Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Jim Shannon

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robinson]

So many generous words have been extended in my direction that I feel that some redressing of the balance is necessary. I was lucky, and I hope I chose my Bill well. Judging by the support we have had through all its stages, it seems as though there is a groundswell of approval, opinion and acclamation for it, but one thing must not be overlooked, and that is that the Bill would have been very difficult if not impossible but for the support of the Government, including the Prime Minister in person. Throughout this, she has stuck to what she said in Liverpool.

I must also say that there have been tight moments, awkward moments, but the presence of the Minister with responsibility for the Bill, who is with us today, has throughout been one of charm—a smoother who, with her grace, has been able to get us through those moments too. She said it had been a pleasure to work with the Health Committee and it has indeed, and it has been a great pleasure to work with the Minister.

We keep saying these things, but perhaps we should cut down on further compliments to each other until we get the Bill through the Lords. On that basis, we are all in this together and still working hard, because we are not there yet, and who knows what the Lords will throw at us—

[Jim Shannon]

It is the first half.

[Mr Robinson]

I think that a little restraint would be a good thing. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Wilson, as always, and the Clerks. I have received excellent briefings—models of clarity—and I advise hon. Members to take a set now, in case they are challenged by any questions in their constituency work or anything like that. The briefings deal clearly with a lot of the most difficult issues. Again, Mr Wilson, it is a pleasure to serve under you. Thank you.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out “relevant” and insert “permitted”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out “relevant” and insert “permitted”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“‘permitted material’ means relevant material other than relevant material of a type specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment defines “permitted material”, which will be used in new subsection (6A) of section 3 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 as a result of Amendments 1 to 3. The definition has the effect that the new provision about deemed consent will not apply in relation to relevant material of a type specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. “Relevant material” is defined in section 53 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, after “of” insert “the definition of ‘excepted adult’ in”.— (Mr Geoffrey Robinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Consequential amendments

Amendment made: 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“( ) In section 52 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3) (statutory instruments to which negative procedure does not apply), after ‘1(11),’ insert ‘3(9),’.

( ) In section 52, in subsection (4) (statutory instruments to which affirmative procedure applies), after ‘no regulations under section’ insert ‘3(9),’.

( ) In section 52, in the list in subsection (10) (requirement to consult), after ‘section 1(11)’ insert ‘section 3(9);’”.— (Mr Geoffrey Robinson.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4 and produces the result that the regulation-making power conferred by the provision inserted by that amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament and to a requirement to consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before the power is exercised.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title

Amendment made: 7, in title, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—

“Make amendments of the Human Tissue Act 2004 concerning consent to activities done for the purpose of”. —(Mr Geoffrey Robinson.)

This amendment replaces much of the existing long title so as to introduce reference to the making of amendments of the Human Tissue Act 2004.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Capita Contract (Coventry)

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the House. Capita holds the contract for locums for the NHS; no one questions their ability, but does the hon. Gentleman have any concerns about the scheme’s value for money? The Government should look at filling those vacancies from within the NHS, making a saving and keeping that money in the NHS for NHS services.

[Mr Robinson]

Just as I am in favour of a profitable private sector, I am in favour of savings in the NHS. We all know that we have to make savings, but let us make real savings from properly thought-through programmes. The NHS is often the best place to carry them out. We should not have badly planned impositions from the private sector, which does not know what it is going to do or how to do it.

We have to learn the lessons. It is not as if we have not had plenty of examples, as we saw in our debate last week on another private sector company that reviews benefits. That case was an absolute disgrace, but let us not get diverted on to that, because we had a good debate on it last week. Let us stay with the problem before us tonight. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us, but I must warn her that I have a few things to say yet; I have only just started. Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I understand that the debate can go longer than half an hour. I do not want to detain the House, but I urge any Member who wishes to contribute to do so, because we have at our disposal at least double the normal time. If I say that to the dismay and disappointment of the Minister, I am sorry, but we will not delay anybody unnecessarily.

Others have been in touch with me on this subject. I am pleased to say that the good old BBC was made aware of an issue and initiated an excellent survey of what is happening in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. The survey was carried out by Nikki Fox, who did a good job and presented a programme on this. She discovered that no fewer than 9,000 records had been lost. Some had been found flying loose on the ground in a car park. God knows what happened to the others—nobody knows. Some 9,000 patient records have gone missing in those three counties alone. It is very much to Mr Paul Conroy’s credit that he has written to me issuing a challenge, which I will come to later, to fulfil our public duty to reveal what has happened, which, as is usually the case, others are trying to hide. Capita says that it is unaware of the problems, yet three counties are up in arms and the BBC has conducted an exposé; it beggars belief.

No fewer than 20 practices in Coventry and Warwickshire have been surveyed, and every single one of them has said that there has been a more or less serious deterioration in services. NHS England itself has now stated that patients could be at risk. The whole purpose of tonight’s debate is to reveal that risk and to urge Capita to correct the problem.

Passport Office (Delays)

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I would like to speak on behalf of the hundreds of people in my constituency who are suffering as a result of the Government’s incompetence in the issuing of passports and, indeed, on behalf of all Back Benchers for whom this debate is a useful opportunity to voice discontent about a major public service for which the Home Office is responsible. I am therefore pleased to welcome the Minister for Security and Immigration, who will respond to the debate. We know that the Home Secretary currently has many things on her mind and is doing many things other than running the Passport Office. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that ministerial neglect has led to the dire situation that has given rise to this Adjournment debate.

I would like to provide some context. The passport delays now number 500,000. We can call them delayed, or “in process”—whatever the Minister wants. I see him shaking his head already, but he leaves the whole House incredulous with his simple, naive belief in the numbers presented to him. Why are we having this debate? Why have so many Members lobbied me to intervene? It is simply because people in their constituencies are not getting passports anything like on time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue before the House, because not one Member present is not bothered by it. In the Belfast passport office, 30,000 people are waiting for their passports to be processed. That is an astronomical number bearing in mind that Northern Ireland’s population is 1.8 million. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that contingency money should be made available to recruit extra staff to clear the backlog and get the problem sorted out?

[Mr Robinson]

I will come to that point in a minute. If the situation could be sorted out in that way, I would wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that it can be because one of the problems, which I will deal with later, is that the Government have left it so late to react to this burgeoning problem that there is probably no time left to deal with it in the relatively short period before the holidays. That is one of the tragedies of the situation.

The nub of the problem lies in the cuts that the Government have made. They have cut 700 personnel who are directly concerned with processing and examining passports before they are issued. Those are not back-office jobs, but people who are directly involved in the process. There has been a 20% cut, with no plans to retrain, reskill or build up alternative resources for the key periods. We all know that businesses have to plan for such key periods.

Cigarette Packaging

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for that intervention. The concern about jobs in the printing and packaging industry will be shared by many, particularly Members from Northern Ireland, who still have a fairly large tobacco-related industry in their constituencies. We can come to that in due course, but the fact is that none of us wants to stop the progressive reduction in smoking, and if it seems a reasonable presumption that reducing the attractiveness of the packaging will help, we must face up to the jobs implications. However, I hasten to add that, having considered the issue in the round, I do not think that the implications will be so severe, because after all, as I have pointed out already, we are not talking about “plain” packaging. The same inventiveness and printing of graphic images that have already been brought to bear will continue; indeed, they will be put to much better use than trying to encourage youngsters to try smoking because it seems attractive or because cigarettes are packaged as lipstick, or any of the other advertising gimmicks that have been used.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House this evening, as many people are concerned about it. Cancer Research UK has been working with its campaigning partners to explain why plain packs are needed and to rebut the myths circulated by the industry. Does he feel that plain packaging will reduce the number of deaths resulting from smoking? If it saves lives, the Government need to introduce plain packaging legislation as soon as possible.

[Mr Robinson]

The cancer campaign’s research to which the hon. Gentleman refers has come out strongly in favour of the proposal, as have Action on Smoking and Health and most other related parts of the health industry, in the public sector and the NHS in particular. They have all made the case that the proposal is plausible and that it should represent the next push in a campaign that has been effective but has now faltered. Since 2007, the figures have levelled out; there has been no further reduction in smoking. I think that that will come as a surprise to many people, and it makes the next step an important one. In my view, the next useful step would be plain packaging.