18/04/2016 House of Commons

delayed or having to be written without his valuable input?

I always enjoyed my appearances before my honourable friend and his

colleagues on the select committee. It is sometimes not always easy to

reconcile their offers with some of my international travel commitments

by I will certainly today have a look at them. They seem like busy

man with many commitments and a full diary but House committees are very

important and I'm sure the Secretary of State will not forget that. Get

it sorted, man. Hawks are built at my constituency and promote the best

of British, so I wonder if there are plans to procure new plans for the

red arrows? I recently announced a new support contract for the Hawk

aircraft which takes it out to November 2020 and we have time to

decide how to sustain them beyond that. What I would like to say

though is that the red arrows are due to commence a substantial

programme of displays in this country and overseas this summer and

I hope many members of the House have an opportunity to watch them.

100 years ago, my constituency was established as a centre to deal with

nerve gas attacks. They continue to do a fantastic job tackling the

grave threats we face in this country from Daesh. Following the

visits of the Secretary of State and other ministers, what reflections

would they have on the continuing role of DSTL in my constituency?

DSTL is meant to defend our nation and forces against a wide range of

threats, it is just as crucial today as it was 100 years ago. We will

continue to invest in science and technology to stay ahead of our

adversaries and I would like to congratulate all of our staff there

and in my own constituency on reaching this milestone and for the

remarkable work they do in helping keep our country safe. With both

existing and potential success of programme in mind along with tried

and, what measures have this department taken to identify on

exported -- unexplored ordinance? The department takes a safety of our

nuclear fleet at the highest possible level, so there are

continuous attempts to ensure that any potential threat to our

submarines are monitored. If the honourable gentleman has something

specific you'd like to draw to our attention, he should do so and I

would be happy to meet to discuss it. Tata steel develop new types of

steel for our aircraft carriers. Can my outer friend ensure that British

steel manufacturers continue to innovate and deliver for the Royal

Navy? I am grateful to my honourable friend for highlighting the success

of Tata Steel in supplying to the aircraft carrier. There are other

grades and types of steel, which are not presently available in this

country, and we would certainly be able to talk to the ministry about

what steps they can take to make such types available. The Army

reserve in my constituency... They are being in correspondence with the

Minister and have yet heard a response from rumours he had to be

confirmed or consulted with the wider community about its imminent

closure, can I have a response please, Minister? I am grateful to

the honourable Lady for her letters on this. We have also had a word in

the margins, we are looking into this matter, we do have a robust

system for appeals to this and so far I am unable to offer the

honourable lady any comfort but I will come back to her shortly.

Further to the question I asked by my honourable friend, the 1206

training squadron in Litchfield is one of the biggest in the West

Midlands but it too has been suffering from the lack of glider

training position. What hope can you give my friends and core members

that their training will be resumed? I am delighted to be able to answer

a question from the distinguished president of that squadron.

LAUGHTER Two years ago, nearly two years ago, all had to be disbanded

for safety reasons. We have been unable to find a contractor who can

credibly take on the repair of the vigilance, but the Vikings are all

on their way up, together with a small number of vigilance. By 2018,

we will be delivering a full programme of colliding with an

enhanced level of powered flying with more tutors in starting this

year. Some 5000 service personnel serving overseas, they want to have

postal votes. They've applied for that and tell me that their votes

are sent to the regiment, to those overseas, that they are

disenfranchised. And I asked the ministers question. What is he doing

to ensure that these votes are given to those overseas who wish to vote?

We actively partook in the governmentwide scheme which is lost

on the February -- 1st of February to ensure our service personnel were

aware that they could register. We will be doing the same again through

issuing a defence information notice in me with the regards to the EU

Referendum, but it is ultimately down to individual service, and

whether they do or do like her register or vote. Could I ask my

right honourable friend or perhaps the Minister of state, the

honourable and very gallant lady,... LAUGHTER Gallon because she is in

the Royal Navy reserve. Could I ask whether they could assure the House

that no investigator used by either public interest lawyers is paid for

for any service by the Ministry of defence? I can give that assurance.

Although the Ministry of defence does not direct the investigations

of them, it is responsible to ensure public money is being spent well and

efficiently. Although we can clearly justify investigations into

wrongdoing and investigations that exonerate our armed forces, we

cannot justify spending money on processes which frustrate those

processes and we have given very clear ministerial direction that

those agents are not to be paid with public money and we have received

assurances that that is the case. I am sorry it demand exceeds supply

but we must now move on. Urgent question. Heidi Alexander. If you

will make a statement on the imposition of a new junior doctors

contract. Secretary of State for Health. Thank you Mr Speaker. This

house has been updated regularly on all developments related to the

junior doctors contract, although there has been no change whatsoever

in the government's position since my statement to the House in

February. I referred numbers to that statement on the 11th of February

that answers the elementary questions on the 3rd of March, we

set out the position very clearly. I am happy to read illustrate those

positions to the honourable lady. The government has been concerned

for some time about higher mortality rates in hospitals. That is one of

the reasons we placed a seven-day NHS in our manifesto. We have been

discussing how to achieve this through contract or form with the

BMA for over three years. Without success. In January, I asked the

highly respected chief executive of Salford Royal to lead in negotiating

team as a final attempt to resolve outstanding issues. He has had some

success with the agreement reached in 90% of areas. However, despite

having agreed in writing in November to negotiate on Saturday pay, and

despite many concessions from the government on this issue, the BMA

went back on that agreement in negotiation leading to the

conclusion that there was no realistic prospect of a negotiated

outcome. He therefore asked me to and the uncertainty for the service

by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract without further

delay. That is what I agreed to and what we will be doing. We will start

with foundation your ones from this August, and proceed with a phased

implementation for other trainees as their contracts expired through

rotation to other NHS organizations. Let me be clear, it has never been

the government's plan to insist on changes to existing contracts, but

only to offer new contracts as people change employer as they

progressed their training. This is something the Secretary of State,

with NHS organizations of employers are entitled to do, according even

to the BMA's on legal advice. National health service fund -- and

trusts are technically able to pay conditions for the staff employee.

-- foundation trusts. The NHS as a strong tradition of collective

bargaining so trusts up to use national contracts. They have made

clear that a single national of is essential to safeguard the delivery

of medical training and implementation of the national

contract will be a key criteria in the financial investment in training

posts. The Secretary of State is entitled to do this, I have improved

micro-approved the national contract. This government has a

mandate from the electorate to introduce a seven-day NHS. There

will be no retreat from her forms that save lives and improve patient

care. -- approved. Contracts for training doctors are an essential

part of that programme and it is a matter of great regret that

obstructive behaviour from the BMA has made it possible to achieve

that. Mr Speaker, just when you thought this whole sorry saga could

not get any worse, it now appears the government policy is in complete

disarray. Despite giving us all the impression back in February that he

was going to railroad through a new contract, it now seems the health

secretary is simply making a suggestion, or as his lawyers would

say, approving the terms of a model contract. Last night, the Health

Secretary took to Twitter to claim this was not a change of approach

and we have heard the same again today. So on behalf of patients, I

have to ask them, what on earth is going on? We need a straightforward

answer to a simple question. Is he imposing a new contract, yes or no?

If he is not, but merely suggesting a template, why did he not make this

clearer before hand and why, in his oral statement on the 11th of

February, did he lead Parliament, the media, the public, and crucially

50,000 junior doctors to believe that he was announcing imposition?

The junior Doctors committee took the unprecedented step of escalating

their industrial action on the back of his decision to force through a

contract. How can the Health possibly justify a situation whereby

his rhetoric, underpinned by nothing but misplaced bravado and

bullishness, could lead to the first ever all-out strike of junior

doctors in the history of the NHS? He must get back to the negotiating

table and quickly. Mr Speaker, we also need answer to further

questions. Do all NHS employers have free reign to amend the terms of the

health secretary's so-called model contract? Does this include non-fans

age and trusts? Is it legal for health education England to

effectively blackmail trusts on the part of the House secretary by

withholding funding, if that is what government policy now is? Finally Mr

Speaker, it seems to me that there are two basic scenarios here. Either

the Health Secretary has known all along that he does not have the

power to impose a new contract, and so all of this is part of a cynical

attempt to take on a trade union. Or, was the oblivious to the fact

that he did not have the power to do this, in which case, what is going

on in his department? Mr Speaker, this is no way to run the NHS.

Today's revelations call into question the motives, judgement, and

competence of this health secretary, and this house, doctors, and

patients deserve some answers. Mr Speaker, this is a truly desperate

attempt to diverge attention from the single biggest question that

people in this house wants to know, which is due the labours of party

support or do they not support a strike which will see thousands of

people up and down this country see their care suffer? Now let me answer

her question very directly. Yes, we are imposing a new contract, and we

are doing it with the greatest of regret. Because the BMA refuse to

talk over three years, with three independent processes, 75 meetings,

73 concessions we made in a huge effort to try to come to a

negotiated settlement. But with respect, I think Sir David Dalton,

the trusted chief executive for Salford Royal understand things

better than the knowledge she has shown today, because she has

concluded after working out that the negotiated settlement was not

possible, and that is why I announced on the 11th of February

that I would be introducing a new contract. With respect to foundation

trusts, if she listened to my statement, it is indeed true that

foundation trusts have the freedom to introduce a new contracts with

pay and conditions. And they can choose to exercise that freedom, but

none of them do. She has about not foundation trusts, they do not have

that freedom, that is why we will be introducing a new contract for

everyone. Let me say this to her, we have had a lot of talking, but none

so specious as the story she planted in the Guardian this morning, which

was absolutely nonsense, about the government changing its position. We

have not changed our position. The fact of the matter is the government

has bent over backwards to try and avoid this strike. Right now, the

people refusing to talk, whether on design with hospital managers, or

training Reform with the academy, are not the government but the BMA.

Had they negotiated on Saturday pay as they said they would, we would

have an agreement by now. Instead, we have a strike. The first-ever

withdrawal of emergency care in NHS history. I just say this... If

everybody columns themselves, everybody will be heard. Rather than

try to fabricate some story about the government changing its

position, which she knows it perfectly well is not. The words

that do need be said in this chamber this week about whether or not it is

appropriate for BMA to be telling people to deny life-saving care to

patients. Some people in the NHS have shown great courage in speaking

out, even against their own profession. The NHS England medical

Director, the former labour minister, Dane Sally Davis, the

chief medical Officer. But there is one person on public stage who

hasn't had not that courage to demand a Red Sea straits and that is

the shadow health said secretary and I hope at the earliest opportunity

for the sake of her constituents and the Labour Party, say that it is

wrong to withdraw emergency care. It is disproportionate, and appropriate

to do so, in pursuance of a pay dispute in the right thing now is to

show the Reich urged to reform these contracts for the benefit the

patient and seven-day NHS. The BMA has always been a trade union, and

it has had bitter political battles with just about every secretary of

state that the national health service has had since it started.

But it has never previously contemplated strike action,

withdrawing urgent services, in pursuit of what is essentially a pay

claim. Nor do I believe that before this year, the Labour Party would

ever have supported them in the past if they had. So does my right

honourable friend agree that as the pressures are obviously mounting on

the NHS with the ageing population and rising demand, it is urgent that

we move toward a seven-day service. It would be totally wrong for him to

delay that in the face of industrial action or in the face of nit-picking

legalisms from a shadow Secretary of State who is just discover what the

legal status of foundation possible or hospitals is actually is. My

right honourable friend speaks with huge wisdom and experience and, he

makes the point about what has happened under previous labour

government and he might also say that those were the same governments

they gave us the current badly flawed contracts. Because those

previous labour government did not stand up to the BMA, because they

don't difficult decisions, we saw the pay build balloon and some

shocking failures of care. Leadership is not just about talking

and negotiating, it is also about acting. That is what ministers have

to do, and in this situation we have a very simple decision, after three

years of talks, do we proceed with the measures necessary to deliver a

seven-day NHS and better care for patients, or do we ducked those

decisions in this government chooses to act. If I could just yet again

talk to the Secretary of State. It is not excess deaths on the weekends

as people admitted at the weekend, dying within 30 days, he said it

again today. And really this is just being repeated again over and over.

The Secretary of State has described within the same pay envelope, having

more doctors that weekend, not fewer during the week, reducing a maximum

of 91 hours to 72 hours, I do not see how the maps of that could

possibly add up when we are not managing to cover those that we

have. These rotor gaps are injuring patients. I was very disappointed in

the Equality Impact Assessment to see the identification of the impact

on women and other people trained less than full-time. And see that

dismissed as acceptable collateral damage. We are facing the first ever

all-out strike next week, and I cannot believe that we are not in

negotiations. We should be at the table, to try and prevent that. I

would ask the secretary how he plans to get us out of this. Come back to

the table, it is the only way an impasse will ever end. I ask her how

long she excises to sit around the table before because we have been

trying to discuss this for three years. How does the maths at up? I

will tell you had that adds up. It adds up because we're putting an ?10

billion in real terms into the NHS over the course of this Parliament,

conservatives but money into the NHS. The SNP incidentally takes

money out of the NHS. She talks about the Equality Impact

Assessment. I have to say for someone who normally has very good

attention to detail, what she quoted were paragraphs that actually were

about changes that were agreed to by the BMA. What she did not quote was

paragraph 95 which said that the overall assessment of the new

contract was that it is fair, justified, and will promote the

equality of opportunity. Why is that? Because shorter hours, shorter

consecutive nights in fewer weekends make this a pro women contract that

will help people juggling important home and work responsibilities.

Would my right honourable friend agree that it is appalling the

decision to for the first time during strike action, Junior doctors

will not be providing life-saving care for young children, honourable

patients, that it is totally incomprehensible given that there

own leader has said that it is indefensible to do that. It is

totally incomprehensible and I know that many doctors will be wrestling

with their consciences, but I think in the context of this house, this

could also be a time that we can put aside party differences stop I think

there is a time where all sides of this house would have condemned the

withdrawal of life-saving care in a pay dispute. That day has sadly

passed and I think it is the conservatives now who have to show

leadership in this. The NHS faces huge challenges as my right

honourable friend said, but we're not going to tackle this challenge

is if we allow obstructive unions to hold a gun to the government's head

and refuse to allow us to proceed with really important changes.

Modern contracts that will allow safer care for patients, better

terms for doctors, we are determined to do the right thing for the NHS

and be the party of the NHS. If the Secretary of State wanted to do a

deal with anybody, don't you think it is a bit unwise to say to my

right honourable friend who put the urgent question in, that she planted

a story in a newspaper. That is accusing her of on reprehensible

conduct. I think you should look at withdrawing it. Because I am an

expert on this subject, somebody said to me on the picket line, do

you know what sums up this government? Went Thursday practice

to deceive. I better not finish it. What a magic web they weave when

Thursday practice to deceive. That is what they are. If planting a

story in a newspaper is reprehensible, then I think not many

members of this house would survive his very high code of moral conduct

for very long. But let me say this to him and let me say this to all

members on the benches opposite. I think it is very important that we

are honest about problems that we face in the NHS. Whatever those

problems might be. That we do not sweep problems under the carpet, one

but not the only problem we face, is the excess mortality rates we have

for people admitted over weekends and I think there was a time when

the Labour Party would have recognised that their own

constituents are the people who depend most on public services like

the NHS and have most to gain from a full seven-day NHS and they should

be supporting us, not opposing us. We are eight days from an

unprecedented full walk-out of junior doctors, including the

withdrawal of emergency care. What our constituents want to know is

whether they will be safe on the strike days. I wonder whether the

Secretary of State will join me in the shadow Secretary of State on

Khalid on the BMA to at least exempt casualty departments and maternity

units from this walk-out because we know that even with well

arrangements in place to bring them back to hospitals, the delays will

cost lives. She speaks very constructively on this issue and she

is absolutely right that the departments most at risk our

emergency departments, maternity departments, and intensive care

units and those of the areas that we are most keen to make sure we

maintain critical doctor cover over the two stargaze planned. So I

really do hope that the BMA will co-operate with NHS agreement. As we

had identified where the gaps might be and we will share those with the

BMA and I hope they will help us plug those gaps with junior doctors

because in the end, no one wants any kind of strategy and we all have a

responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. -- tragedy. The

Secretary of State will be aware with a medical diagnosis that words

matter. That clarity matters. The same applies to us as politicians.

The Secretary of State has said today that he is imposing a

contract. In contrast with his legal team are saying to the doctors, so

can need for avoidance of doubt, set out explicitly what legal powers he

thinks he has to do that? I am very happy to do so. We are introducing a

new contract from this August, it will be for all Junior doctors. They

will go progressively through the different ranks of junior doctors

and over the course of the next year, the vast majority of new

doctors will move onto the new contracts. The reason that we did

not in the original statement use the word impose, is not a matter of

semantics, but we are proceeding with this new contract and everyone

will move on to way, which is what the gist of what most people mean by

it, but what we're not doing changing existing contracts. So when

people move trust or to a new position, they will move onto a new

contract and that is why we use the phase introduction of new contracts.

It would have been much better for the introduction of new contracts to

be through a negotiated process and that is why we took such trouble,

went to 75 meetings as they say, 73 different concessions, to try and do

it on a negotiated basis. Very regrettably, that proved not to be

possible, which is why we took the difficult decision to proceed with

these new contracts anyway. Does the Secretary of State agree with me

that it is totally unjustified for doctors to demand higher premium

rates at the weekend when almost all other NHS workers and indeed most

working people across the economy do not get that. It is completely

disrespectful for the BMA to suggest that Doctor's lives are somehow

uniquely disproportionately inconvenienced by Saturday shifts,

when other working people are not? It is true that the BMA rejected

Saturday premium pay that is more generous than the Saturday premium

pay offered to nurses, health care assistance, or paramedics working in

the same hospital in the same operating theatres as they

themselves do. I think many people will ask if that was a reasonable

position to take, given that their overall pay was protected. But I

think they will also ask, where even if they did disagree with the

government on that point, is it appropriate or proportionate to

withdraw life-saving emergency care from patients in pursuance of their

disagreement on that case, or is it something that will shape many

people's confident in what the NHS stands for?

Mr Speaker, I have been disappointed by the Secretary of State and his

anguish and his tone and dessert urgent question so far. I think

actually when you look at the way the Secretary of State has responded

you can understand why the discussions ended up in a way that

they have. In response to what he asked about how long this is out

for, I would say as long as it takes. Isn't it a fact that the

problem with the discussions and negotiations so far as the

government's failure to respond to the BMA and failure to help the

junior doctors who actually do care about their patients that want to

provide good quality care? Hear, hear!

I think that sums up the difference between the two parties because it's

true that Labour would take as long as it takes negotiating these

changes. That is why we ended up with some very poor contract in

1999-2003 him and 2004. We said after three years of trying to get

reforms to contracts that will make the NHS safer for patients and

indeed better for doctors, we actually need to proceed with a

manifesto commitment and ministers had to decide and act as well as

talk. We didn't choose this outcome. We tried very hard to negotiate an

outcome. But if you say you should talk for as long as it takes, then

what you are actually saying is that the other party has a veto over

change. And no one should have a veto over an elected government's

manifesto commitments. Hear, hear! Thank you, Mr Speaker. One thing the

whole house can agree on, I'm sure, is that the postponement of

treatment or operations is never cost free to patients. Would my

right honourable friend agree with me that every hospital has an ethics

committee? Would he further agreed that all striking doctors should

consult that hospital's ethics committee? And would he agree that

to remove emergency cover by any Doctor for industrial reasons would

be very unlikely to meet with the approval of any medical ethics

committee? And finally, will we understand that for any Doctor to

act until the league is unacceptable and would place him or her in

serious jeopardy? My right honourable friend speaks very

wisely. I think that there's been a whole chorus of senior doctors who

have urged doctors to think hard about the ethics involved and I

think he is absolutely right to say consulting with an ethics committee

in the trust is a wise thing to do. I also think they might take note of

what the General medical Council has said about it being increasingly

difficult to justify the withdrawal of emergency care and their view of

the medical ethics involved, but this is, in the end, a personal

decision for doctors. I think it is, in the end, about whether it is

right in an industrial dispute about pay to withdraw emergency care for

patients. This is a bridge the NHS has never crossed before and it is a

very big decision, not just for the NHS but for every civil doctor

inside the NHS. On the basis of his previous comments, his opening

comments, can he tell the House that he is absolutely confident that he

has the legal power to impose a new contract? Yes. The BMA promised to

the gauche yet on Saturday pay will stop at they kept that promise? No,

they haven't. And if they had kept their promise, I don't think we will

be having a strike now, I think we would have a negotiated settlement

and the NHS would be able to proceed with these contracts, which have

very important benefits for doctors like reducing the numbers of the

executive nightstick they can be asked to work,

consecutive long days they can be asked to work. That refusal to

negotiate on the crucial issue, not a reduction in their take-home pay

because the reduction in Saturday premiere was made of four with an

increase in basic pay, but the refusal to go see it on that point

was what led Sir David to say that a negotiated settlement was not

possible. A matter of huge regret, but one which I'm afraid please the

government no option to proceed in the way we do. -- no option but to

proceed. It was once said to me that there are employers who could pick a

fight with themselves. LAUGHTER In 30 years in a world of work I

cannot member a legitimate sense of grievance so potentially mishandled.

Hear, hear! Can ask the Secretary of State is,

does he not recognise that he's poisoning relationships with a

generation of junior doctors and will he not get that to the

negotiating table and stay there until this dispute is resolved?

Hear, hear! Without going over the previous

point about the three years that we have been around the negotiating

table, I just say I think there are legitimate grievances by junior

doctors and I think that extend well beyond the contract. I think there

are some big issues with the way training has changed over the years.

I think there are some serious issues we need to address about the

quality of life for junior doctors. Sometimes they have a partner

working in a different city and are unable to get training posts thereby

to each other. We want to address those issues. That is what we set up

the review led by Professor Bailey, the president of the Academy of

Royal colleges -- at Tammy of medical Royal colleges. Pulis

reviews them and review? Is the BMA and that is why it is so important

that we get around the table and talk about how we resolve these

problems rather than remaining in entrenched positions copy can my

right honourable friend confirm that the new contract actually gives far

better worklife balance than the current ones. It cannot even help

them land for important family events. Absolutely. One of the key

changes in the new contract that we hope to see is much more

predictability about weekend working. Is that since Virginia

doctors that when they do into work at the weekends, they will get the

same support around them that they would get there the week. It can be

and can be sure so when you are called into work at the moment as a

junior doctor. All these things are improvements. What is made very

difficult is that these improvements are being misrepresented by the BMA

to its own members. People have become very suspicious about these

changes and that is why we tried so hard to get a negotiated outcome and

that is why it's been so disappointing that it hasn't been

crossed. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the studies of

mortality rates within 30 days of weekend admissions have in no case

set that the roster and of junior doctors is a problem? And instead,

of talking about others negotiating, why doesn't he take responsibility

and get around the negotiating table himself? Hear, hear!

With respect, not very far away from her constituency is Salford Royal.

With the very respect to chief executive book included that a

negotiated outcome was not possible! And that is why I reluctantly took

the decision to proceed with the new contract, and with respect to the

studies on mortality rates, we have had eight studies in the last six

years. Six of them have said staffing levels at weekends are one

of the things that need to be investigated. The clinical standards

say that you need senior decision-makers to check people who

are admitted at the weekend and junior doctors, when they are

experiencing counter senior decision-makers, which is why they

have an important role to play in delivering Saturday care. I know

that the BMA very properly balloted its members before embarking on a

policy of industrial action. But have they yet balloted junior

doctors on this specific question of withdrawing emergency cover? No,

they haven't. I think that is what is causing many junior members to

pause for thought. But there are many people who say that this

escalation is something that the BMA should consult its members again

over. Secretary of State except that we need closer on the junior doctors

in and for doctors to enable the NHS to concentrate as well on issues

such as the projected ?8 billion shortfall in the NHS, the cheeky out

about us services which are under real pressure? The worst ever NHS

performance in the first month of this year, and also the long-term

threat to the financial viability of our whole health and social care

system? We do face many challenges. He's absolutely right. We need to

focus on goals and so the sooner we resolve this dispute with the BMA,

the better. I would simply say to him that if we were to carry on

negotiations that were clearly not going to go anywhere at all, I think

this dispute would go on for even monitor. We have been trying to

resolve these issues for a very, very long time. In the end, you have

to decide if you're going to do what it takes to move forward. If, Mr

Speaker, the number of Parliament came through saying every five weeks

one of the constituents was dying unnecessarily, and that that could

be said by everyone of 650 MPs at the lower estimate a number of those

deaths, or once every two weeks at the higher it meant, I hope you

would drop this kind of debate every day until we actually have a system

which is safe for patients, safer for patients, safer for junior

doctors, and which actually got into the open who are the nameless

characters behind the BMA negotiating is who are refusing to

come out and actually argue on the merits of their case why it is they

won't discuss the Saturday Pecos Mac Hear, hear!

My right honourable friend is right. Part of the hallmark of this

government's patrols to be NHS has to be honest about where we have too

many avoidable deaths and things like the weekend of fact for people

admitted at the weekend has too many avoidable. The reason we discharged

that this possibility as we believe in the NHS and want the NHS to be

the safest, highest quality system in the world. Just as this

government has performed to state education, it has dramatically

improved the quality of our state education so too we need to have

equal reforms to be NHS. That is what he is actually right to say we

ought to focus on these things and debate them in this house and not

always, one other point I would add, not always say that there are some

Abby someone who has to be blamed when you're dealing with these

difficult situations. I think one of the things that, unfortunately, led

to high feelings in this dispute has been the sense of blame being tossed

around when actually what the government wants to do is to try and

solve problem. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Cannot tell the Secretary

of State I was admitted to the hospital in the early hours of

Saturday morning and weekend. I spent five and a half weeks in

intensive care. I had many conversations with doctors during

the time I was in Saint Mary's Hospital. I really do asked him to

look at the circumstances of those doctors today who do work weekends.

We do have a weekend NHS! It is not true to say that there are people

like me whose lives are not saved because we were admitted at weekend

and the doctors made it possible for us to survive. So can you stop

talking down to the medical profession and start defending the

government? Hear, hear! With respect, Mr Speaker, that

states the problem precisely. Because he has not targeted the fact

that I am wanted to do something about excess mortality rates that

mean that we have an 11 - 15% higher chance of death if you are admitted

at the weekends than if you are during the week. This is proven in a

very comprehensive study. He has taken that to be something that is

an attack on the medical profession. Nothing could be further from the

truth. It was actually the medical profession, the Royal colleges, the

first pointed out this problem of the weekend effect. We are doing

something about it, simply. Health Secretary has rightly mentioned the

excellent Salford Royal, which the BMA has used to suggest a new

contract isn't necessary. Because of the progress it made on seven-day

working and clinical standards, but is it not the case that what might

be right in a large hospital in a densely urban centre is not

applicable right across our national health service, which is why the

very radical changes to working practices that he is rightly

prosecuting as necessary. Yes, I think there are some hospitals that

have managed to eliminate the difference between weekend and

weekday and mortality under the current contracts. But only a few.

It's clear, talking more widely with the medical profession, we need to

have a sustained national effort and contract reform as part of that

effort if we are to offer that promised uniformly across the NHS to

every patient we will offer the same high quality care every day of the

week. Part of that is also to have a long contract for junior doctors

that deals with the anomalies that they themselves recognise within the

current contract, which is why this is the moment for wider performs. --

reforms. This is clearly a fight that the Secretary of State, went

looking for because he expected to put himself on the side of the

patient's. Trouble is it hasn't worked out like that because the

patients, like my honourable friend, use these services and they know

that junior doctors are in work at the weekend and that it's some other

procedures that sometimes not available. At their feelings that

would be fear and expand the that they, their children, their elderly

relatives do not get sick or fault or need help on strike they. It will

be soon as the word about this. Does the Secretary of State taken

response ability for the situation he has caused Woods Hear, hear!

On the contrary, I take full response ability for delivering a

safer NHS for patients. That is my job. If she wants to talk about

patients, perhaps she might listen to the comments of one of the most

famous patient safety campaigners in the country, James Dicken, which

tragically lost his son because of the stakes made at Morecambe Bay. He

said "There has been much progress to it a safer NHS in recent years,

but there is much more to do in regards to be corrupt culture that

flourished under Labour". Thank you, Mr Speaker. CHATTERING Can my right

honourable friend confirm that on the last occasion of the strike

action, that call was rejected by 40s -- 47% of junior doctors. Now

what is wanted to root move urged -- remove emergency cover. Can he

confirm what he thinks it will serve for a mandate of future actions

should less than half support the cause for future stars? I think that

is a very important point to make. I've also made this point about the

mandate the BMA half before the current strike action. Lots of

honourable members today have been saying that we should get around the

negotiating table. But they may not be aware of is the BMA decided to

balance the strike action before it even sitting down to talk to the

government about what our plans were. They decided to go straight to

ballots for industrial action on him and frankly, a false perspective of

what the government's plan changes were. I think that is the cause of a

lot of the misunderstandings in the current dispute. But I'm sure most

honourable members, I've had many doctors come to my constituency, not

junior doctors but registrars who are hospitals rely on. They have

sometimes been in tears and asked me if the Secretary of State will

define exactly what he means by seven-day NHS, because clearly there

is seven-day care. Is it just an ideological mantra? I'm not quite

sure what his definition of ideological list. If that is giving

safer care to patients, I think that is an ideologically that we can all

share. I will tell you what the answer to this question is that he

can relate to his constituents. What we want to do is reduce the

difference in mortality rates from people admitted at the week and at

the weekends. We have identified four the chemical standards that we

believe are necessary to do that. Making sure that we can deliver

those clinical standards across the NHS is going be how we deliver the

strategy. Can my right honourable friend imagined the distress and the

anxiety felt by my constituents who have come to see me down the last

six years, concern about the treatment of their relatives

admitted at the weekend? When they see the BMA Tama and indeed the

Labour Party, appearing to use them and other patients as hostages in a

long-running dispute that must come to an end? What patients want is

absolutely right. What patient wants is a safe NHS where it doesn't

matter what day of the week you are admitted if something goes badly

wrong. I think the big surprise here is that this isn't something that

the whole house can unite behind, because this is something if you

believe in the NHS, which I think we all do, should strongly support. We

are standing up for those patients and I hope the Labour Party, the

party that found at the same. -- the party that founded the NHS. Update

the House on any legal action against the department and whether

the part done -- whether the department will be defending a? We

have two cases and we are defending them vigorously. Think you, Mr

Speaker. I also have been contacted by an number of junior doctors who

are increasingly disillusioned by the way the BMA are happening this

dispute. Especially the militant tendency of strike that action for

many months now. With the Secretary of State for two other groups of

junior doctors who want to resolve this dispute, recognise that reform

contract is needed, and want to get back to the patients. Of course I am

delighted to engage with junior doctors and indeed I have been

talking to a number over recent months. I agree with you. My

observation from talking to junior doctors is that most of the common

with them they're not talking about things they don't like with respect

to the new contracts. What they are actually concerned about is things

to do with the way they are training happens, things to do with policy of

life, things that I think we can sort out outside the current

contractual negotiations. But, as she has been crisply passed along to

those doctors, there are many things in the new contract that will

benefit junior doctors and we should make sure everyone knows that. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. How can the Secretary of State claim he is

motivated by desire for a seven-day NHS when he and others in the

Coalition government to just let it to allow hospitals to make up to 49%

of their money out of private patient? Can he tell us if hospitals

achieved that 49% of their active donor activities going to private

patients, what impact will that have on the mortality rates of NHS

statements -- NHS patients? The difference between this side of the

House and that is that we don't have an ideological view about it trust

that says that it wants to offer them private treatment in order to

benefit the NHS patent -- patients in that same trust. That is what

some trusts are doing and it's done within strict constraints. I think

what most people know is all the scare stories that were put out at

the time of the social care of Bill and the act of 2012 have not

materialised. What we are finding is that just are being very sensible

about making sure they get that balance right and, indeed, in

certain circumstances it makes they did adapt Doak -- it makes a

difference. The key thing is that patient safety has got to be looked

after. But my right honourable friend consider changing the law so

that hospitals can make use of dedicated military doctors to fulfil

that service if it is needed? My honourable friend always makes

important suggestions that can benefit his own constituency and

rightly so. I don't think there is a need to change the law for that to

happen. I think that were there to be a need for military help, I think

the military would stand ready to do that. At the moment, what we're

doing is making contingency plans by drawing on coastal to work for those

who aren't involved in industrial action. Our hope is that any

departments throughout the country will be covered by that extra

support. If the health secretary is not able to impose the original

contract, a constituency will be expected to abide by a new contract

that is not legally binding. Does he agreed that maintaining the cost is

absolutely vital, particularly on the case of a fifth lock-out which

could involve everyone being involved? What action to the

Secretary of State taking to restore faith within the NHS must he staff

and the general public? The new contract is a legally binding

contract and it will apply to all junior doctors in the NHS, just to

be absolutely clear on that point. But how do we restore confidence?

Obviously, a row as low at the height of an industrial relations

dispute, but I think the real way to restore confidence is to point out

that doctors who are working incredibly hard inside the NHS, that

this government, this year is giving NHS the sixth biggest increase in

funding in its history. That we are committed to making the NHS the

safest and highest quality system in the world. And that we believe that,

if he does that, you will also be a better place for doctors to work as

well. And all these things will come I believe, come together. I've used

the visit of the period we have to get through first. My right I will

friend, the health secretary, that against the background of the

General Hospital being under huge pressure, there is a great deal of

local sympathy for gender doctors. But increasingly people are bemused

as to what the strike is about, given that it involves a reduction

from 91 to 72 and eight 13.5% increase in basic pay. They are

imposed as opposed to strike action and any that would -- and any strike

action that involves the withdrawal of emergency cover. He's right. I'm

sure that position will be shared by many members. Of the public. I think

people are perplexed the Cubs both sides and the negotiations that have

been in January concluded that there was only one area of outstanding

difference am a witch was Saturday paid -- because both sides. I

adopted a compromised position on Saturday pay which I thought was the

fairest thing to do. The BMA were not prepared to counter any reflects

ability on Saturday whatsoever. And of the situation I made a difficult

decision about whether we go forward or don't address the big issues we

need for a seven-day NHS. So, I think my cam, I shared his concern

about whether these strikes are really worth it. I am concerned

about being kept on the residence for catering will stop is the

secretary of state -- if the Secretary of State is correct that

he has the power to oppose contract, can you tell the House where the

power derives from? Can he also is planned by the government's legal

teams failed to argue that case? As can he explain? I hope she

understands that I'm not good to go into the case of the legal cases

that we are currently arguing, but if I can make it clear, the

Secretary of State does have that power. We are using that power

correctly. We will argue that case very strongly in the High Court.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are many hundreds of operations

cancelled during the last stride. His next start means that there is

an unprecedented step of emergency cover being withdrawn. Many junior

doctors are themselves worried about this. Does my right honourable

friend agree that it's time for the BMA leaders who were calling for

this strike to heed the worries of those junior doctors, to heed the

worries of patients and call district? Hear, hear!

I absolutely agree with that. It is entirely legitimate to disagree with

the government of the day about contract reform and we have tried to

make a set as to why that contract reform is a port in -- we have tried

to make a case. But I think it is hard for the patient to pay the

Christ -- parts for that disagreement. While the NHS can cope

with the withdraw for labour for elective care, it is much bigger

deal when his emergency care that is being written on. People are

extremely worried about that impact. I think doctors should worry about

how the public will view their own profession if they proceed with this

wholly unnecessary step. I'm glad to see that the Secretary of State has

come to the chamber today to answer this question. I do point this for

myself, his eagerness to get here at the springs and. There is a lack of

clarity around this debate. Staff to get paid a premium weight for

working on social hours -- premium rate. It said this only allows them

to improve conditions and pay and not diminish them. Can I suggest 98%

of those that voted in the BMA's supported industrial action

including for withdrawal of labour? Can I suggest that the Secretary of

State arms himself with the facts and get back around the negotiation

table? Hear, hear! The point I will make to the

honourable Lady, she's right, I did spray tear because I was a little

concerned that defence questions may not last the full hour. Indeed, they

did know. I'm sure Mr Speaker is about that. The point I would make

about the dollars which did receive the overwhelming support of junior

doctors is that that was balloted before junior doctors knew what the

deal on the table was. We ended up with, on the very heated issue of

Saturday premium rates, a proposal where we are as a government,

agreeing to pay premium pay on Saturdays for any doctors who work

one Saturday or more a month. So, at the moment effectively, we have this

extreme step, the withdrawal of emergency care in order to boost the

pay of doctors who work less than one Saturday a month. I think maybe

-- many members of the public will say that's not proportionate. Let's

be clear, this is an old-fashioned wave dispute. One that is militant,

long-standing, trade unionist will stop LAUGHTER

My constituents are asking why is it that these are the most high paid

NHS workers, and they should be paid extra for working Saturdays when

some of the lowest paid do not. My honourable friend is right. Doctors

who strike will need to explain that to be nurses, paramedics and health

care assistants working in their own operating theatres. That is, in the

end, why this strike is happening. The BMA said in writing in November

that they would negotiate on Saturday pay. They went back on

their word. In February and as a result that is the only outstanding

issue because as a result we now have these extremely step of

withdrawal of emergency care. I find it hard to justify. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. But at the beginning of the question, the Secretary of State

said he was publishing a model contract which he believed that by

convention trusts were doing and would implement. He subsequently

said that he has a legal duty for which can be opposed by him. I think

he needs to clarify that and it would be helpful to publish that

legal advice. He's not going to be surprised -- surprised... Presumably

these skeleton arguments. I think we have the right to know the answers

to these questions as well. Absolutely! With respect, all he

needs to do is get behind that out of the response to the point I made

earlier this afternoon. Make it quick, we do have the right to

introduce a new contract. On the basis, that will be a contract that

will apply to all junior doctors. The trust you indeed have the right

to set their own terms and conditions, but the choose not to do

so. This unprecedented withdrawal of emergency care seems to revolve

principally around the issue of pay on Saturday. Can the Secretary of

State clarify what the pay of lift will continue to be available to

junior doctors who work regular Saturdays? Absolutely. More to the

point, the doctors, any doctors who see an increase in a Saturday

workload will see a significant increase in their pay, including

their premium pay as well. So, this contract is designed to make sure we

reward people who work the longest hours, who worked the most

anti-social hours, but to do so in a way, including women, but to do so

in a way that means that we can't afford to deliver a seven-day NHS

which is why it's good for patients as well -- that we can afford.

Week omissions or for urgent cases, while many weekday admissions are

for elective surgery and other nonlife burning conditions. Isn't

this the main reason for the midst of excess weekend death, and why is

it that the anxiety of the strike would be felt only by patients in

England, while the other nations of our country are not? Is that bad

negotiation or is it because the health service is never really saved

and Tory Hans? I just wonder whether he would have the courage to say

that in Wales. But let me just answer his question very directly

and say that the 15% increase in mortality rates for people over the

weekends falls to 11% when you take into account the more chronic

conditions of people admitted during the weekends. There is a small

reduction, but it is still significant. Covering the Secretary

of State back to the question he did not answer when he was asked by my

honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State, if the

government is now arguing that the Secretary of State does have the

power to impose a contract, can he explain why in the lesser of the

15th of April, those that did not argue that case and whether can he

point to where doesn't prove he has these powers? We do have that power

by law. And the lesser that we put out in defence of the legal action

taken against the government explains very clearly why we have

that power and how we have that power. -- letter. It is all written

there for him to see. I can assure him on something as contentious and

difficult as this, we take every care to make sure we are acting

within the law. If I was Secretary of State for Health, I would feel

personally responsible for this unprecedented action taking place on

my watch and I would do everything I could to build bridges to make sure

it did not happen and that patients were not threatened in the way we

all fear. What does the Secretary of State doing to build trust between

himself and the NHS trust workforce? I will tell him one of the things

we're doing and that is turning around the hospital in his own

constituency that was in special measures and we actually turned

around it because it is no longer in special measures and the care has

improved dramatically. What else are we doing? Over three years, 75

meetings, 73 concessions made, three independent processes, we have tried

everything to get negotiated outcome but in the end we have to do what is

right for patients. The Secretary of State needs to face reality, there

is a crisis of junior doctors in paediatrics, AMD, and specialisms

which demand seven-day working people. And the junior doctors know

these contracts will make it worse. So why isn't the Secretary of State

doing everything within his power to sit around the table, even if not in

person himself, even if not with David Dalton, to get these issues

resolved? That is exactly what we have been doing. Indeed there are a

number of changes in these contracts that will be beneficial for people

working in any department, as has been recognised by the president of

the Royal College of medicine. I would say to her that the difficulty

we will have had has been in terms of morale, that we haven't faced

with a BMA that has consistently misrepresented the contents of this

new contract to its own members. Nothing could be more damaging for

morale than that. What we need to do I'm afraid is wait until people are

on the new contracts, then they will see they are actually a big

improvement on the current terms and conditions. The right thing for

doctors in the right for patients. This great concern in the present

time at the depths of parents and Pereira of a local cabinet maker

Harry. I have spoken to the foreign office today who has been extremely

helpful both with the family and with me and I am grateful to the

support they are offering but can I, through your good offices Mr

Speaker, make clear to the government of Peru that the wider

community would be extremely grateful for any efforts that they

can put in to try and find this young lad, 29 years old. His

families going through terrible stress the present time. I thank the

honourable General and for giving me notice of his point of order. While

this is not a metaphor for the -- matter for the chair determine, he

has made his point on the constituent extremely clear. He

would have been heard on the bench and his concern will be conveyed to

the relevant ministers. I hope and trust they will have contact as

appropriate of a kind that I hope will in due course and preferably

soon, the labour the concerns of the honourable member. If there are no

further points of order, we come now to two select committee statements.

In a moment I shall ask Mr Jenkins to adjust the House. He will do so

for up to ten minutes, during which undermine the House in this context,

no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I

will call members to put questions on its subject and will call him to

respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once.

Interventions should be questions and should be brief. The front bench

may take part in questioning. The same procedure will be followed for

the second select committee statements. These are extremely

important matters, and I hope the House will understand that I

expressed the hope that together you do not consume more than 40 minutes

of our time, as there are important back bench business committee

debates, two of them to be precise, for which we need to move on and I

want to accommodate all interested contributors. With that, I call the

chair of the Republic administration. I am grateful to

have this opportunity to make a statement on a report entitled

appointment of the commission for Public appointments, which we

published last week. The post commissioner for Public appointments

or CPA was established in 1995, following the committee on standards

in Public life and their first report. The report recommended the

post's creation as a means of enhancing public confidence in the

Public appointments process and public appointments made under it.

The role of the Commissioner for Public appointments is set out in

the public appointments order of counsel, 2015. Since the post and

August of Commissioner was established in 1995, the heaven for

commissions for public appointments. From 2011 to 2016, the post of CPA

was held jointly with role of first civil service Commissioner, however,

the departure of David... This was the result of a recommendation made

to the ministers by a member prior to the publication of their review

of public appointments. As I indicated, by the recruitment

advertising for this post, the Commissioner will be expected to

work within the government in implementing the reviewers

recommendations. The Crimson Rubio however, was only published in March

this year. After two hearings with the government's preferred

candidate, Peter Riddle, and after some discussion, we have given him a

qualified endorsement as Commissioner of Public appointments.

He is well-known to many in this house is a respected journalist and

commentator. Was appointed to the counsellor due to an investigation

into retaining ease and he was chair of a society and most recently

directed late -- director... We were me concerned however that the change

proposed by the Grimston revealed, as interpreted by the government,

alongside other changes such as the introduction of a large ministerial

office where by ministers can appoint themselves, can themselves

make appointments to their private offices instead of the civil

services, that this may be leading to an increasing politicized nation

of senior public appointments. We will report on our inquiry on the

Grimston Review and a new order in Council had been published. These

proposals are controversial. They propose a significant removal of the

powers exercised by the office of CPA over the public appointments

process. Ministers, instead of CPA, which set the rules by drawing up

the new government's code. Ministers could decide to run an appointment

process without referral to the CPA. Ministers and not the CPA could

determine the membership of ministers, they could include on

selection panels and official acting as ministers represented of what

without the consent of public appointments, and ministers would

have latitude to interview and appoint someone even if the

selection panel has marked him or her below the line. The new order

and counsel and code of conduct for public appointments had yet to be

published, even in draft form. Publication of the Grimston Review

was expected last year but held back. There was a gap of only three

days between the publication of the Grimston Review, along with the

government's response, and Mr Riddle being named as a preferred

candidate. This left us no opportunity by the time of Mr

Riddle's appearance on the 21st of March to consider the Grimston

Review. We concluded it would have been inappropriate for us to make a

report on the government's preferred candidate, which could have been

regarded as implicit and unqualified endorsement of the government's

interpretation of the Grimston Review. After our initial session

before Easter, we issued a call for evidence on the Grimston Review. We

took evidence from the outgoing CPA from Sir Jerry Grimson himself and

my right honourable friend, the member from West Suffolk, prior to

our concluding employment on Mr Riddle on the 12th of April. I am

very grateful that the government delayed Mr Riddle's appointment

while we completed our scrutiny. We intend to report on the implications

of his review shortly. We will welcome any further evidence. The

present committee on standing in public life has warned this could

add up to a public perception of a system which is being operated under

increased political patronage. It could also run counter to the

intentions to increase transparency and diversity. The outgoing CPA has

expressed his opposition to these proposals as a reversal of the

reforms of 20 years ago. Grimstead has made it clear that transparency

rather than direct powers currently held by the direct Commissioner

would enable the Commissioner to... The office made it clear that the

CPA would be consulted by ministers and that the CPA would no longer

have the power to direct an independent appointment process as

now. We will therefore be closely monitoring as Mr Riddle works with

those making recommendations and how he responds to the recommendations

that we have yet to make on the Grimston Review. We will underwrite

Mr Riddle's authority as Commissioner of Public appointments

and will make use of our ability to carry out and follow-up scrutiny if

necessary. To make sure that any concerns we have our being heard. We

agreed with Jerry Grimston that the role of the CPA should be robust and

authoritative. Should not be undermined. Furthermore, in the

light of the Grimston Review's propose changes to the appointments

process and in alignment with other roles such as the parliamentary

health service and the chairs of the office budget response authority, we

recommend that future appointments of the Commissioner for Public

appointments should be subject to a resolution of both houses of

parliament. This would be an additional safeguard and act as a

public reassurance that independence and status of the public

appointments is not threatened. We also recommend a similar procedure

should apply to the first service Commissioner. I am pleased to

present this report to the parliament. Thank you Mr Speaker. I

would like to come into the task amend the chair for his statement

today. Sir David Normandin, the outgoing Commissioner of public

appointments has said that the government's proposals put at risk

20 years of progress and risk of sharing and a return to the days of

lyrical patronage. Indeed he said as commissioner he would once a month

be contacted by Prime Minister or other ministers asking why party

donors, officeholders, or former MPs had not been short listed or

recommended for posts. In the light of these concerns, does the

honourable member share our fears that dismantling the powers of the

independent Commissioner of public appointments will open a door to

political cronies being gifted public service jobs, either as

rewards for donations, or to create an army of political forces in the

public sector? Reddan appointments made on merit, skills or public

serving a dose, is in the government putting itself at risk of

accusations of cash for jobs? I think it is the danger, not that

these things will actually happen, but people will say that they may

seem to be happening. It could make it harder for the government to put

a friend or supporter into a public appointment job if the Minister is

more directly involved. These arrangements were created in order

to protect ministers. If ministers are frustrated that the wrong people

are being interviewed, or people with the wrong job specifications

are being appointed, or people with the right skills are not being given

an interview, it is up to the ministers to make sure the jobs as

petitions for these jobs are as they think they should be before they

were permit process has started. I am not going to defend the public

appointments process in total. I think the Grimston Review has a much

needed debate then started about public appointments, but I think

before my committee and before I give a definitive view about the

proposals, that Jerry Grimston has brought forward, we consider all the

elements. I congratulate my honourable friend and his committee

for the excellent publication and for the robustness of this

recommendation and him making a statement to the House today. Can I

ask him what was Mr Riddle's reaction to this when the points are

put to him and the cc him king invited back to his committee before

the end of 12 months? On that latter point, we certainly intend to give

Mr Riddle an opportunity to report to the committee before long to see

how he will seek his new role. We would not have agreed his

appointment unless we are convinced he was determined to be independent.

But, with so many of his powers now being questioned, with ministers

substantially proposing to take back control of the appointment process,

how he carries out that role is going to be crucial. And how he

maintains the importance of the role of the office of public appointments

commissioner is going to be very interesting for us to observe.

Whatever changes are made, I would like them to be made on the basis of

consensus. We have picked up a certain amount of tension between

civil servants and ministers about these appointments. There may be an

opportunity to build a better understanding of both parties so

that these changes are not necessary. With the honourable

member agree with me that to ensure the best

these opportunities and vacancies being promoted far and wide. That

would go some way to ensure applications are received from

candidates regardless of race, colour, religion, university or

school do they happen to go to. It opens up the process to varied walks

of life and experience, to a different arena. Advertising the job

in a specialist website and forwarding to our pals and

encouraging them to apply is not an effective or appropriate way to find

the strongest candidates. The public is rightly demanding the opportunity

to apply for jobs such as this commissioner and should be widely

publicised throughout the spectrum of the United Kingdom to make sure a

device range of applicants apply. Disenchantment and apathy are what

this is promoting. I am grateful for the honourable judgement's

contribution and I thank him for the diligent work he put in on the

committee -- committee and I do not think he would mind me putting on

record as to the discussions to which I referred, he was one of

those which expressed a strong reservation about this appointment.

Not least because nobody could possibly describe Peter Riddle as a

outsider to Westminster. Whether an outsider is appropriate to this

particular role is debatable. We do not know who else was interviewed

for the role. That is not the job of the select committee. It is one of

the frustrations during appointment hearings -- pre-appointment hearings

that we are not entering the person for the job, we are merely trying to

establish in our own minds whether the proposed appointment is an

appropriate one and the prison of necessary skills and expenses to do

the job. That is what we concluded, but with reservations. I think Mr

Riddle in his evidence confirmed his evidence Demarco determination to

have a wider role of people interested in public appointments

than currently. We do not want to go back to the discrete tap on the

shoulder, why do you not apply for this job, which she stood exist

before the new rules were brought into existence. Are we going back to

pre-Nolan days which were rife with personal and political patronage? Is

this a case of the role of the Commissioner king emasculated so Sir

David Normandin said he sealed off the monthly attempts by the Prime

Minister, other ministers, to appoint Torry donors of former MPs

to key roles. We have been back in that position and would it be

emasculation, very similar to what has happened to the government's

advisor on ministerial conduct, where we have seen cases of the most

egregious misconduct by ministers that were not referred to the

advisor. Going back to the bad old days of the trust that we have lost

in this country as a parliamentary system. Our representation used to

be at rock bottom after the great scandal of members expenses, it is

now subterranean and worse. And won't be -- what the implementation

of grandson's implementations had... Is the government going to act to

make sure these abuses of patronage will not return? I am reminded by

the honourable gentleman's warnings of the cries of Sir John the Baptist

from the dungeon until his head was presented on a platter. But the

warnings are important. We have to be able to have a system that we can

defend against such warnings. People are always going to be suspicious

that there is something of a fix to public appointments. And it is a

perfectly legitimate thing, asking for the authority of such

appointments, it does rest with ministers. We want a balanced and

transparent approach where there are safeguards and I do or be, if

ministers get a grip of the jobs suspicions at the outset of these

appointment processes, and they have confidence in the independence of

the panels that are doing interviews, there should be no

problem with people of quality who they want getting through those

interviews. But it is not the case, that is something we need to

address. I am very grateful for the select committee support for the

appointment of Peter Riddle to this post. He is a heavyweight and

distinguished Public servant. The Grimston Review, which the chairman

mentioned, follows the Nolan principles and adds to them the

principle of diversity in public appointments. While the proportion

of appointees to such posts, who declare a political allegiance is

the lowest on record, down from over 20% in the early 2000 to under 5%

now, it is important there is transparency in this area. So on

those grounds, a gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to

ask the chairman of the select committee a question rather than the

other way around. As a sturdy defender of the principle of

parliamentary democracy, does he not accept that voters would expect

ministers to make appointments to these vital public roles? Yes they

do, and of course they do, because in the end no public appointment of

the general nature we are talking about is made without a minister.

Without him signing off the decision. The question is twofold,

are ministers being presented with the selection of candidates they

deem to be appropriate? And if they are, can we be certain that the

process is not being fixed to get their friends and cronies through

the appointment process? We need a balance that the public will respect

and have faith in and again, I make the point about job specifications.

If we get the process right at the outset, there should be no need for

the Minister to complain. If we take away too many of the safeguards,

it's ministers who will be criticised for the appointments they

are making. Not the civil servants who will be sitting on the panels.

I'm grateful to the chair of the select committee. We now come to the

second select committee statement, I call the chair of the procedure

committee. Thank you very much for calling me to present the third

report of the procedure committee, the third report of this 2015, 2016

session. Mr Speaker, I have to say this, but I do believe when it comes

to private member's bills, the government is in the last chance

saloon. I simply adore this place and I adore taking part in debate,

but really, Friday for so many people in this place, good and

hard-working committed people, are becoming no go zones. The private

member Bill process really now is in total disrepute. I am hoping we can

bring it back from the edge in the few month ahead, because if we

cannot, I really can't see a world where private member's bills, as we

know them, cease to exist. Because people in this place are doing so

much good work and in their constituencies and around other

legislative matters, they really want not be willing to give their

time for something which many would say indeed tens of thousands are

saying through petitions is broken. Can I just bring the House's

attention to our report? First of all, the current system is designed

to fail. The ballot system, which we do not recommend getting rid of in

its entirety, the bound system at the start of each parliament creates

a scenario whereby people put their name into a lottery and if they are

lucky or unlucky as the case may be, their name comes out and they are

bombarded with worthy causes to take forward as legislation. That is

really if you are a member of the opposition, if you are a

government-backed venture, you are bombarded by bright and good ideas

from the webs. You are seen as an avenue for the government to get its

legislation on the books. What this means is you either have hand-out

bills, which are worthy but boring, and to be fair, a lot of back bench

legislation will forward by opposition members, which quite

frankly is ill thought through and perhaps not deserving of becoming

law. That is how the system is structured, that is what is created

by the system. Our absolute key recommendation is to give the back

bench business committee a role in how private members bills are

conducted in this place. We have come up with a report that suggests

up to four bills, the forced for Fridays can be decided by the back

bench business committee. -- four. Hopefully this will mean that groups

and members of Parliament, individual members with a really

good legislative proposition, can invest a great deal of time, to a

year of working on that proposition. Talking to ministers, respected

members in this place, building coalitions within Parliament, and

outside Parliament. And then taking that legislative idea before the

back bench business and saying, this is the work we have done. This is

what underpins our legislative idea, this is not a flight of fancy, and

has real support both in this place and out there in the wider community

and populace. The back bench business committee would then decide

yes, there is a great deal of work underpinning this, it deserves to be

heard in Parliament. And it is only up to the first four bills. The back

bench business committee in a year could decide that no bills are

worthy of getting one of those sought after slots. But it could be,

and some parliaments, that they decide there are four bills worthy

of being taken forward. I rather -- my other recommendation is to say

that on the first seven Fridays, the first back bench member' bill will

get a guaranteed a vote at second reading. Why is that important? It

is important because a lot of people do not turn appear because they

feel, with some understanding and some demonstrable proof, that the

honourable gentleman from Shipley is going to spend a lot of his time at

finding on things of importance often, that matter to him, but

sometimes he fails to express himself in, what can I say

generously? A measured period of time, and can await for vast acres

of time. I am afraid a lot of people, as much as they love the

honourable Judge when and other honourable members who specialise in

boring the House to tears, that they find better things to do with their

time. I am saying that our proposal does have protections, even for the

honourable member. Because I do not want to ruin his Fridays. If a bill

comes out of committee and comes in to report stage and it still does

not meet with the honourable member' approval, he can get up to what he

does best. But what I am hoping, Mr Speaker, is that by allowing the

first seven bills to at least get into committee, those people

sponsoring the bills have a serious and significant amount of time in

which to talk to ministers, to build support, and perhaps iron out some

of their problems in the bill that would otherwise lead it to being

talked out. I will go on briefly Mr Speaker

because I don't want to keep the House. We will go to reducing the

number of bills from 20 to 14. Of those 14, for potentially can be

assigned by the back edge business committee and a further ten to the

ballot. If the Backbench Business Committee decides there is nothing

worthy to be introduced that will have 14th in the ballot. There is a

proposal to change the name from private members bill to backbench

bill. Again we cannot force anything on the House. This can be contested

in debate. We will recommend changing the system, what we have

dozens of presentation builds on the order paper on a Friday so you can

only have one presentation built per day. We want to remove the dummy

bills from the order. We will not be asked if we removed these dummy

bills to turn up to comment on a Friday to go on a bill that has no

chance of seeing the light of day. There is also a possibility and we

will just refer to it in a report of perhaps taking a Private Memebers'

Bill on a Thursday but again that is just a suggestion Mr Speaker. We do

say that not every happy thought that occurs to a member in this

place should become law. That would not be a good thing. But we do think

that serious legislative process positions should have the chance of

progressing. I've read closely the speech given by the right Honorable

gentleman last week in Westminster Hall's debate. I apologise to

everyone in this house for not having resolve this matter in the

last Parliament. As the chairman I of course have to be held

accountable for the lack of progress. I conclude my brief speech

by saying Mr Speaker that the government is very much in the last

chance saloon and if it does not act now, there are other people in this

place who will be less understanding than I. The change they will bring

forward will make the governments's eyes water. Hear, hear! We adore

this member Dominic the private members bill is likely bus. It is

not only open to abuse. It is regularly abuse. It misleads the

public and it wastes the time of the House. We stand foursquare with the

committee and will do everything we can to support him. There is just

one tiny exception to his report which is that he says we should

start in 2017 - 18. Well frankly Mr Speaker what is wrong with now? Why

can't the government give us time to debate these changes before the next

session of Parliament and do it in May. My Mac this is an ideal

suggestion. I look to the Government front edge to be revolutionary in

its approach to our report and take it forward as quickly as possible.

I'm sure the Honorable Lady for the domestic front bench will have her

for libel friends. Thank you Mr Speaker. I wore them to be brief. My

Honorable friend failed to mention when saying that the first bill on

the order paper should be guaranteed to vote. He failed to mention that

the first bill may already be to vote. All it requires is for the MPs

to support it as we have seen with the overseas bill and the EU

Referendum Bill. If the matter is so important, there are plenty of

people that will debate them. Does my little friend not agree that if

the bill cannot muster even the support of 100 MPs then it clearly

does not actually have the support that other people claim that it had?

I will say to my Honorable friend and I love him dearly, that his

determined efforts and those of a few of his colleagues and in the

previous Parliament Labour colleagues, please have almost

destroyed peoples faith in this place and the process. They are

simply not turning up because to often they spend a lot of time

listening the honourable gentleman and as I said we're trying to ruin

the honourable gentleman's support. What these bill needs is a little

space at the second reading to get approved at second reading so

negotiations can take place with government before they go into

committee, so there is a chance of some outcome. LAUGHTER. Mr Speaker

as a member of the committee at play tribute to the skillful work here of

piloting this report through. Those of us from Scotland are claimed,

familiar with the far more robust procedure. If the government is not

willing to give a go on the proposals and our report, cannot ask

him to echo what was said by the shadow Leader of the House of the

government giving us time early opportunity to implement these

proposals and looking at the back bench business committee also to

give us some time? I do have the government is listening to the

states today. The mood is darkening and quite rightly so. It is not just

here in the chamber but out there among those that we represent. I

would like to thank the Honorable gentleman as I would like to thank

the entire committee and the clerks for their hard work in bringing

forth a very sensible report. The honourable gentleman should leave so

agitated by this because he knows it is very difficult to oppose it. One

of the problem with the Private Memebers' Bill is that pressure

groups may the expectation that every bill that is brought forward

as a private members bills fans a really good chance of becoming law.

It is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that the Private Memebers'

Bill procedure is more widely and better understood. My Honorable

friend makes an excellent point. When communicating with constituents

we do deter from telling them exactly how it is. We are

embarrassed about what happens on Fridays. Mr Speaker I would not go

as far as to say that I adore the Honorable member but certainly I do

hold him in high regard. Such criticisms that were made were not

directed at him or his committee but would he not agree with me that this

is an issue that now needs to be resolved and speedily? What we need

is that by the will of the House that the options will be sent out,

some options which I have an other Honorable members have can be put

down and people can actually vote on how they want to proceed. The

gentleman makes a fantastic point. If we bring forth this report in the

government finds time, there will be opportunities for members to table

their own amendments to the report. This hopefully is a vehicle for

change in this place and for improving a fairly bankrupt Private

Memebers' Bill system. I commend the report and come into the chairman

who has been a superb leader of the procedure committee in recent years.

Does he feel like I did? That the process of misleads the public and

brings the House into dispute? If the government fails to act now, and

this is our second report on this issue, that this problem will get

deeper and the public will lose even more faith in the process of this

house? I agree with my Honorable friend and the Honorable Lady

opposite, that she has worked tirelessly on this report and has

been involved in this process for a number of years. We are setting our

constituents a false prospectus as Private Memebers' Bill Fridays are

currently constructed. They will not forgive us by the for that. I

commend my Honorable friend for his committee but I would say that I

think he is being very unfair on our Honorable friend from Shipley. Our

audible friend he is the one who actually turns up on Fridays to

scrutinize drafted legislation. There are 50 to Fridays and only 13,

when this house sits. The myth has built up that every Friday is a

constituency Friday as an excuse for members not to be here, when the

bold truth is that there is only one person per constituency who is

entitled to represent their constituents in this house. That is

the member of Parliament. Those MPs who do not turn up on Friday, not

those members who do. I have been so generous in my appraisal of the

contribution of the honourable gentleman from Shipley. He often

does very important word but on occasions he does not in my view.

The truth of the matter is that people are not coming here because

they have lost faith in Fridays and they are bored from listening to the

honourable gentleman from Shipley. Mr Speaker if we have a guaranteed

second vote on the Private Memebers' Bill. Do you know that the deputies

can put time limits on speeches and that would be a happy occasion to

the use of some in this place. Mr Speaker can I thank the chair of the

committee for his absolute cheering of the committee and bring forth

this report. Does he agree with me that this report, if he goes ahead,

will increase the transparency and credibility of private members Bill

processes. This will therefore increase our spending in the eyes of

the general public to whom we serve. Incrementally it will. But we have a

lot allowed to recover in this place. As I have said to the

honourable gentleman and the honourable gentleman knows, there is

no guarantee if we do not succeed in bringing this report forward that

the House will tolerate Private Memebers' Bill remaining on Fridays.

It could well end up on another night of the week. Thank you Mr

Speaker. As a member who has been here on Fridays, and this being

elected, I have seen both the good and bad on a Friday, in terms of

debates. Therefore I welcome this report. With the Honorable member

agree with me that we need less focused on individuals and secondly

how does he see the back bench business committee being able to

defined level of cross party support given the comments they had about

pressure groups earlier, making it look like bills have no chance to

get through? How does he see we can get it definitive ability to work on

what will be supported in those time slots? I actually have been involved

in a successful private members bill. One involving mental health...

Akali from point of spent an enormous amount of time, over a

year, with a member of the other place in building up a Coalition of

support across the benches, talking to private secretaries, talking to

ministers, talking to well-informed pressure groups, who are well

respected by both sides of the House. By the time it appeared on

the floor of this house, much of the hard work and the groundwork had

been done. That is what I am hoping that members of the back bench

business committee will be looking for when assessing whether a bill is

in one of those coveted for spots. Dunn thank you Mr Speaker. I

couldn't bend the honourable gentleman. I was also grateful for

the chance to get evidence to the committee of preparation of this

report. It seems to me that provided we allow filibustering to be the

means by which the government that the legislation in 2016, the

reputation of this house will the become lower. Even if it is to be

2017, August 2018, when these new substantial changes are made, the

onus is now on the government to have a debate in time to discuss

these issues and have suggestions move forward. Filibustering Fridays

and that we have changed now. I am delighted that the mood of the House

is more ambitious than the committee. The houses to be

commended for that. If we can bring forth these recommendations older,

that would be a truly fantastic thing but we do need to restore

faith in Fridays, so that people on Fridays have a chance to put their

point of view in. Also we need people watching Fridays, with

interest, have a chance to hear a diversity of voices within this

place. What I do not want to see is poorly drafted legislation getting

onto the statute. The protections we are proposing will not protect bills

if they are not up to scratch at report stage. They can be dealt with

by a variety of means. Thank you Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the

honourable member for this incredibly impressive piece of work.

I support many of the recommendations in it. It looks like

it will at last bring an end to what is going on on Fridays where on many

occasions there is no serious attempt to properly debate. It

brings the parliament into this beauty went very serious issues are

the subject for this house. The honourable lady makes a very good

point. Debate in this place should never be about sport but should be

about contesting the issues and arguments and propositions before

the House. I agree with the honourable Lady and her sentiments.

Hopefully we will be dumb and begin to travel in the right direction.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I congratulate the committee on the

report and in its success in trying to get more support. We have a very

tired and discredited system. I think some of the debate we've had

in the short time has focused on the benefits of Fridays and therefore