High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Debate between Simon Burns and Frank Dobson
Tuesday 29th April 2014

(10 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Burns Portrait Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I do not wish to detain the House for long. I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) say that it is strange that this House has not modernised its procedures for hybrid Bills. I have never considered myself an arch-moderniser, but I could not agree with him more. The whole process of dealing with major infrastructure projects in this country—including both the parliamentary processes in this House and the processes outside it—is outdated, antiquated and unacceptable in this day and age. The fact that it took 10 years to build terminal 5 at Heathrow and so much time to build some of the other major projects that this country has enjoyed in the past 20 years is ludicrous and we should deal with that.

I declare an interest, because I had the dubious honour of being a member of the second-longest running hybrid Bill Committee, which, again, had an association with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, as the Government of the day had the idea that the London terminal for High Speed 1 was going to be at King's Cross. Man and boy, I went through that process and I was fascinated to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) say that the members of these Committees are not pressed men. Things have changed, I suspect, in the processes of the House. The Committee had a fantastic cast. There were only four of us: Bob Clay, the former Member for one of the Sunderland seats; someone who has now reinvented himself in this House as the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway); Mr Neil Hamilton; and myself. I knew what they had done wrong, but I was not sure what I had done.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

You were Mr Ordinary.

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

I suspect that I was actually a sucker, because I had been a Member of this House for only 18 months and I believed what the Whips said when they invited me on to the Committee.

NHS (Private Sector)

Debate between Simon Burns and Frank Dobson
Monday 16th January 2012

(12 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Burns Portrait The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
- Hansard - -

To begin on a conciliatory note, I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on his first speech from the Front Bench as a junior shadow Health spokesman. I did not agree with a single word that he said, but I congratulate him on the way in which he spoke.

I have no idea what new year resolutions the Labour party has made, but perhaps I could suggest one: to get their facts right. Having listened to the endearing speech of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the same speech that I have heard on many occasions from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the slightly bizarre speech of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and the speech from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), I have to say that they really have got it wrong. It is wrong to seek to misrepresent by repeating a fallacy.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) on his lucid exposé of the contradictions in the arguments of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for their thoughtful contributions. I listened carefully and with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) but, to be honest and frank, I was not carried by the strength of his argument on the issues.

I fear that many of the contributions of Opposition Members that my hon. Friends and I have had to listen to have given a series of misrepresentations and misinformation. I remind them that for 36 years, just over half the 64 years of the national health service, it has been under the stewardship of the Conservative party. We have never sought to privatise the health service and we never will privatise the health service.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

Because of the time, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but to no one thereafter.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister suggested that I had used figures that were not factual. If they are not, he should know that they all came from parliamentary answers signed by him.

Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Debate between Simon Burns and Frank Dobson
Tuesday 6th September 2011

(13 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Burns Portrait The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
- Hansard - -

I beg to move,

That the Order of 31 January 2011 (Health and Social Care Bill (Programme)) as supplemented by the Order of 21 June 2011 (Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

3. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses and New Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Parts 3 and 4 other than:

(a) New Clauses, New Schedules and amendments relating to transitional arrangements for NHS foundation trusts,

(b) New Clauses, New Schedules and amendments relating to private health care, and

(c) amendments providing for commissioning consortia to be known as clinical commissioning groups.

8.30 pm on the first day.

New Clauses and New Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Parts 3 and 4, which relate to transitional arrangements for NHS foundation trusts or to private health care;

amendments providing for commissioning consortia to be known as clinical commissioning groups.

10.00 pm on the first day.

Second day

New Clauses, New Schedules and amendments relating to the provision of information, advice or counselling about termination of pregnancy.

One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration on the second day.

Remaining New Clauses and New Schedules relating to, and remaining amendments to, Parts 1, 2 and 5 to 12; remaining proceedings on consideration.

6.00 pm on the second day.



4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm on the second day on which proceedings on consideration are taken.

I will speak briefly to the programme motion, as I am sure that all hon. Members who wish to take part in debate on the Bill would like to make progress and get on to the main core of the amendments before us. As they will see, we have set in train our plan to hold Report and Third Reading over two days, commencing now and continuing until 10 pm tonight, and resuming on Wednesday, after Prime Minister’s questions and any other business that takes place on that day. As is normal, Third Reading will take place an hour before the end of that day.

As we are all aware, we arrive at Report with the Bill having received extensive scrutiny in two House of Commons Committee stages. Our first Committee stage, in February and March this year, lasted 28 sittings. It was the longest Committee stage of any Bill since the Criminal Justice Bill of 2002-03. At the conclusion of proceedings, even the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who led for the Opposition in that Committee, acknowledged that

“every inch of the Bill”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 31 March 2011; c. 1310.]

had been

“scrutinised”.

Following a listening exercise and the work of the Future Forum, the Bill was re-committed to a further Committee stage of 12 sittings. If that had been a stand-alone Committee stage, it would have been the longest for any Bill sponsored by the Department of Health since 2003. All that means that the Bill has been scrutinised for a total of over 100 hours, and has been the subject of 40 Committee sittings—more sittings than there has been for any public Bill between 1997 to 2010. I will dwell on that point for a moment, and remind hon. Members of recent Health Bills that predate this Government.

The Health Act 2009 was scrutinised over eight sittings, as was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The Bill Committee for the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which among other provisions set up the Care Quality Commission, sat for 12 sittings, a number matched by the Health Act 2006. As the keener mathematicians among us might have realised, the total number of Commons Committee sittings for these four Bills was 40—the same number as for this single Bill. In these 40 sittings we had a great number of debates where the issues were fully debated, sometime more than once.

Having had such substantial debate in Committee, we feel strongly that two days on Report is a thoroughly appropriate length of time. I have heard the calls from certain Opposition Members that more time is needed. I find that intriguing, given the rarity with which two-day Report stages were granted under the previous Government.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is it not treating the people who work in the national health service with contempt to expect the House to consider more than 1,000 amendments and new clauses in two days? Is that not a disgrace?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

The right hon. Gentleman’s hyperbole does not match the facts. He mentioned 715 amendments —[Interruption.] Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned 715 amendments dealing with one issue within the more than 1,000 amendments. May I point out to him that 715 amendments are all technical amendments? They change the name of GP consortia to clinical commissioning groups, following the recommendations made by the Future Forum and others working in the health service, which I would have thought would be welcomed by the Opposition Front Bench team at least. That number bloats and distorts the total number. The other significant number of amendments—121—deal with the continuity of services, which is an issue that the Opposition Front-Bench team implored us to bring before the House, rather than allowing it to be dealt with another place. That is why we have done so.

If we are going to be somewhat churlish, let me point out that 100 amendments were tabled by the official Opposition, of which 41 have been selected, and the vast majority of those amendments have been dealt with in Committee in great detail. So in that respect we will be going over well covered ground.

I do not intend to speak for long as I do not wish to detain the House. There is work to be done. This Government have allowed four two-day Report stages in this Session alone. Let me remind the House of one of those rare Government Bills that was granted a two-day Report stage under the previous Government—the Planning Bill in June 2008, with which I know the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) is extremely familiar and probably very fond of. For that Bill the Government of the day thought that two days were appropriate—an interesting judgment, given that they were tabling 29 new clauses and seven new schedules on Report. Indeed, by the end of Report, the Planning Bill had grown by 25%. That compares with the nine new clauses that the Government have tabled on Report for the Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill. So that those on the Opposition Benches get the message, that is nine new clauses under this Government, as opposed to 29 new clauses in the right hon. Gentleman’s Bill.

Let us give the Opposition the benefit of the doubt. They might have forgotten what the right hon. Gentleman said when the Planning Bill was, unusually, allowed two days on Report, so let me remind them:

“My reasons for moving this motion were straightforward… It is true that the Bill is wide-ranging and important, which is why we have, unusually, provided two full days for the Report stage… we have departed from the usual by giving two days to this consideration.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 507.]

He established the fact that it is highly unusual. The Health and Social Care Bill has had far more time in Committee than previous Bills, and we are giving an extra day to allow hon. Members the opportunity to contribute to debates, although I must warn my hon. Friends that some of the debates will be a repetition, particularly for those who served on the Committee. It is for those reasons that I urge the House to support the motion.

Health (CSR)

Debate between Simon Burns and Frank Dobson
Thursday 11th November 2010

(14 years, 1 month ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

We will come to that point. Whenever there is a parliamentary briefing or statement for a debate that fits the prejudices that Labour Members want to project—their straitjacket—that is fine, but anything that does not conform to their prejudices or prejudged views, or to the facts, such as the comments from the King’s Fund on which I kept pressing the hon. Member for Easington, which confirmed its view that we had honoured our pledge and made a real-terms increase, they dismiss as fiction. I am afraid that I do not share the support offered by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) for the views in the Nuffield Trust document.

I will come on to social care spending, because I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halton, made quite a lot of that. I will try, in a longer period than I would have in an intervention, to show that he is wrong and the Government are right.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

I will, but then I must make progress.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What is the Government’s estimate of the money that will be consumed by the process of reorganisation during the process of reorganisation?

--- Later in debate ---
Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

No. That will then put us in a position to move forward on the implementation and funding the costs of those changes. I shall now move on to deal with the rest of the issue. This year, before we spend a single—

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

No. I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman once and I said that I would then make progress, because the purpose of my speech is twofold: to outline our view on the subject—

--- Later in debate ---
Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

In the overall run of things, the hon. Lady makes a genuine point, but most of the cost cutting that I heard about during the speeches involved accusations of services being cut without the reasons for the status of what are, in many cases, reconfigurations being gone into. Also, until conclusions have been reached, there is no guarantee that those reconfigurations will happen. They might do so, but there is no automatic guarantee that, just because there is to be a reconfiguration, the end product will be what was first proposed.

Furthermore, I heard very little comment—indeed, I do not think that anyone passed comment, although I apologise if someone did—on the QIPP programme, which is so important and vital for raising standards, using innovation to improve quality of care and delivery. In that, we have examples across the country of the NHS finding changes that can make a big difference.

For example, Southend Hospital NHS Trust is saving £160,000 a year by mapping postcodes—patients who live near each other can be picked up together for their dialysis appointments. Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust is saving £1 million a year by implementing an electronic blood transfusion system, which cuts the staff time taken to deliver blood and reduces transfusion errors, thereby improving services for patients. Ten NHS trusts have been piloting a new pathway to improve care for patients, mainly elderly people who have suffered a fractured neck of femur. If that were rolled out across the country, it could save £75 million a year.

Those are just small examples of things that can be done where savings are made, the quality and appropriateness of care improve, and money can be ploughed back into front-line services, which is so important.

While we are talking about resources, I shall answer the important question asked by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). He specifically mentioned Great Ormond Street hospital, but this applies across all the specialist children’s hospitals. The Department is having ongoing discussions with Great Ormond Street and the other relevant hospitals in England about potential—I emphasise “potential”—changes to the tariff for specialist children’s hospitals for 2011-12.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that no decisions have yet been taken and the discussions are continuing. On his specific question about how much less money is going to be given, there is no answer at the moment, because no decisions have been taken. The discussions will continue. I hope, for the time being, that he is reassured by that answer.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Can the Minister confirm that Great Ormond Street hospital was asked to do without £16 million during the course of those wondrous negotiations he is talking about?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

No, but I will confirm that discussions with the hospital are ongoing and, flowing from that, decisions will be reached in due course. At this point it would be inappropriate for me to interfere by giving any confirmation or denials of anything, because the situation does not arise in that context. Discussions are going on, and no decisions have been made. We will have to see once the discussions are concluded.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

I cannot see how much more I can say, because my answer seemed fairly conclusive.

--- Later in debate ---
Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

I will not give way because there is little more that I can add to what I have already said on the subject.

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

I shall make progress, because I have made the situation plain.

--- Later in debate ---
Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is the situation as it is known to me: no decisions have been made and discussions are continuing. In due course, decisions will be reached, but as of now none has been made and the discussions continue.

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns Portrait Mr Burns
- Hansard - -

I honestly do not see what more I can say—my answer seems fairly conclusive, so I will make progress. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have a quick word with me afterwards, I am more than happy to do so.

Moving on to social care, which a number of hon. Members and the shadow Minister have mentioned—

Frank Dobson Portrait Frank Dobson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Gale—as I understand it, the Department of Health has been briefing that it wants to take away only £4 million from Great Ormond Street.

Roger Gale Portrait Mr Roger Gale (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that.