Business of the House

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a multi-faith room on the estate at 7 Millbank which is available to those who work here. The question of a change of use of the chapel of St Mary Undercroft is not a matter for the Government. Any proposals would be subject to consideration by several stakeholders, including this House and the royal household, owing to the chapel’s status as a royal peculiar. The other place would have an interest as well. It raises complex issues on which I will not offer immediate answers, but I can tell my hon. Friend that under the provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that is being debated, no religious organisation will be forced to opt in to conducting same sex marriages, and the Church of England has thus far made it clear that it will not choose to opt in.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Transport Secretary recently visited Wolverhampton and, in an interview with the Express and Star, described Wolverhampton train station as “awful”. I agree, but will the Leader of the House ask the Transport Secretary what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask the Transport Secretary, as the hon. Lady asks. I know that Network Rail and the train companies are undertaking quite a programme of improvement. I can say that because I know that the awful circumstances at Cambridge station will benefit from a substantial programme of rebuilding very soon. I will seek a reply for the hon. Lady.

NHS Risk Register

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and when he was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee he constantly told the last Government that they should do something to ensure rising productivity in the NHS. He was not alone in that.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I will in a moment. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to explain the views of not only my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) but his successor as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who said:

“Over the last ten years, the productivity of NHS hospitals has been in almost continuous decline.”

[Interruption.] I hear Labour Front Benchers ask, “What about the risk register?” I will tell them what the risk to the NHS was before we came into government. It was that a Labour Government would carry on failing to increase productivity in the NHS. Productivity would have declined, and the NHS would have been unable to provide patients with the service and care that it should provide, because Labour wasted money on bureaucracy instead of spending it on patient care.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am proud of our record on the NHS, given that patient satisfaction with the NHS is at an all-time high. Does the Health Secretary agree with the analysis of Professor Black in his report in The Lancet that Tory Ministers’ claims that productivity declined between 2000 and 2009 is based on a myth?

[Mr Lansley]

I have just quoted what the Labour Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said on the basis of advice from the National Audit Office, which is precisely in line with data published by the Office for National Statistics. I think I will rest on that.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I appreciate what NHS staff do and the fact that they are delivering improving outcomes. We published 30 indicators of NHS outcomes just two months ago, and 25 of them showed that performance had been maintained or improved. They had not all gone up, but that is why we are focusing on those outcomes, and not just waiting times. However, the average time for which in-patients waited for treatment was 7.7 weeks in December 2011, down from 8.4 weeks at the last election. For out-patient treatment, the average is down from 4.3 weeks at the election to 3.8 weeks now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether Hansard will record it, but the mirth with which that remark was met is an indication from Members that they know perfectly well, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, that the previous Labour Government left a terrible legacy of unaffordable PFI projects that were poor value for money when they were introduced. He knows perfectly well the position his local trust has been put in. We are working through that, and out of the work that has been done to resolve that poor legacy, we identified 22 NHS trusts which said that their PFI was an impediment. We are working with all of them to resolve that.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has to allocate resources to local authorities when they assume responsibility for public health.

Reform of Social Care

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. In the course of the engagement during the latter part of this year, some of those issues will certainly come to the fore. My colleagues and I felt that it was better for us not to cherry-pick Andrew Dilnot’s report now, but rather for us to give people an opportunity to comment on the recommendations in full. That will, however, take place over the space of weeks rather than many months.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I should remind Government Members that this issue has already been delayed because the Conservatives broke ranks before the election in order to score political points. However, there is now cross-party support for the recommendations, so why has the Secretary of State let the timetable slip from the autumn to next spring? Can he reassure the House and the country that there will be no further slippage in the timetable?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise. I am not going to revisit the past, but the truth is that, since I became directly involved, I initiated cross-party discussions before the election on the reform of social care, and I did not leave those discussions. It was her former Prime Minister who effectively broke them down.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but 57 Members wish to speak, as you have rightly told us, Mr Speaker. I will give way as often as I can, but more than one intervention from each Member is excessive. [Interruption.] I have just quoted from the coalition agreement and our manifesto, so hon. Members have heard both.

Through the outcomes framework, which we published in December, we will stop the top-down, politically motivated targets that have led to real quality being sidelined. We will ensure that we focus on the outcomes that really matter and back them up for the first time with quality standards that are designed to drive up outcomes in all areas of care. Those standards have not been dreamt up in Whitehall, but are being developed by health professionals themselves. Similarly, doctors and other health professionals will not be told by us how to deliver those standards. The standards will indicate clearly what is expected, but it will be up to clinicians to decide how to achieve them. At every step, clinical leadership—that of doctors, nurses and other health professionals—will be right at the forefront. It will be an NHS organised from the bottom up, not from the top down.

The shift in power away from politicians and bureaucrats will be dramatic. The legislation none the less builds on what has gone before. It is not a revolution, but as the shadow Secretary of State said just a fortnight ago:

“The general aims of reform are sound—greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes—and are common ground between patients, health professions and political parties.”

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman quoted the National Audit Office earlier. Does he agree with the statement in its report that his revolution in and upheaval of the NHS risk undermining the quality initiative—the so-called QIPP programme—that the previous Government introduced?

[Mr Lansley]

No, far from it—actually, quite the contrary. It is only by virtue of our ability to engage front-line clinicians more strongly in the management and design of care that we will deliver those quality, innovation, productivity and prevention ambitions; and it is only if we cut bureaucracy and the costs of bureaucracy that we will be able to get those resources on to the front line more effectively. I made it very clear, and the shadow Secretary of State endorsed the view, that there is consensus about the purposes of reform, but if Labour now voted against the Bill, although we do not know whether it will, it would abandon that consensus and, indeed, its own policies when in government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend enables me to say that I and my colleagues entirely understand and endorse the stronger role that pharmacies can play, including by assisting with the provision of services such as minor ailments services and medicines use reviews, which will be commissioned through arrangements led by the NHS commissioning board. In addition, the services that he describes, such as stop smoking services, will be commissioned as part of the public health efforts, which will be led by local authorities through their local health improvement plans.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on the apparent conflict between, on the one hand, a general practitioner being an advocate for their patient and taking purely clinical decisions and, on the other hand, GPs having to allocate resources in the new system? Will that conflict not lead to a breakdown of trust in the relationship between the GP and their patients?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid the hon. Lady sees a conflict where, to GPs, there is none. It is their responsibility—[Interruption.] No, their first duty is always to their patients, whose best interests they must secure. When she has an opportunity to look at the Health and Social Care Bill, which we published last week, she will see that it makes very clear the duty to improve quality and continuously to improve standards. We all know that we have to achieve that with finite resources, but we will do that much better when we let clinical leaders influence directly how those resources are used rather than letting a management bureaucracy tell them how to do it.

Public Health White Paper

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I was not aware of what my hon. Friend describes, and strictly speaking it does not relate to the White Paper. None the less, it will remain the case that local authorities, through current overview and scrutiny arrangements or future scrutiny arrangements, have the ability to ensure that major service changes of that kind are subject to scrutiny. If such changes are not justified in the interests of local people, they can be referred to me and I can seek the independent reconfiguration panel’s advice.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Health Secretary rightly underlined in his statement the importance of tackling obesity. Is there any truth in the suggestion that he has expressed concerns that plans to dismantle the school sport partnerships will exacerbate the problem of tackling childhood obesity and has he discussed those concerns with the Education Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

No; the hon. Lady should not believe what she reads in newspapers. The Education Secretary is not scrapping the school sport partnerships; he is providing the resources directly to schools so that they can make the decisions on how they promote sport. From my point of view, I have always made it clear—this has been the burden of my conversation with my colleagues—that we are already supporting school sports clubs in secondary schools through Change4Life. We intend to maintain that and to expand the role of Change4Life, linking in to primary schools so that we stimulate activity and exercise for young people overall. That is entirely complementary to how schools, using their own resources, stimulate sport. With regard to competitive sport, they will be assisted additionally through infrastructure funding for the new school Olympics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have proceeded as rapidly as we possibly can in finding savings this year, so that from 1 October the regional panels of expert clinicians can look at individual cases. It is not a matter of their reviewing NICE decisions; it is a matter of their looking at individual cases that cannot be funded under existing guidance or local decisions, but being able to apply clinical criteria to individual cases using an additional fund.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

T7. Wolverhampton is the 28th most deprived local authority area in the country, resulting in major health inequalities. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that in future funding allocations, levels of deprivation will be taken into account?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes and more than that. I could make it clear that in the future, we will be moving—not for next year necessarily, but in years beyond, as we will make clear in the public health White Paper—to an explicit allocation of public health resources taking account of relative health outcomes and health inequalities, and those funds will be used to deliver improving public health. At the moment the formula to the NHS may take account of relative deprivation as measured by, for example, access to income support, but the money does not get spent on reducing those health inequalities and on an effective public health strategy. That is why we shall be very clear about separate, ring-fenced, public health resources used, together with local authorities, to deliver an effective public health strategy locally.

NHS White Paper

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lord Lansley

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As I am proposing to abolish primary care trusts, the problem of a lack of coterminosity will no longer apply. Health improvement plans, led by local authorities, will be set out on a basis consistent with many of the other services that make a significant contribution to delivering the kind of health and well-being that we are looking for.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Wolverhampton primary care trust, working closely with GPs, has been at the forefront of driving improvements throughout Wolverhampton. For example, there has been a reduction in teenage pregnancies and in infant mortality. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that GP-led consortiums will be better placed than primary care trusts to carry forward further improvements in those areas, which affect the poorest communities in my constituency?

[Mr Lansley]

There is good evidence that physician-led commissioning of services for patients is very effective. Precedents in this country and across the world have shown that. The hon. Lady mentioned teenage pregnancy and infant mortality, and this is principally about the relationship between NHS services and wider public health services. Given such responsibility, I am sure that the local authority will be able to deliver local health improvement strategies that will impact on those factors more effectively than has been possible with the NHS doing it solely using NHS services and resources.