Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Theresa Villiers and Geoffrey Robinson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for that and thank my hon. Friend very much indeed. His support throughout has been consistent, welcome and a great help. I am pleased to tell the House we also have the support of three previous Prime Ministers. Only Sir John Major felt that he could not support us. He said he did not know enough about it, which was sometimes his problem as Prime Minister.

As I was saying, we should try to carry the unity of the House on this issue to the country and raise public awareness about the need for the opt-out solution we are proposing. That would be a major achievement. The Government have launched a consultation on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who was with me in the early meetings, urged that course upon the Government. They responded quickly and to great effect: the response has been unprecedented. I am informed, unofficially, that the number of individual responses—separate, individually written letters—is now over 11,000, which is a record for any public consultation of this kind. The consultation does not finish until 6 March. I hope that the campaign will create sufficient awareness for people to find the opportunity to participate in it online via the Government’s website.

The predominantly positive response that we have been led to understand the public consultation is producing is hardly surprising—it is very welcome, but hardly surprising. According to recent reliable polling from the British Heart Foundation, up to 90% of the public said they were in favour of donation in principle, but that only 36% get around to signing the register. I think that many people are guilty, as I was for a number of years, of finding themselves in that position. That in itself suggests how effective an opt-out register could be.

Why are we actively looking towards implementing an opt-out solution at this stage? In England, for example, the situation is disappointing. We have some of the lowest rates of consent for organ donation in western Europe. Low family rates of consent have been one of the major barriers to the donor rate increasing. In effect, that prevents one third of available organs from being used. They go straight to the grave or to the crematorium. None of us likes to think about the worst happening, and it is challenging to have conversations with family and loved ones about one’s wishes after death. However, one of the Bill’s principal aims must be to encourage open discussions among families, so that an individual’s real wishes are known to their nearest and dearest. I think it reasonable to say that in the majority of cases, given the outcome of the consultation and what we know from the polls, people would wish to donate their organs after their death.

However, there will be those who take a different view. Perhaps even one or two in the Chamber feel that way and will make their feelings known in the debate. In no way do I wish them to feel that they have been railroaded into decisions that they do not wish to take. Therefore, I emphasise to those who feel that they cannot lend their support or have doubts about the Bill at this stage that soft opt-out provisions will be built into it. Naturally, I imagine that there will be a fair amount of discussion about those in Committee. I assure hon. Members that, as the Bill’s promoter, I give them my fullest personal commitment to approach discussions about the opt-outs in the spirit of sympathetic open-mindedness.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I am here to support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, but I ask him to engage with the Jewish community to see whether he can allay their concerns about how it might affect observance with their religious teachings.

[Mr Robinson]

I am very pleased to have taken that intervention. I remember that one of the former Prime Ministers who supports us—Gordon Brown—wanted to introduce an opt-out system, but came up against a fairly immovable block in the then Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Sacks, who said then that at no cost could he commit the Jewish community to supporting it. That rather held matters up and the Government were then overtaken by other matters with that Bill, but yes, we will do that. I have been in touch, and we believe that the council itself has made an official statement supporting the Bill.

High-Speed Rail

Debate between Theresa Villiers and Geoffrey Robinson

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). This is, indeed, a most important debate, and I would like to thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, for giving it to us. As he made clear, we had wished for a debate on the Floor of the House, and he almost promised us one once we are further into the consultation period. I am pleased to see such a good cross-party alliance forming here against HS2, and I hope briefly to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire in setting out some of the reasons why it is a monumental waste of money and diversion of scarce resources.

I assure my hon. Friends who represent certain London and home counties constituencies, and others such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), that those who oppose HS2 absolutely recognise the need for more capacity. We recognise that greater connectivity would be of great benefit, but we believe—I agree here with the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire—that Rail Package 2, which was worked out by Atkins, as the Minister knows, offers a much better prospect for being able to do that in a shorter time and on a much more cost-effective basis than HS2. I will say a few more things about that in a moment, if I may.

Those who represent Manchester and Leeds will naturally have an interest in seeing their constituents and businesses able to come down to London much more quickly than they can at present. I urge them to read about and get into the alternatives in RP2. It does most of what they could reasonably expect, given the scarcity of resources for capital projects, and all other areas of revenue expenditure as well, that this country faces in this difficult period.

The project mysteriously appeared at the tail end of the previous Government’s tenure of office, and was somehow or other—remarkably quickly—brought to the fore by Lord Adonis. One has to congratulate him on his coup in that respect. To many people, it came out of the blue, and provided the preponderant Tory part of the present Government with a marvellous reason for being able to cover their strange decision against the Heathrow extension—I know that many people had an interest in it. They managed to cover it by being able to say that they would replace it with HS2 going up to Birmingham and on to the north. It does not really do that at all. It is a great pity that the coalition Government missed the opportunity at least to subject this huge expenditure to a proper review. Instead, they jumped on the bandwagon to justify their stance over Heathrow.

As for the justification for HS2, I pay tribute to the work done by the HS2 Action Alliance against the project and I recommend its papers to everyone in the debate—I am sure some of them will be available, and Members should study them. For those of us who are against the project, it is a relief not to have to fix the numbers or to choose the numbers that suit our case best, as all Governments and Oppositions do, because every time we look at the Government’s numbers, they collapse. The Department for Transport brought some numbers out last March, and they brought some more out this year. Every time they bring numbers out and we examine them—there is no party political point in this—they are downgraded, just like current Government forecasts. At the end of my speech I will return to the point about what the Government should do in the present situation.

If one adopts some realistic assumptions on demand for HS1 and on the time benefit, the net benefit ratio is now down to 50p per pound spent. No time currently spent travelling by rail is counted at all, but the entire time spent on HS1 is counted at an annual rate of £70,000 a year, and every minute is brought into the so-called net benefit ratio. That is a monstrous distortion. One does not have to calculate other figures; one simply has to expose what the Government and the Department are up to.

Another point that has been made is that there is no alternative. I will deal with the subsidiary points in a moment. As I said, there is an alternative: it is called Rail Package 2, and it is in the Atkins alternatives. Before the Department published the revised forecast earlier this month, we urged it to study RP2. Instead, it bundled it together with two or three inadequate alternatives and tried to tar them all with the same brush. What we need the Government to do—they have made a useful start in this respect—is to set up an office to objectively and independently consider major infrastructure projects, in the same way that they set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. We do not have such an office, and nobody has looked at this issue other than the Government and the Department, whose minds are set in favour of HS2. What we are embarking on is not consultation; those who are against the project and those who are in favour of it can put their points, and ne’er the twain shall meet. The outcome, of course, will be a Division in the House in due course.

The Government are not listening; their mind is made up. Instead of just putting forward the same old flawed figures, why do they not look at the situation again, study RP2 objectively, try to develop it and see what alternatives emerge? They should do that productively and positively, not so that they can dismiss RP2 before they have made a decent analysis of it.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sure I am not going to convince the hon. Gentleman on everything, but I hope that I can convince him that the Government have an open mind on this issue. We are listening to the concerns that are being expressed now and that will be expressed during the consultation. That is one reason why about half the route we inherited from our predecessors has been altered with a view to mitigating its local environmental impact.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that we can take that assurance at face value, as we are meant to. The test will be whether the Department is prepared objectively to get into the detail of RP2, because it has not done so yet. The Government should just study the papers produced by the HS2 Action Alliance and look at where they have tried to conflate a whole set of different alternatives. The Government and the Department—not the Minister, of course—should look at where they have tried to obfuscate the obvious advantages of RP2. From being 25% of the capital cost of HS2, RP2 has suddenly become 50%. That is all about the sudden increase in the cost of the rolling stock for RP2. Why has that happened? Can the Minister answer that basic question? After all, the Government say that they have studied this objectively.

[Mrs Villiers]

There are two different ways to analyse RP2, one of which involves purchasing rolling stock and one of which involves leasing it. That may be the source of the hon. Gentleman’s confusion.

[Mr Robinson]

We have suddenly gone from finding rolling stock available to having to purchase it. The change is not justified; it is not even spelled out. People will have their houses razed and they will suffer enormously. Every taxpayer will have to pay well over £1,000 towards HS2, but there is no real justification for this project yet.

If the Department is serious, if it wants to get back some credibility with those who look at these issues and if it wants to justify a real national case to people, including some in my constituency, as well as citizens elsewhere in Coventry and in Stoke, who will simply be bypassed and have a much worse service from HS2—businesses in Coventry will be adamantly against it, and those in Leeds and Manchester can no doubt be brought to say that they are, too—the least it can do is set up a proper inquiry into the business case for HS2 and explain why RP2 would not be a far better alternative or, at the very minimum, a valid alternative.

Conversations with Centro have made it clear that we need the added capacity, and no one in the debate has any doubt that HS2 would provide it, but at what cost? It will cost £18 billion to Birmingham and £30 billion to Manchester and Leeds. The cost per job created will be £600,000, which is monstrous. It has been said that that is about four times more than a normal job, for which the cost is £150,000, but even that figure is a gross exaggeration, and infrastructure projects can create jobs elsewhere in the economy at a much lower cost. The figure of £600,000 is mind-blowing.

Incidentally, I cannot imagine where the Treasury is on this. It has never been known to be terribly favourable to transport projects—on the contrary. It is also notorious for cutting waste and stopping projects that do not have a proper financial justification. How has the Department managed to convince the Prime Minister and now the Chancellor that it is in favour of the project? I cannot imagine why the Treasury has not stopped it. The only reason can be that the Government need something to explain why they have come out—this was purely for electoral reasons—against the development of Heathrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

The right hon. Gentleman puts the case very well. Coventry stands to benefit hugely from the plans under consideration this afternoon. Journey time savings matter. For example, the Y network would enable people living in Manchester and Leeds to get to Canary Wharf in roughly one hour and 40 minutes, and Heathrow in 75 minutes or less. I assure the shadow Minister that the plans for phase 2 include the direct link to Heathrow that we called for in opposition.

I believe that bringing the capital within 49 minutes of Birmingham and 80 minutes of Manchester and Leeds would spread the massive benefits of London’s global pull. It would do more to bridge the north-south divide than virtually all previous efforts to address a problem that has defied solution for decades, which is probably one reason why so many people north of Birmingham support the project so strongly.

[Mr Robinson]

The Minister spoke about regional benefits, and we increasingly see the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister emphasising in person the north-south divide. First, how does she explain the fact that of the jobs created—about 30,000—seven in 10 will be in London, not the regions? Secondly, does she really believe that £600,000 a job is good regional investment policy?

[Mrs Villiers]

The project will create jobs throughout the country. The suggestion that all the cities that are calling for high-speed rail will see their economic growth sucked away by London just does not hold water. Look around Europe, where cities such as Lille and Lyons have been transformed. In Europe and Asia, cities are fighting hard to be on the high-speed rail networks that other countries have the courage and determination to deliver.