High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jeremy Lefroy

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

And that is from a non-controversial Member.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Sadly, I have to agree that what my hon. Friend says is sometimes the case, but I would hope that with the Minister’s intervention—she has been kind to intervene in a number of cases—matters will speed up.

Given that the Chair of High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), is in the House, let me just say that it has been remarkable how some matters have been settled just when they were about to go to his Committee. It is therefore a matter not just of an MP getting involved, but sometimes of an issue actually coming before the Committee. That should not be the case. Common sense should prevail; getting common-sense matters put in place should not depend on pressure from a Member of Parliament or the Committee.

I am most grateful for the forbearance of hon. Members, but there are several very important matters that the House needs to be aware of and which I have tried to summarise. The first is the overall cost, about which we need the Government and HS2 to be honest with the House. The second is the question of the use and reuse of the spoil from the railway, another matter about which HS2 needs to be frank and honest with the House because of the consequences for the transport network and costs. The third is a plea that HS2 is open and transparent with all those affected, that it deals with things on the spot and that it delegates authority to its staff on the ground so that decisions can be made without the great distress that has been caused to so many of my constituents.

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jeremy Lefroy

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 16—Powers of local commissioners in relation to TSA recommendations—

‘(1) In section 65DA(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (Chapter 5A of Part 2: Objective of trust special administration) omit “objective” and insert “objectives” and omit “is” and insert “are”.

(2) After subsection (1)(a) insert—

“(b) the continued provision of such of the services provided for the purposes of the NHS by any affected trust at such level, as the commissioners of those services determine.”.

(3) After subsection 1(b) omit “(b)” and insert “(c)”.

(4) In subsection (2) of that section after “The commissioners” insert “of the trust in special administration and any affected trust”.

(5) In subsection (4) of that section after “the commissioners” add “of the trust in special administration and any affected trust”.

(6) In subsection (9) of that section after ““commissioners” means the persons to which the trust provides services under this Act” add “and the commissioners of services at any affected trust”.

(7) In section 65F insert—

“(2E) Where the administrator is considering recommending taking action in relation to another NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust which may become an affected trust, the administrator shall engage with the commissioners of services at any such NHS foundation trust or NHS trust in order to enable those commissioners to make decisions pursuant to the matters set out in section 65DA.”.

(8) In section 651(1)—

(a) after “action which the administrator recommends that the Secretary of State” insert “or the commissioners of any affected trust“; and

(b) after “should take in relation to the trust” insert “or any affected trust”.

(9) In section 65K add—

“(3) Where the final report contains recommendations for changes to be made to services provided by an affected trust, the commissioners of services at that affected trust shall make a decision within 20 working days whether they wish to undertake public and patient involvement regarding all or any of the recommendations and, if they are so minded, shall comply with any arrangements for patient and public involvement agreed by those commissioners under this Act before making any final decision concerning the said recommendations.”.

(10) In section 65KA add—

“(7) Where the final report contains recommendations for changes to be made to services provided by an affected trust, the commissioners of those services shall make a decision within 20 working days whether they wish to undertake public and patient involvement regarding all or any of the recommendations and, if they are so minded, shall comply with any arrangements for patient and public involvement agreed by those commissioners under this Act before making any final decision concerning the said recommendations.”.

(11) In section 65KB(1)(d) after “that” insert “to the extent that the report recommends action in relation to the trust in administration”.

(12) In section 65KB(2)(a) after “decision” insert “in relation to any recommendations made the in relation to the trust in administration”.

(13) In section 65O add—

“(4) In this chapter “affected trust” means—

(a) where the trust in question is an NHS trust, another NHS trust, or an NHS foundation trust, which provides goods or services under this Act that would be affected by the action recommended in the draft report; and

(b) where the trust in question is an NHS foundation trust, another NHS foundation trust, or an NHS trust, which provides services under this Act that would be affected by the action recommended in the draft report.

(14) In section 13Q(4) at the end insert “save to the extent required by section 65K(3) or 65KA(7)”.

(15) In section 14Z2(7) at the end insert “save to the extent required by section 65K(3) or 65KA(7)”.

(16) In section 242(6)(b) at the end insert “save to the extent required by section 65K(3) or 65KA(7)”.’.

This Clause ensures that all commissioners of services affected by a trust special administrator’s report have the right to define local specified services; clarifies that, save for the trust in administration, local commissioners remain the decision makers for services they commission; and restores public engagement for changes other than for a trust in administration.

Amendment 30, page 102, line 31, leave out clause 119.

Government amendments 35, 36 and 11 to13.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I wish to speak to new clause 6, which stands in my name and those of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State some discretion to amend details of the final recommendations from Monitor regarding the outcome of the administration of an NHS foundation trust. As the law stands—so I am advised—the Secretary of State must either accept or reject Monitor’s recommendations in full. If they are rejected, there is another lengthy period of reconsideration. The result is that even if the Secretary of State broadly welcomes Monitor’s recommendations but has concerns about some matters of detail, it appears that he has to reject everything.

I have tabled this new clause as a direct result of my experience representing a constituency that has undergone the very first trust special administration of a foundation trust. I hope it will also be the last—at least in its current format. It has been a hugely time-consuming and costly process, and I would not wish it on any other community, constituency or Member of this House. The new clause would slightly improve the process, but what I would much rather see is a total rethink of the way in which the basic tasks of a trust special administration are carried out, both for NHS trusts and for NHS foundations trusts.

In my view, the relevant legislation—introduced by the previous Government and continued under this one—is not fit for purpose, but that is a debate for another day. In the meantime, I simply urge Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority not to put any other trusts—whether they be NHS trusts or foundation trusts—into the current form of administration. I urge everybody to work together on developing a system that enables trusts that are too small, such as the Mid Staffordshire trust, to be dissolved without having to go into a rapid, short-term and wholesale redesign of services. It can be done and I am certainly willing to work with anyone who wishes to design a better system.

I will not go into the full details of the administration of the Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust—that is a subject for a full debate on another day—but I will simply point out that it was made a foundation trust in 2008 on the recommendation of Monitor after a lengthy process, and that it is now being dissolved in 2014 on the recommendation of Monitor after a lengthy process. In paragraph 4.269 of his inquiry report, Robert Francis says:

“There can be no doubt that the Trust should never have been authorised as an FT”,

which happened in 2008. There must be a better way of doing things.

My new clause 6 would give the Secretary of State the power to accept the broad thrust of Monitor’s recommendations in the unhappy event of any future administration, giving her or him discretion to alter their detail without having to reject them in their entirety. The new clause therefore offers the Secretary of State flexibility and discretion in what is too rigid a process. I think that any Secretary of State would welcome that. A constant theme of the Ministers whom I have heard in my short time in Parliament has been that such and such an amendment would introduce too much inflexibility into the law. I am therefore doing exactly what Ministers long for, which is to offer them such flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Ms Walley, in fairness, interventions must be very short.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for playing an extremely important and constructive role in this whole matter. She has been very supportive, and she makes some extremely important points. We need to look at the whole issue of administration, to which I will come in a few moments.

The Secretary of State’s decision to introduce the addition has given me considerable comfort about new clause 6, which I tabled before his decision, not being necessary. He does not seem to consider himself entirely constrained by the law into only accepting or rejecting Monitor’s recommendations in full; there is clearly room for proposing changes to details while still accepting the main thrust about the dissolution of a trust.

We shall of course need to see the results of the NHS review of consultant-led maternity services. If, as I hope, they are retained as a vital part of the regional health service—together with the level 1 special care baby unit, which serves a much wider area—it is important that finances are put in place to ensure that they are sustainable. I would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister about how the Department of Health now interprets the law.

If the Secretary of State’s decision on Mid Staffordshire demonstrates that the law allows for positive changes to the details of recommendations without Monitor having to go through another lengthy and legalistic process at a time when, as in the case of Stafford, a hospital is in a very fragile state, I welcome that fact, and new clause 6 will be unnecessary. However, if the Minister wants confirmation of the flexibility set out in the new clause, I would be happy for the Government to accept it or something similar.

Finally, to return to the question of trust special administrations, I believe that they are the right way to dissolve the legal entity of a foundation trust, but they are most certainly not the right way to redesign clinical services. That is not to criticise Monitor generally or the trust special administrators in the case of Mid Staffordshire—I believe that they acted within the remit given to them by this House—but we as a House did not get it right either in 2006 or in 2012. I urge a complete rethink, starting today.

Disadvantaged Children

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that they must speak to the Chair and not in the opposite direction.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency, the Rotary club does work on reading in Doxey primary school. I remember how much I enjoyed reading to my children. I am not sure whether the feeling was mutual, although they told me later that it was.

My second point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and many other hon. Members, is the critical role of children’s centres. We should ensure that, with the changes, we do not lose what has been achieved. The report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead states that Sure Start centres

“should maintain some universal services so that Centres are welcoming, inclusive, socially mixed and non-stigmatising, but aim to target services towards those who can benefit from them most.”

I urge the Government to take note of that, and I am sure that they will.

My third point regards television and media. I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is no longer in his place, about Staffordshire university—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon; I missed him. He referred to a particular media studies course at Staffordshire university. I must say that Staffordshire university has a very high reputation in media studies and is one of the major institutions in the country for developing state-of-the-art video games technology, which is a major export industry for this country. I just want to give some balance to the impression that people may have got from his comment, which I am sure was not intended as a generalisation.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead talks about the role of the BBC. He recommends that it kitemark the children’s programmes that are most beneficial to parents in the development of language. I urge the BBC and other broadcasters to pay attention to that.

I grew up in a house without a television, and indeed still live in a house without one. I do not recommend that for everybody, although it has certainly done me, my family and my children no harm. However, I do think that parents should be encouraged to consider their use of television, and whether it is necessary to have one in every room in the house, including the bedrooms. Perhaps television could become a social activity with the whole family watching it together, rather than an individual activity with everybody watching their own programmes.

I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Slough about reading. Again, that is absolutely essential and something that we must never forget. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) about character—something that is sometimes forgotten. We have to have qualitative, not just quantitative, measures in approaching this subject.

I and my family spent many years living in Tanzania. A Swahili proverb says, “It takes a whole village to raise a child.” Many hon. Members have made that point in various ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the importance of community as well as family. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about the way in which the built environment can help or hinder the sense of community.

I look forward to several further debates on this matter in this Parliament. It is absolutely essential that we take note of everything that has been said today and return to it time and again to see what progress is being made. We are talking about something that is vital to the future of this country and of our children, and it is essential that we do not just leave it to one debate and one day in a Parliament.