT to Monitor, which should enhance accountability. He raises an important point, however, about the application of the Freedom of Information Act to NHS foundation trusts, and I will ask my colleagues in the Department of Health to respond to that matter.