Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend raises a point that will be of interest to many Members across the House, not least at the moment when there is a sort of secular change taking place in the structure of retail banking, with the withdrawal of retail banking from many high streets, including in my own constituency, and the loss of the last remaining bank in some villages. It is difficult to go anywhere else for that kind of access. My hon. Friend and other Members might exploit the opportunity, through the Backbench Business Committee or otherwise, to see whether there is demand among Members for such a debate. He is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so I know that he is familiar with how that Committee works.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Back in 2010, when I believe the Leader of the House was the Health Secretary, a promise was made to fund a paediatric neuromuscular consultant post for Birmingham. Would he be interested in a debate in which he can tell us what steps are needed to turn that into reality?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not recall the detail in relation to that, so I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to update the hon. Gentleman and me.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I share the view that elected mayors can make a significant and positive difference; we have seen that, not least in London. The legislation is in place to enable this to happen; the question is whether the political will and public consent are available to push it forward.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that we need a debate on how Andy Coulson got access to highly sensitive material without proper security vetting? That decision was taken by civil servants who did not even bother to consult the Prime Minister. Do the public not have a right to know just how widespread that despicable practice is across Government?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he makes that sort of accusation. It is not that there was no security clearance, but that developed vetting had not taken place, which is a substantially different process. Security clearance is distinct from developed vetting.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

We are very grateful to the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not in a position at this stage to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House must have been dismayed with the compensation award made to convicted triple killer Kevan Thakrar. Given that the Government have a bit of time on their hands, why do they not introduce a short, simple Bill that says that any future awards of that kind must be paid directly to a special fund for victims?

[Mr Lansley]

Other Members will have been just as dismayed about that. I am not sure whether what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the right solution. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the hon. Gentleman with his views.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wish that we had more time to debate the Budget, not least because the longer we debate it, the greater the chance that at some point we might find out what the Opposition’s alternative would be. I agree about the sentiments of the Labour party, as expressed in the claim that people cannot be trusted to spend their own money. That has been true in the past, is true today and, no doubt, will be true in the future.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the pressures caused by councils such as Oxford and Newham relocating their homeless people to Birmingham while the Government simultaneously relocate Birmingham’s resources to places such as Oxfordshire and Surrey?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate on accommodation issues for people who are dependent on local authority housing. Of course, one of the answers to the hon. Gentleman’s point is our ability to build more houses. He talks about Newham. Just imagine what kind of progress we could make with the Government support the Chancellor announced yesterday for substantial additional developments in Barking and Barking Riverside.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I will. I will raise it directly with the Ministry of Justice. I realise that Saturday is 1 March, so time is short. My hon. Friend must be concerned that the services in his constituency that he appreciates and are valued continue to be supported. I will ask my hon. Friends what the situation is.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s expectations of joint commissioning teams, particularly with regard to respite care? I am concerned that in Birmingham they seem rather unaccountable and have a suspect strategy that does not seem to make financial sense and could result in the closure of purpose-built facilities, such as Kingswood bungalows, which are less than 15 years old.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately promise a debate, but the hon. Lady makes an important point that she might like to pursue by way of an Adjournment debate. Ministers in different Departments will be glad to work together to address the problem she describes.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on encouraging business start-ups, and will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Councillor Eva Philips on her “Make Change” initiative, which launches in my constituency tomorrow, and which brings together NatWest, Social Entrepreneurs Unlimited, Social Breakfast and Hot 500 to offer advice and financial support to young people who want to start their own business?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad to take this opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in supporting enterprise in his constituency. If there were an opportunity for a debate, I would welcome one, because we have in excess of 400,000 more businesses in this country. The rate of creation of new businesses is at its highest, I believe, since records began, which bodes well for the future.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen early-day motion 974, in which my hon. Friend makes a point about Harlow Mecca Bingo, whose fame has spread far and wide. I suspect that there are probably even people in South Cambridgeshire who go to Harlow to enjoy bingo. Before the 1997 general election, when you and I first entered the House, Mr Speaker, the Bingo Association asked me whether I wanted to call the numbers at a bingo club in my constituency. Unfortunately, there was no bingo club in my constituency, so I lost out on that one, and my hon. Friend therefore has the advantage on me. I note that the fame of Harlow Mecca Bingo is so great that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) has signed the early-day motion, so the campaign is a national one. The question of duty is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Government spokesmen now say that they intend to increase economic security for the average household. May we debate that so that I can answer my constituents who are wondering which is the better indicator— 25 people off the claimant count, or the fact that a place such as Birmingham, Selly Oak is now in the top 20% of constituencies for unemployment?

[Mr Lansley]

It is very important to give people a greater sense of security and peace of mind, and that is what we have set out to do. The fact that the number of households in which nobody is in work is at a record low makes an enormous difference. The fact that the latest data show that inflation is at 2%—it has come down to its target level—also gives people a sense of security. The fact that we are dealing with the deficit is not just some debate at a global or national level, but a practical matter: if we stick to the long-term economic plan to bring down the deficit, that will increasingly allow us to do what we have done with the money available, which is to relieve the tax burden, not least on the low-paid.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I was not aware of the role of Northamptonshire police but I am interested to hear about it and I entirely endorse what he has to say about the merits of such diligent police work. The case also demonstrates the importance of the NCA’s focus on some of the issues that are of greatest concern to us all, including child exploitation. The nature of the internet has made it possible for some crimes to be perpetrated across the world and some measures, including the recent ones in Canada, can, along with the international co-operation of which our NCA is a part, give us heightened effectiveness in tackling such organised crime.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Why has the Home Secretary not made a statement to the House on the astonishing admission that police crime figures are fiddled to the point of being totally unreliable? Does the Leader of the House agree that that dreadful state of affairs needs to be addressed urgently?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all agree that it is important that recorded crime statistics are as robust as they possibly can be. One of the first things we did when we came into office was to transfer responsibility to an independent Office for National Statistics. It is doing its job, and that is a reflection of an important step that the coalition Government took. The Home Secretary asked the inspectorate to carry out an audit in June of the quality of crime recording in every police force, and only last week she wrote to chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly. It is worth noting that the separate and wholly independent crime survey for England and Wales, endorsed again yesterday by the ONS, also shows a more than 10% reduction in crime over the same period from 2010. Crime now stands at its lowest level since that survey began in 1981. The evidence is clear that police reform is working and crime is falling.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that motorists in general can take heart from the way in which the Government have ensured that additional costs are not loaded on to them. Had the previous Government still been in office, fuel duty would have been an extra 20p per litre by the end of this Parliament as a consequence of their fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken away. I also think that the work of the Office of Fair Trading on motor insurance claims offers the prospect of relief to motorists in terms of their insurance premiums, as does the Ministry of Justice’s work on the response to whiplash.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Further to questions on local government spending, I see that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is to be given a new role as the head of Minitrue, to guard against the risks of doublethinking in our local authorities. Given the discrepancies in the answer to yesterday’s urgent question on local government spending, might it not be an idea to start with a debate on the accuracy of answers given to Members of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government sets out to speak in plain English and in terms that are entirely accurate.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend does good work to raise his constituents’ concerns. Obviously that is not a matter for the Government directly, but I understand that the works proposed for January are to install a pedestrian crossing on Warwick’s High street, although no decision will be made by the council until 22 November, when the portfolio holder concerned is expected to make a final decision on whether the works will proceed. That is a matter for the local highways authority, Warwickshire county council. I know that my hon. Friend will have raised it with the council and will continue to do so, but raising it here today might help its considerations.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Government have been celebrating a huge increase in sanctions against jobseeker’s allowance claimants. In order to have a fuller picture and to be confident that there are indeed grounds for celebration, may we have a debate on the reasons for those sanctions, the number of appeals pending and the outcomes of the appeals heard so far?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might wish to raise those issues during Work and Pensions questions on Monday 18 November. I do not think that it is a matter of celebrating sanctions. I think it is important for us all that we focus the state’s resources on supporting those in need, whether that arises from disability or relative vulnerability, and those genuinely seeking work. It is therefore important that those who should be seeking work are genuinely doing so.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand when I say that these matters are the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities, and that inside the Government the Attorney-General is responsible for them, not individual Ministers. In so far as we express a view, it is best for us to leave it to the Attorney-General to look at such issues with the CPS.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the sad news in today’s The Sun that Birmingham, once the city of a thousand trades, has broken into the top five jobless blackspots in the country for the first time since records began, is it not time we had a debate on the need for a growth strategy for the whole nation rather than just London and the south-east?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the experience of Members across the country, who are seeing an increase in employment. There has been a 1.4 million increase in people in employment in the private sector, which is very encouraging. There are more women in employment than ever before, and the proportion of households in which nobody is in work has been reduced to the lowest we have seen. That is encouraging progress. It inevitably varies across the country, but the regional growth fund and the efforts we are making will make a big difference. I know how much he will also look forward to High Speed 2 enabling growth in the regions of the United Kingdom through access to markets and opportunities.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important point. In fact, I will raise it with my friends in the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to respond. In many constituencies Jobcentre Plus does a very good job, but we should be tireless in trying to ensure that we match people out of work to the unprecedentedly high number—more than 500,000—of vacancies. It would be really good news if we did that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The whole country can see the IPSA car crash unfolding. We all know that the Prime Minister will be forced to intervene eventually, so why do we not have a debate before the summer recess on what we need to do to amend the IPSA rules and put this fantasy proposal to bed now?

[Mr Lansley]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman and the House that just four years ago—not a long time ago—this House passed legislation to create an independent body. Many of the problems emerging from this issue stem from the simple fact that Members are not willing to let go. We no longer have a say on our pay and pensions. We can express our view, but we do not determine them. It would be immensely to the benefit of the House and the public debate if that were recognised by the public and the press. We do not have a say: IPSA has the say. Go and express views to them. We will do so on a personal and party basis.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that work has been done previously both in Wiltshire and in neighbouring authorities to try to secure that sort of collaboration between authorities in order to deliver savings to all through the rationalisation of back offices and sometimes even of front-line services. Clearly, under this Government, local authorities have been taking exceptional measures to try to deliver efficiency savings and maintain front-line services. What my hon. Friend describes provides a very good example of how, with the new police and crime commissioners, we might find a greater impetus, and indeed a political impetus from elected commissioners, to try to make those savings happen.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given that we have received news of an actual cut in planned capital investment and a virtual strangling at birth of the Heseltine proposals, may we have a debate on the Government’s plans to stimulate jobs and growth in economies such as those in Birmingham and the west midlands?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman and I listened to the same statements yesterday and today. What I heard, including today, was an announcement of £2 billion a year going into the single pot to support local enterprise partnerships across the country, and that will accumulate into a substantial sum of money. This is a devolution of resources that never happened under the Government the hon. Gentleman supported. Additionally, if I heard it correctly, £500 million extra is going into the regional growth fund, and we have all seen how that has made a big difference to projects. I am afraid that I do not recognise his premise; we are supporting manufacturing and growth across the regions.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know he will have sympathy with other colleagues who have historic cities in a countryside setting in their constituency. That was precisely the description applied to Cambridge when its structure plan was agreed some 10 years ago. The essence of the Government’s localism policy is to give more opportunities for local communities to establish the framework for local planning and development. The Government have given that power to York city council, which is not under the control of our party, and I hope that my hon. Friend is successful in ensuring that it listens to the views of the people he represents.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Following the statement yesterday on the hospital and Care Quality Commission scandal, is it not time that we had a full debate, in Government time, on the purpose, intention and scope of the Data Protection Act 1998, so that Parliament is able to make its position crystal clear and stop lawyers’ organisations and petty officials using the Act to hide information, to protect wrongdoers, and to cover up their own incompetence, as seems to happen all too regularly at present?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a debate at this moment. I heard the Information Commissioner talking about this on the radio this morning. One of the most important things is for there to be clarity in the minds of those in organisations, and those who advise them, on what the 1998 Act requires and what it does not require. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard in the exchanges after the statement yesterday, there are clear exemptions under the Act relating to the public interest.

Business of the House

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad to have another opportunity to celebrate Yorkshire. At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Geoffrey Boycott at the Yorkshire county cricket club’s 150th anniversary celebrations here at the House on Monday. I will enjoy any opportunity to celebrate Yorkshire again in the future.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Since the Government do not bother to monitor how they spend taxpayers’ money through the high street innovation fund, may we have a debate in Government time on the effectiveness of the Government’s policies on high street renewal and business improvement districts, so that we know whether all areas, including the Lifford business association area in my constituency, are getting a fair deal?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government are constantly seeking to evaluate the value for money of our expenditure in ways that the previous Government never attempted and we are delivering better value for money. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place during Business, Innovation and Skills questions, but if he was, he would have heard the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) pointing out that more retail outlets have been opened recently than have been closed. The industry is undergoing substantial structural changes, not least because of the growth of online shopping. It is important for us all to recognise that there will be an inevitable process of adaptation.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move,

That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 15 January 2013, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill presented to both Houses on 22 November 2012 (Cm 8499), and that the Committee should report by 31 October 2013.

That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords;

That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That Mr Crispin Blunt, Steve Brine, Lorely Burt, Mr Nick Gibb, Sir Alan Meale and Derek Twigg be members of the Committee.

The motion arises from the statement made on 22 November last year by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in response to a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights. That judgment required the Government to bring forward legislative proposals on prisoner voting for Parliament to consider. The Justice Secretary published the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill and proposed that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. In this motion today, the Government are seeking the establishment of a Joint Committee to consider that draft legislation.

The Justice Secretary made it clear in November that although Ministers might have strong personal views on this matter, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court’s judgment. Equally, however, the Justice Secretary was clear that Parliament is sovereign, a fact recognised explicitly by the Human Rights Act 1998, and the current law passed by Parliament will remain in force unless and until it is changed.

The Government believe that it is right that Parliament should be given the opportunity fully to consider the difficult and contentious issue of prisoner voting. That is why we brought forward draft legislative proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. We consider that to be the most appropriate course of action, given the importance of the issue and the strong views that exist across both Houses. It will be for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation, which contains a number of options reflecting the spectrum of views that we know exist on this question. The Lords started the process of establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny in January. Following discussions through the usual channels, the Government tabled a motion on 1 March to nominate the Commons Members to serve on the Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others subsequently tabled an amendment, which has necessitated the debate we are having today. I understand the purpose behind the amendment. Following the implementation of the Wright report, we now elect the Chairs of most Select Committees, and the membership of those Committees is determined by elections within the political parties. It might therefore be argued that it would be in the spirit of the Wright report for the membership of pre-legislative Committees similarly to be elected by the House and by the parties, rather than determined by the Government and through the usual channels.

However, there are strong arguments of principle and of practicality against such a move. As a matter of principle, joint pre-legislative Committees need to be carefully balanced to ensure that they properly reflect all shades of interest and opinion across both Houses of Parliament. To ensure that scrutiny is rigorous, that means including critics of the legislation as well as its supporters. With the best will in the world, a process of election is unlikely to achieve that balance. If a majority of the House has a prior view on a particular piece of legislation, that view is likely to be reflected in the composition of any Committee appointed following elections.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am just wondering whether we could save some time tonight. If that is the right hon. Gentleman’s position, will he tell us which members of the Committee will be in favour of the proposal and which will be opposed to it, under the balanced arrangements that he has arrived at?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has quite understood the character of the Bill. It offers options, and to that extent—

[Steve McCabe]

I was just following up on what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, and for the benefit of the House and the hon. Gentleman I am attempting to explain that acceptance of the amendment to tonight’s motion might be inferred to be establishing a point of principle. I am explaining that there are objections in principle to that approach to joint pre-legislative Committees.

The point that I was making was that if a majority of the House had a prior view on a particular piece of legislation, that view would be likely to be reflected in the composition of any Committee appointed following elections. In my view, it is not healthy for a legislative Committee to hear only one side of the arguments. If the Commons membership of Joint Committees were determined by election, that would leave the House of Lords to seek to achieve the necessary balance through appointments in that House. I doubt that Members of the other place would welcome that, as it could fetter their choice considerably.

On a practical level, I believe that it would be counter-productive to elect Members to serve on Committees undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny. There is usually an imperative to establish a Joint Committee as quickly as possible after the publication of a draft Bill to enable the Committee to complete its work in time for the Bill proper to be introduced in Parliament later in the Session, or by a specified date. A process of elections conducted by the parties would be bound to delay the establishment of Joint Committees, giving the Committees less time to complete their work or prejudicing the Bill’s timetable.

In addition, I would point out to Members that the membership of the Joint Committee is not imposed by Government or by the usual channels. Members have an opportunity to table amendments to the motion put down, as demonstrated today, and if they wish to, to suggest alternative names to serve on the Committee. The whole House then has an opportunity to vote on the membership. Such is the character of this evening’s debate that I would say that I am not aware of any objection in practice to the proposed membership of the Joint Committee.

Finally, I should emphasise that to endorse the principle behind the amendment before us would represent a significant change in the way in which we conduct legislative scrutiny. If we are to make such a change, we should do so only after a full investigation of the all the potential consequences, both intended and unintended. That would include proper consultation with the parties affected, including the Liaison and Procedure Committees both in this House and in the other place. Members will recall that the Wright report made a wide range of recommendations designed to improve Parliament’s scrutiny role, but I note that it did not recommend the change suggested in the amendment.

For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press his amendment to a Division today, and I hope that the House will resolve to establish this Committee and allow it to get on with its work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The reforms we propose will bring far greater accountability not only through local authorities but through patient choice and through front-line clinicians being able to commission services.

Let me also tell my hon. Friend that I have today referred to the independent reconfiguration panel, for initial appraisal, the question referred to me by Lancashire county council about the children’s ward at Burnley hospital.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in deprecating the outrageous behaviour of the Prime Minister’s aides who told the Financial Times that the Secretary of State, on his reorganisation, has all the answers—unfortunately to all the wrong questions?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe what he reads in the papers and when he is trying to quote from them, he should do so accurately.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lord Lansley

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, by definition, contractual rights cannot be retrospectively applied, but let me make it clear that I will be issuing guidance in terms that I have set out to the House in my statement today—albeit that we might need to do more. That guidance is entirely intended to move the NHS to an open culture that encourages staff to raise concerns. As I said to the Patients Association yesterday, we must have a culture of challenge inside the NHS under which the offence is not to make a mistake, as mistakes are human, but to seek to cover up or ignore a mistake. That is what happens in the best organisations and it must be what happens throughout the NHS.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s promise of early action. Will he tell us how many members of the present board were in post on 18 March 2009 and when he will sack them as he has promised?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me: I know that the chief executive, the chair, the nursing director and others have moved on, but I do not know the precise answer and I will write to him about that. In relation to any individuals, I think it is proper that, having asked Robert Francis to conduct a further inquiry that takes account of all that he discovered in the first report and that covers the same period of time—2005 to 2009—he is free to make recommendations that will bear upon people working inside the trust and in organisations, and upon how they discharge those responsibilities.