Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Emma Lewell-Buck

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T3. Vital services for people suffering domestic violence, hate crime, discrimination and labour exploitation are funded by the EU rights, equality and citizenship programme. When the consultation on the UK prosperity fund eventually begins, will that programme be part of it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

I have had extensive discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about the shared prosperity fund. I have heard the hon. Lady’s point and will take it up with him.

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Baker and Emma Lewell-Buck

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reassurance because in my constituency there is really only one story: the loss of services, and, because of the way the clause has been presented by Labour Members, people are worried about that.

It has been said that these hospitals are categorically different because they exist in a broader health economy, but that is not why they are different. Any business exists as part of a wider economy with dependencies and so on—the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) suggested the example of Comet versus Currys. In private enterprise, if the administrator turned up and shut down our competitors when we failed, it would obviously be absurd, but the truth is that both sides of the House have made a positive decision to use the techniques of state socialism to provide health care. That choice has consequences, one of which is this clause.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It will come as no surprise that I support the proposal to remove clause 119 from the Bill. Of all reforms in the Bill, this clause has attracted the most attention from my constituents. They recognise it for what it is—a frightening power grab by central Government that will put services across the whole country at risk from the Secretary of State. It is a cynical move from the Government, who in their wildly unpopular top-down reorganisation of our beloved NHS claimed that they wanted to put more power in the hands of doctors. Now they seek to give sweeping new powers to the Secretary of State.

It is of course true that some NHS trusts and foundation trusts find themselves in tough financial situations, and in those difficult situations decisions will have to be made so that services continue to operate. That is what the TSA regime was set up to do, and it is an appropriate process for dealing with the difficulties within a trust. It is true that trusts do not operate in complete isolation, but the TSA is already required to act with the interests of the wider health service in mind.