NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

The reason for the change in the timetable is the unfortunate episode with the west coast main line—[Interruption.] I said “unfortunate”. Following the Brown inquiry, we redrew the franchising programmes and took his advice that the west coast main line and east coast main line franchises should not be done at the same time. That is why we are pressing ahead with putting the east coast main line franchise back into the private sector in February 2015.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that his decision to reorder the franchising timetable just to enable him dogmatically to flog off a service that is working well has required him to renegotiate extensions to other inter-city contracts. Can he confirm, therefore, as a result of his negotiating skills, how much money he is requiring Virgin Trains to pay to the Government next year?

[Mr Burns]

I do not think the hon. Lady fully appreciates the role of DOR, which is not to run a franchise ad infinitum but to do so as an emergency measure. We have made it plain, following the Brown inquiry and recommendations, that it is best for the private sector to run the railways, as was always intended under the legislation, and that is why we are pressing ahead.

[Maria Eagle]

I am disappointed that the Minister does not know what he has negotiated, but I can tell him that Virgin Trains is paying £94 million, which, according to the independent rail regulator, is a staggering £64 million less than it paid last year. As his own Department’s figures reveal that he could have ended above-inflation fare rises next year for a similar sum, is it not a disgrace that passengers face fare rises of up to 9%, adding to the cost of living crisis, as a direct result of his decision to pursue this costly and unnecessary privatisation?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady forgets to mention that to take into account the economic situation and economic mess that we inherited from her Government, we have provided help to fare payers by reducing the average formula from RPI plus 3% to RPI plus 1%. She selectively chooses the figure of a 9% increase—an extreme increase—but that will arise in a very small number of instances, because the formula calculates an average increase. She also forgets to mention those fares that have gone down rather than up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s cry, that was, of course, the intended policy of the previous Labour Secretary of State and the previous Labour Minister for Transport. We anticipate that the line will return to a franchise operation by February 2015.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to prioritise a completely unnecessary and costly competition for the east coast main line rail franchise, which will also require him to waste taxpayers’ money on expensive extensions to other contracts, some for as long as four years?

[Mr Burns]

I am afraid that the premise of the shadow Secretary of State’s question is factually incorrect and misguided. The reason we are moving the east coast main line back to a franchise is exactly the same—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady should stop chuntering.

[Mr Burns]

I am answering the question. The reason why we are moving the line back to a franchise is exactly the same as why the shadow Secretary of State’s right honourable friend Lord Adonis was going to do it when he said:

“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

Nor do we, and that is why we are ending it.

[Maria Eagle]

It does not sound like the Minister actually knows what is happening on the east coast main line: 3 million more seats, best ever punctuality, lowest taxpayer subsidy, £40 million of extra profit invested and £800 million returned to the taxpayer. He should stop talking it down. Will he confirm that all of the planned east coast upgrade—all the investment that his hon. and right hon. Friends claim is necessary—will be paid for by the taxpayer? None of this investment is dependent on privatisation. The fact is that private train companies now receive more from the taxpayer each year than they pay back in, so why is he doing this?

[Mr Burns]

I sometimes wonder which world the shadow Secretary of State lives in. If she would just do us all a favour and listen for one minute, I will offer her an explanation. First, the premium that the east coast main line pays to the Treasury is less than that paid by the west coast main line. Secondly, if the hon. Lady looks at reliability over the latest four-week period, she will see that the east coast main line is the worst of the 19 operators. Thirdly, we have found that the operator did a reasonable job in difficult circumstances when it had to take over the direct operation, but that it has now reached a plateau. Fourthly, yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.

Rising Cost of Transport

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

No, I will make some progress. We have out-of-touch Transport Ministers and a Prime Minister not willing to enforce his own commitment on fares.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the Minister.

[Mr Burns]

Will the hon. Lady withdraw the accusation that she has just made—that the service to Chelmsford cost £80,000? If she had done her homework or was being fair, she would know that pool cars cost the Department a flat rate of £80,000 for the year, regardless of how many journeys they make or how far they travel. Even if the car stopped coming to Chelmsford, the flat fee would still be paid at the same level.

[Maria Eagle]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to argue that he is actually saving money for the taxpayer, and I will leave that for those who wish to report on these things to decide.

Transport

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Maria Eagle]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for how many hours work Eversheds LLP charged his Department in respect of work relating to the West Coast Mainline franchise; and at what hourly rate.

[Official Report, 17 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 338W.]

Letter of correction from Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on 17 October 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Simon Burns]

In total, Eversheds LLP charged the Department for 420 hours work relating to the Intercity West Coast franchise competition. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, we are unable to disclose the hourly rates that were charged.

The correct answer should have been:

Rail Fares

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

No, I have taken several interventions and I want to make progress; otherwise I will take up the entire debate with my opening speech, which is not what Members want.

If train companies were banned from increasing fares any more than the strict limit set by the Government, we could then have a political debate about what is the affordable level for that cap, rightly taking into account the state of the public finances, but that decision would at least be more transparent and enforced. My noble Friend Lord Adonis, when he was Transport Secretary, took such a step and banned train companies from increasing regulated fares beyond the cap set by the Government. He has been very clear about this in oral and written evidence to the Transport Committee. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman for Ch, Ch—

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

Chelmsford.

[Maria Eagle]

I knew it began with a “Ch”—that might be a way to remember it in the future. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken too long to get back into the habit of heckling from the Front Bench—perhaps he never got out of it in his role at the Department of Health.

My noble Friend Lord Adonis has made it clear in oral and written evidence to the Transport Committee, and on many other occasions, that he fully intended the ban on train companies flexing the fare cap to continue into subsequent years. That would be perfectly possible. I have said on many occasions that the previous Government should have taken action earlier, but the fact is that when times got tough they acted, but when times got tougher still this Government chose to give back to the train companies the right to fiddle the fare cap.

Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Debate between Simon Burns and Maria Eagle

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady can rest assured that I will come to that in due course, during the latter part of my speech. In light of some of her comments, particularly about cancer services, I wanted to show the setting for reconfiguration in so far as it might affect that site and other parts of Liverpool’s health care provision.

Where local NHS organisations have already started to consider changing services, they will need to consider again whether their plans meet the criteria before continuing. It will be an opportunity for patients, local GPs and clinicians, and local councils to play a far greater role in how services are shaped and to ensure that the changes will lead to the best outcomes for patients.

The hon. Lady mentioned in an intervention the rebuilding of the Royal Liverpool. That will be reviewed in the light of the Secretary of State’s four tests. As she said in her speech, it is widely recognised that the hospital has a number of issues. Most significantly, the fabric of the building is deteriorating due to a serious case of concrete rot. The building’s condition contributes to high maintenance costs and a significantly poorer patient experience. The building is also inflexible, making it increasingly difficult for the trust to deliver modern, high-quality services.

[Maria Eagle]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role. He is a reasonable man, and I am happy to see him in this job. Can he give all the Liverpool MPs here today some time scale within which the Government will take the decision on the review? We would be grateful for an approximate date.

[Mr Burns]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments, which are greatly appreciated. I return the compliment by saying that when our roles were reversed, I found her an extremely helpful and sympathetic Minister when I brought problems to her concerning Chelmsford prison. She has anticipated me in her direct question. I assure her—I am choosing my words carefully, as she will discover—that I will answer her question later in my speech.

The programme to address the issues within the trust has been ongoing for some time, as all hon. Members present will know and appreciate. For the benefit of those hon. Members not present who will read the report of the debate, I shall set out the timeline of events.

Due to the sorry state of the buildings and the high cost of refurbishment, the trust decided fully to rebuild the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust while refurbishing the site at Broadgreen. In July 2004, the Department of Health agreed the project’s strategic business case, enabling work to start on the outline business case and the process of obtaining planning permission from Liverpool city council. In March 2008, planning permission was granted. In September 2009, the strategic health authority, NHS North West, approved the outline business case. Then, in March this year, the project was approved by the Department of Health and the Treasury. On 14 April, an advertisement to tender for the project was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union. That is the scheme’s current position.

However, it is important to understand the changed context within which we now find ourselves. The most urgent task facing the Government is to tackle our record debt. As part of that, the Treasury is reviewing every significant spending decision made between 1 January 2010 and the general election on 6 May. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside herself said, the final approvals were given on 29 March—two weeks to the day before the general election was announced. As a result, the project has been included in the Treasury review of public spending commitments made by the previous Government.

I hasten to add, as delicately as I can, that we, as a nation, face tremendous difficulties due to the staggering debt left to this Government. My right hon. Friends have rightly decided that we must get to grips with the economic situation that we inherited, and the primary problem that we face in the immediate future is the debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but everything has to be taken in the context of the changed circumstances—a change of Government and our overriding need to get the debt and the deficit under control. The context for that and the engine driving it is the review of all public spending commitments across the board. We are talking about not simply the health service, but commitments made across Government since 1 January. I cannot anticipate the outcome of any review, and I am sure that hon. Members would not expect me to. I can tell them that decisions will be taken by the spending review in the autumn, and I hope that hon. Members consider that helpful.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way and I am grateful. I understand the position that he is in—believe me. He gave an endpoint to the deliberative process, but the time scale he suggested might put the development at risk. Uncertainty can create difficulties with the funding arrangements for a PFI project, such that it is no longer workable or cannot be put together properly if the delay is too extensive because the private sector needs to raise money through the markets and in other ways.

Will the Minister undertake to do the usual thing that Ministers do, which is talk behind the scenes to his Treasury colleagues, as he will have to do anyway? Will he ensure, as far as he can, that the project is at the front rather than the back of the queue? The delay he indicated—through to the spending review in the autumn—could put the viability of the scheme at risk, whether or not the Government reaffirm the commitment made by the previous Government. For that reason, I urge him to do us a favour and discuss with the Treasury behind the scenes, as Ministers do, the urgent need to deal with this scheme as soon as possible.

[Mr Burns]

I respect the hon. Lady’s ingenuity and I can see where she is hoping I will go. I do not want to disappoint, but I understand the situation and all I can do is reiterate that the project will be reviewed, as a lot of other projects across Government will be reviewed, in line with the Treasury guidelines for the review of projects from 1 January.

A decision will be taken by or at the time of the spending review in the autumn. I cannot go further than that. However frustrating it is for the hon. Lady, I know that in her heart of hearts she understands what I am saying. If the roles were reversed, she would probably say the same thing. It would be wrong and irresponsible, and potentially misleading, to go any further.