28/11/2017 House of Commons

lists, and importantly, it will help

us make sure that nurses and other

public sector workers are able to

get the pay rise they deserve.

Before I call the urgent question,

may I emphasise to the House, that

the purpose of my selecting Ms

urgent question today was to make

sure that I could give an

opportunity to the Minister, to

expend to be has what action the

Government has taken. In response to

the order of the House. And, an

opportunity for other members to

question him on those matters, it is

not an occasion for the House to

debate, whether or not a contempt of

the House may have occurred. There

may or may not be later occasions

for that matter to be discussed.

This is the correct procedure, and I

know the House will trust me to know

of what I speak. Urgent question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To ask the

Secretary of State if he would make

a statement on the release of...

On the 1st of November, this has

passed the motion asking the impact

assessments arising from sexual

analysis to be provided to the

committee on exiting the European

Union. This Government takes very

serious the Parliamentary --

numerical analysis. I am glad to be

able to confirm that the information

has been provided not only for

exiting the European Union, but also

to be devolved administrations. I

can also inform the House that we

have initiated discussions with the

Parliamentary authorities to make

the information... We were clear

from the start that we would respond

to a motion, but also that the

documents did not exist, and I made

clear to the House that there has

been some misunderstandings on what

the sectoral analysis is. The

parliament also has another addition

to consider whether... It is

important to recognise that the

Iraqi, and in many cases -- it is

well understood that it is up to

ministers which must remain private.

My right honourable made a statement

on the 7th of November, but it would

take some time to collect and bring

together information in a way that

was accessible and informative for

the committee. He committed that

these reports would be provided

within three weeks. In providing

information for committee yesterday,

we have met that commitment.

Parliament has endorsed full

responsibility of ministers not to

release information, and contrary to

what has been assessed in some

places, they would not give firm

assurances that it would not be

published in full. Where there are

precedents for things being

discussed in confidence, can there

be a clear set of rules such as

those governing intelligence

material. This is not the same as

assurance that where provided with

confidential material, it would not

be... The houses should be at no

doubt that this has been a very

substantial undertaking. We have

been as open as possible, and we

have collated over 800 pages of

analysis for the committees, yes and

-- less than a month... This covers

all of these sectors.

Transparency

and accountability are two words

that this Government does not

understand. On the 1st of November,

after eight three hour debate, this

house voted in favour of the humble

address required all 38 sectoral

analysis, not some of the ports, the

full reports. The Government does

not seek to amend the humble

address, nor did it vote against the

motion. After your advice, Mr

Speaker, the Government accepted

that the motion was binding. It is

not open to the Secretary of State

to choose to ignore it and passed

the documents that he chooses.

Whether he is of content of

parliament is a matter we will

country at a later date, but he is

treating Parliament with contempt.

The Secretary of State says that the

ministers reported that he did not

get assurances about how the

documents would be used. A minister

therefore better answered pretty

blunt questions this morning, what

assurances were sought that were not

given? And he bettered tread

carefully, because there will be an

audit trail, here. And if he cannot

answer that question, if he did not

pursue the assurances, then his

cover for not disclosing these will

be blown. Mr Speaker, this is not a

game. This is the most important set

of decisions that this country has

taken for decades. They need to be

subjected to prop is rude to me. In

my expense, the biggest -- to proper

scrutiny. Then I remind the Minister

and the Secretary of State that

until Bruce has passed the motion on

November, they say that they have

put the documents together. In

September, they asked for a Freedom

of information request, the first

question is do you hold the

material, to which the answer was

yes, and that called into serious

question the explanation now being

put before this case. Finally this,

Mr Speaker, I am deeply concerned

that the total of documents that

generated by the Government's work

on there approached economy. That

can be squeezed into two lever arch

files. If this is the case, we

should all be worried, is that the

extent of the analysis for either

way, it is a very sorry state of

affairs.

Let me address some of the

misconceptions in the right

honourable gentleman speech, because

we have not edited or redacted the

report. At the time the motion was

passed, we were clear that the

documents did exist in the form --

did not exist in the form requested.

The documents which he freely admits

that he has not seen, do not contain

redactions. It is noticeable, that

the original suggestion of

redactions, came from him. And came

from him speaking from the front

bench of the opposition. He also

said that he had accepted all along

that the public should not put into

the public domain any information

that would undermine the position.

He accepts, that there is a level of

detail that should not be discussed.

Statements that he made during the

debate, himself. Let me tell him the

logical consequences of that

position. He suggested that there

are mechanisms available that

would... He is right, of course, as

I address in my opening statement, I

Secretary of State met with the

chair of the select committee, and

discussed these things and was very

clear that he wanted to receive any

documents first before he would give

any assurances as to the way that

they would be treated. On that

basis, we had to be clear, we have

to protect commercially sensitive

information. The Government had to

be mindful of... Let me be clear, we

have been as open as possible within

those obligations. The material that

we have provided for the committee,

is substantial. It is bizarre for

the right honourable gentleman to

dismiss it without having yet seen

it. When committee members have a

opportunity to reflect on it, I

think they will reasonably conclude

that the Government has fully

discharged the terms of the motion.

The analysis described the activity

in each sector, and the current

regulatory regime for the sector.

These views range and cover a range

of cross sector reviews. We take

care to incorporate up to date news,

such as these on the proposed

documentation period. Does this

represent the sum of the Government

analysis, of course it does not. The

motion referred to sectoral

analyses, and we responded to

those... I note... I welcome the

fact that they will be able to view

these documents for -- in

confidence. I can assure the House

and the committee that the state

will be accepting their request to

discuss the content. We provide a

vast amount of factual information

to help the committed and this has

in their scrutiny. I am confident we

have met the requirement to the

motions whilst respecting overriding

duty to national interest.

If the Government wished to resist

the publication of the papers it

had, it should have voted against

the motion. If we wish to qualify or

to edit the papers that it had, it

should have sought to amend the

notion. We cannot allow post-Brexit

to start reducing parliamentary

sovereignty to a slightly ridiculous

level, but would-be Minister at

least consider the possibility of

sharing at least with the chairman

of the Brexit Select Committee the

papers in the original form they

were in when we had our vote, before

this editing process started? Then,

no doubt, the house would be guided

by the chairman of the Brexit

committee on changes, omissions,

which are legitimately in the

national interest and should be

made.

Hear, hear.

I share my honourable friend's

commitment to ensuring the house can

scrutinise our legal information,

but the problem with the notion that

was passed was it referred to

sectoral impact analysis. We were

clear from the start of the

documents referred to did not exist

in the form required. Therefore all

we have done is to pull together

sectoral analysis for the committee.

That will prove valuable.

Peter Grant.

Thank you. On a day in June 2016,

the people of the United Kingdom

were asked one question in one day

and as a result of that, at one

question, there is no going back on

Brexit. On the 1st of December,

Parliament was asked one question

about the intervening 27 days the

Government has done everything

possible to deny and defy the

instruction given by this

Parliament, whose sovereignty we are

told is being restored by the Brexit

process. Can I remind the minister

that the question of what the

Government will provide to the

select committee is not for the

Government or the select committee

to decide? This Parliament has

decided and there is no is no

discussion, no debate, no

negotiation as to the extent to

which that decision will be complied

with. It must be complied with in

full, otherwise as to the letter

published recently by the chair of

the select committee, they will have

to consider whether to raise emotion

for contempt. How will that look to

our European partners? What will it

do to the credibility of the

Government? In particular to the

Brexit team, they end up being held

in contempt by the Parliament of

which they claim to be returning

sovereignty? Can I ask the Minister

to confirm that the resolution of

the house was not about what was

made public but about what was

provided to the select committee?

Does he not accept in those

circumstances that what must be made

available to the select committee is

everything, absolutely everything,

and that the Government if not

prepared to comply with that, they

should not be in Government. Can you

tell us categorically that does he

accept that a decision on what to

publish within the rights of

parliamentary privilege is for the

select committee alone to decide?

Secondly, can you confirmed that he

and his Government are prepared to

trust the judgment of that committee

on the half of this House to

exercise responsible judgment as to

what the public are entitled to

know?

Hear, hear.

The honourable gentleman asked a

number of important questions. I

welcome the fact that we have shared

these information with the reports

to devolve demonstrations. One

impression to select committees in

Scotland, it was a question which

were oppressed. I would say we do

respect the fact that the select

committee has the complete joins and

discretion over what gets published

and the information shared with it.

That is why Government has published

information to a select committee on

the way that it has.

Can I just say to my right

honourable friend that he has every

right to ensure, as the EU has given

out this guidance, that not all

confidential information is

necessarily made available,

otherwise that might restrict our

negotiating position? But can I also

urge him to have that discussion

with the chairman and asking

specifically what is it that he was

expecting that he has now not got in

terms of the documents?

I thank my honourable friend for

that question. I will take account

of both of the points made.

Hillary Benn.

Can I welcome the willingness of the

Secretary of State to appear before

the select committee, the decision

we made this morning, and can ask

the Minister to convey to the

Secretary of State our wish he

should do so very speedily indeed?

Now, given that it is quite clear

that the select committee has

received edited documents, in other

words they do not contain everything

that is in the possession of the

Government, can I say to the

Minister that this is not in keeping

with the motion passed by the House

of Commons? And a say to him that I

made it very clear to the secretary

of state what procedure the select

committee would use to consider the

reports, and if I may put it like

this, I do object to any suggestion

that the select committee or eye as

chair cannot be trusted to do our

job.

Hear, hear.

I have great respect for the right

honourable gentlemen and I will

communicate his message to the

Secretary of State, and they believe

the point he makes about the

information in the analyses is the

point that the motion referred to

was not what existed at that time.

What we have tried to do is ensure

there is full and information

available to his committee and once

he has had a chance to denies that

he will find that information very

useful.

My honourable friend has said there

are 850 pages of documents and so

for the chairman of the select

committee is the only member who has

actually seen them. Can I say to my

right honourable friend that I

understand these document have been

sent to two select committees of

Parliament and the devolved

administrations and as a former

chairman of the select committee, I

can say that leaks are not without

precedent, and I do not want the

Government to make available any

information that if it became public

it could undermine our negotiating

position?

I thank my right honourable friend

for that point. He makes an

important point but we want to

ensure that as much information as

can be made available to the select

committee is available so it can be

discussed.

Why when the Bank of England has

published the frankly chilling

implications of no deal does the

Government insist on selectively

editing the sectoral reports, and is

it true, as I was told by an

insider, that what the Government

have done is released selective

sensitive documentation whilst with

the bulk of that sensitive

information?

To his last question, no.

I find that I agree with the House

and the chairman of the select

committee on the comments they have

made, but I understand there is a

dilemma for the Government. There is

one recent motion that clearly says

all documents should be delivered.

There is a previous motion in this

House that says the Government

should not produce anything that

damages our negotiations. I do think

those motions are not clear, so

would it not be an idea for

Government to come back with another

motion the situation?

I am grateful for my honourable

friend's suggestion, but such things

are not necessarily for media

response to, but certainly something

we will look at. -- not for me to

respond to.

In June the Secretary of State said

on the Andrew Marr show we have 50

or maybe 60 sectoral analyses

already done. In September and this

was reiterated in response to a

Freedom of information request. An

October the Secretary of State can

this to our committee and said the

reports were in excruciating detail

the Prime Minister had seen the

summaries. In November we heard that

they never existed. On what basis,

Mr Speaker, and completed reports be

uncompleted and on what basis is it

right that the Government do

anything other than give their

reports in full to the select

committee in line with the

resolution of this House?

Hear, hear.

The Government has provided reports

covering the 58 sectors to the

select committee and I look forward

to them being able to scrutinise

those in detail. I say to the

honourable lady she has been

persistent in pressing for as much

of this information as possible to

be in the public domain. Her front

bench had been persistently

recognising all the information

subject to negotiations could

possibly be done so without

counteracting the national interest.

Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The issue now is not whether it is

in the Government's interest to

publish these documents are not. If

the Government did not want to

publish them, it should have voted

down or amended the address. The

question now is whether the terms of

that notion, which in all precedent

is a binding motion unlike the

previous motion passed earlier in

the year, which was not a binding

motion, to meet this motion it is

not at the discretion of the

Government to decide what to take

out. It is now at the discretion of

the select committee and I therefore

urge the Government either to meet

the terms of the motion in full or

to seek to put down a new motion.

I take my honourable friend's

expertise in parliamentary procedure

seriously and recognise the point he

is making but we feel we have

responded to the notion in full by

preparing for the select committee

sectoral analysis. The bottleneck is

the sectoral analysis did not exist

in the form requested in the motion

at the time. -- the point is this.

This situation is entirely up the

Government's making. The motion

passed by this house did not give

the Government discretion to take

this information and decide for

itself what to give to the select

committee and what not to give to

them. So the Government has not

complied with the motion that it did

not resist. And there is another

underlying point here apart from the

questions of parliamentary privilege

and contempt, and it is this - do we

believe that the public has a right

to know the consequences of the

options facing the country and

Brexit? I believe that they do. Does

the Minister agree?

The right honourable gentlemen knows

that we have responded to the motion

and we accepted that the Russian was

binding and we have therefore

brought information forward to form

a select committee and gone forward.

-- we accepted the information was

binding. We now have discussions to

make sure the information can be

divided in confidential reading to

the whole House. Not in the address

of the public for this country is to

put information publish publicly

published things, which the House

has voted for us not to do.

Most would accept it is perfectly

reasonable to exclude Arsenal marks

in negotiation sensitive information

but that was not expressly stood in

the terms of the humble address on

the 1st of November. -- to exclude

certain pieces of negotiation

sensitive information. Would he

agree that the Government should

bring forward a revised motion

expressly excluding that information

from the material to be supplied to

the select committee?

Hear, hear.

My honourable friend has as many

friends have raised an interesting

point, something we will look into.

What we have done is to ensure that

the select committee has information

on the sectoral allowances the

Government has conducted, anything

that is an important step in

response to the motion of the house.

Stephen Kinnock.

On the letter of the 2nd of

November, my honourable friend be

charity committee wrote the

following. Once material has been

provided to the committee, I would

be happy to discuss with you any

particular concerns you may have

about publication of parts of the

material so that the committee can

take these into account in making

its decision on release. On the 27th

of November, the Secretary of State

wrote, we have received no

assurances from the committee

regarding how any information passed

will be used. Does the Minister

agree with me that the Secretary of

State's latter on the 27th of

November is a blatant

misrepresentation of what was agreed

and they agree that the Secretary of

State should withdraw that remark

and apologise for it to my

honourable friend the charity

committee?

Hear, hear.

No, I don't.

Anna Soubry.

I think it is extremely important

that we understand exactly what it

is that was voted on and which the

select committee seeks disclosure

on. I am reminding myself of the

motion that was in two parts, one,

it referred to the list of sectoral

analyses, and then it went on to

make it clear that it was the impact

assessment arising from those

analyses that they provided to the

select committee. And as the

honourable member then referred to

as the evidence provided by the

secretary of state, to the select

committee, back in October, and I

remind myself of question 131 and

132. In his answers, the Secretary

of State made it clear that those

impact assessments existed as it is

put in excruciating detail, and that

a summary had been provided to the

Prime Minister, which she had read.

Would the Minister confirm that what

this House now seeks the Government

to disclose and the impact

assessments?

My Right Honourable friend is always

frantic in her questioning. We were

very clear when we were debating

this motion that exactly what the

motion referred to was not available

at that time. Of course there are

various assessment and documents

held by Government that have been

worked on overtime address in the

individual sectors. What we have

provided the select committee with

is actually a great deal more

permission none existed at the time.

I think that will be valuable to

them in their scrutiny.

Ministers

say constantly, they don't want to

reveal anything that could weaken

their negotiation. The Government's

made its position clear. The

European Union has accepted that the

Government wants a hard Brexit, so

why would it damage the negotiating

position to put that information

out. We'll be edited documents help

the members of this house reached a

view on whether we should stay in

this singles market or the customs

union?

Can confirm that the

documents will be valuable to this

house, but I think those documents

will be actually documents which are

edited documents in the way that he

does, I would describe them as

compounds if sectoral analyses,

which the Government has provided

for the select committee, and the

honourable gentleman's questions,

about the customs union and the

singles market, -- single market,...

Mr Speaker, the Minister is making a

gallant and courteous defence of a

situation which is unlikely to

satisfy everybody in this house.

Because of the terms of the humble

address. But, there are two aspects

to this which do need to seem

separately. One, is the requirement

to provide everything to the select

committee, which the humble address

did call for, and the second is the

fact that surely nobody in this

house would want our country to go

into the negotiation chamber in a

weaker position as a result of

decisions taken here. The Shadow

Secretary of State recognised

himself that there is a way of

dealing with these things, which is

to redact what would be...

Unfortunately, because the humble

address did not cover that, I

believe that it is now strongly in

the Government's interest to put

forward a motion to amend the humble

address, and which many of us would

strongly support.

My honourable

friend, like many honourable friend

on this side of this house... It is

certainly certain that we will be

giving due consideration. The

crucial issue here is the

Government's failure to be open and

transparent with public, and with

Parliament on the consequences of

its approach to Brexit. It is not

just over these papers that they are

doing this, they are refusing to

give clear examples of the spending

we privatisation that is going on in

Parliament as a result of the

assessments made in newspapers and

the Government's policies on Brexit.

Willis published a breakdown of the

funding that they are giving two

departments to cope with their

bridge to Brexit?

The honourable

gentleman's questions dre is quite

far away from the question that we

are discussing. But we will provide

them with as much information as we

can, consistent with the national

interest.

Just to rub it in, who was

it who first suggested the use of

redactions?

I can confirm that that

was the right honourable gentleman

sitting opposite me. Allen-mac the

Minister has mentioned the devolved

administrative is on a number of

occasions, and was advised by

Scottish gunmen colleagues that the

documents they received contains

nothing substantial at all about

Scotland. On the 25th of October,

the Secretary of State in Scotland,

and the Secretary of State for

Exiting the European Union gave

evidence to the committee, and the

select committee that impact 's

assessments that -- that assessments

of the impact of Brexit existed and

would be shared with the Scottish

Government. Will he confirm that

there is an edited documents will

now be shared without delay?

I can

confirm to the honourable lady, that

those documents will be shared in

the usual way. Those sectoral

analysis, do in many cases contain

important analysis of Scottish

issues.

Mr Speaker, could I suggest

to my honourable friend, that there

is a bit of a rethink around this

matter. Can I also urge him that

actually, the really important thing

in the stage is to get a move on

with the negotiations, and ensure

that the company's -- companies up

and down the country which are in

limbo at the moment know what we are

going to do. We have to move forward

in December, we have cannot stand

still. Yelling at my honourable

friend makes an important point. We

all want to make sure that we have

the most successful approach to

negotiations, and that would look

much the increment Asian period, and

that deep and special partnership

that we want to -- the

implementation period.

Does the

Minister accept that it is a very

real danger that before we are given

the transparency than to protecting

our negotiation that the national

interest could be put in jeopardy,

and can we seek clarification that

it was not wasted information that

would be sensitive to be placed in

the committee's hands, and bring

that mission to the House.

The

honourable gentleman reinforces...

He is right, of course that we need

to make sure that we protect the

absolute national interest in this

process.

In all his dealings with

his European Union counterparts, has

my honourable friend ever formed the

view that they paid no heed to the

procedures of this house, and indeed

have an interest in the content of

any documents that may be produced

to any select committee.

My right

honourable friend makes an

interesting point. I do take his

point.

The department have handed

over some 850 pages, but the

Minister has made clear that some

information has been withheld. Has

that additional material also been

handed over? Hauman pages would it

have been, has the information not

been compiled? -- how many pages. It

was a mistake not to amend the

opposition nation, and as a result,

the Government is now skating on

very thin Parliamentary eyes. The

issue can be solved next week, if

the Government comes back with a

sensible notion, which every member

in this house really ought to

support. -- thin ice.

I take my

honourable friend's suggestion very

serious view.

Is he aware that the

indication is, that I and other

members of the select committee

cannot be trusted to act in the

national interest?

No, I do not

believe that that is the case at

all. We believe that this committee

has a important job to do with

scrutiny.

I would be rather more

interest had deceived the

assessments drawn up by the EU about

British leaving. Do they share my

curiosity that those opposite are

not keen to scrutinise those

documents?

That is not even adjacent to the

question before us. I am sure that

the honourable gentleman can

entertain himself in the long winter

evenings that lie ahead.

This is not

my definition of taking back

control. It is a huge mess that the

Government has got itself into, and

I think it shows, Mr Speaker, the

limits of their clever tactics of

not engaging in opposite to it -- in

opposition motions, by sitting on

their hands. The fact is, despite

what the Minister says, the notion

of a humble address, which is

compulsory for the Government to act

on, has been carried. Not for these

documents to be edited, or changed,

that job now go to the select

committee, and they have got to get

on and publish it, and they have got

to publish them now.

I would say to

the right honourable and Lady, that

as I have been very clear on the day

that we debated this issue, the

document did not exist in the

formats they do now. We take that

very seriously. That is why...

Mr

Speaker, have any formal protocol be

put down and conveyed by the

committee to ministers about how

they may handle this information.

Because, I think that is pertinent

in all of this?

Not that I am aware

of.

What guidelines have been

provided to officials, as to what

should be excluded?

As I made clear

to the House, this information was

pulled together from a range of

documents, as I also made clear, we

have two ensure that commercially

sensitive information, and ... Could

not be at risk of being published.

This could be the process of

ensuring that there is more of a

mission for the committee, and not

less.

Does the Minister share my

concerns as to how a letter set by

the Secretary of State to the deputy

committee, managed to reach the

journalist in the daily Mirror

before it was considered by the

committee? Is that encouraging?

All

the leagues should be taken

extremely seriously. -- leaks.

There

is a fundamental role in our

constitution for Parliament to hold

the executive to account, and to

scrutinise this hugely important

decision. His Secretary of State

said that the information existed in

excruciating detail, and at the

Prime Minister had seen the

summaries, and for that reason, it

is hard to understand why because

the entirety of information, if soap

with reduction. Can he explain why

that is not now the case?

He is

absolutely right. We do need to get

on with this role. But, we also

absolutely respect the role of

Parliament in this process. That is

why the information has been

provided... We have actually

provided much more information than

just summarising reports could have

done.

I will come to the honourable

gentleman, potentially in a moment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is clear

that there is a lot of concern from

members across the House that big

Government is not satisfied with the

motion published a month ago. You

have been very claim your advice

that the motion passed was binding.

After the debate of the 1st of

November, you said that you would

expect the vice-chairman of the

household to present it in the

normal way. The execution was that

the paper would be handed over in

full, unedited, and anything less

than this would be a contempt of

Parliament. Can I seek your guidance

on whether you believe the

Government has adequately satisfied

the motion, and the expectations of

the House? If not, would failure to

comply be considered a contempt of

the House, and if so, what would be

the best way for members to proceed?

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Is its very

specifically, further to, and on the

point raised by the Honourable

gentleman?

You very generously, Mr Speaker,

gave the Government three weeks to

comply, and you said you are

awaiting the outcome of these

conversations with the Secretary of

State, and the chairman. We have now

had two conversations, and we have

now had the response from the select

committee, and that was stated that

in this chamber, that we do not meet

them in full. I am asking you,

therefore, Mr Speaker, to reconsider

my letter of the 7th of November,

and considered to bring contempt

motions as the chat and... -- I know

you will deal with it sensitively,

but this is content that the

Government must be held accountable

for its failure to comply.

I am grateful. I will come to the

honourable gentleman in due course,

potentially.

On page 201, Mr Speaker, the section

on ministerial accountability, a

passed by both Houses of Parliament

in the 96 and 97 session which makes

clear ministers don't to disclose

all information if not in the public

interest to do so. Does that have

any bearing on this?

I am grateful and say this in no

spirit of discourtesy to him but I

am familiar with precedent in

relation to these matters and it

didn't particularly need to be

advised of the presence of that

material in Erskine May. The

honourable gentleman won't be

surprised to know that I have

attended to these matters recently.

And regularly. I would say in

response to the honourable

gentleman, the member for Perth and

North Perthshire specifically, is I

can reconsider his letter but I hope

you don't mind my saying that I

think it would be more orderly and

courteously if he were to write to

me again if he is so minded, in the

light of the developments that have

ensued since his earlier letter.

This is not being pedantic. It

really is not. It's a question of

procedural propriety. If I receive a

letter from the honourable

gentleman, I will consider it and

respond in a timely way. Beyond

that, what I want at this point you

say is I think it is well-known to

members, and certainly to search

legal luminaries as the former

Director of Public Prosecutions,

that members wishing to allege a

contempt should in first instance

raise it not in a point of order,

nor indeed in the media, but by

writing to me as soon as practicable

after the member has given notice of

the alleges contempt or breach of

privilege. -- the alleged contempt

of breach or privilege. I then

decide whether the matter should

have precedence. It is certainly

also well known to the honourable

member for Perth and North

Perthshire that this is the

procedure, as he availed himself of

it several weeks ago. I am more than

happy to confirm that my doors are

always open for such written

notices. Beyond that formal

statement and in the hope that this

is helpful to members in all parts

of the House, I would emphasise that

we all heard what the chair of the

Brexit Select Committee had to say.

He indicated that the committee had

made a public statement and that the

committee had requested an urgent

audience with the Secretary of

State. And that information from the

right honourable gentlemen the

member for Leeds Central is

extremely important. The minister

responded indicating a willingness

on the part of the Secretary of

State to meet and to do so soon. Can

I very politely say to the Minister,

who is always a most courteous

bellow, that he was wise to make

that statement? And I think that

when it is suggested that this

meeting should be soon, it means

soon. It does not mean weeks hence.

It means very soon indeed. Nothing,

no commitment, no other dialysed

engagement is more important -- no

other engagement in the diary is

more important than respecting the

House and in this case the committee

of the House which has ownership of

this matter. And to which the papers

were to be avoided. So that is where

the matter rests. As and when

matters Ewald, if a further

representation alleging contempt is

made to me, I will consider it very

promptly and come back to the house.

I hope the house knows be well

enough to know that I will do my

duty. Point of order, Mr Peter

Bowden.

Some members on this side of the

house and maybe that's I asked for

the Government to come forward with

a new motion clarifying and trying

to clarify the description between

the two differing motions before the

House. Is there any technical reason

why that motion could not be

produced, having just debated the

humble address?

No, it is possible. We shall see. We

shall see what happens. He should

not counter from a sedentary opinion

and evidence disapproval for the

honourable gentleman. If the

honourable gentleman wishes to raise

a point of order, I am happy to

entertain it. "Not Again", says the

honourable gentleman. I am afraid,

again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Point of

order, earlier in answer to the

urgent question the Minister Roberto

the binding decision of the House on

the 1st of November Andy non-binding

decision on an earlier date. I seek

to interpret the second decision in

terms of the first... Could you

advise the House where a binding and

non-binding resolution are in

conflict, which takes precedence?

The honourable gentleman could

discuss this break-up of the with

the Minister if he spends the time

to do so. I don't want to get any

detailed examination of all passed

motions but suffice to say,

importantly, there is a very recent

motion passed by this House. I did

not, if I may politely say to the

right honourable gentlemen for

Holborn and Saint Pancras, say it

was my advised that the motion was

binding or affective. As a Speaker I

rules that it was binding or

effective and that, I can say to the

honourable gentleman, irrespective

or other motions, remains the fact.

And I will come briefly... Point of

order, Mr Ian Duncan Smith.

I apologise for pressing U-turn a

further clarification -- pressing

need to a further clarification. I

do so because it may help the House.

Should a motion of contempt be

applied in this case and that

considered amendment motion

originally in the subject of

discussion at the moment, but in the

meantime a subsequent motion the

place that an end that motion, does

that actually negate any charge of

contempt on the previous requirement

on the Secretary of State?

That is perfectly reasonable. I have

known the honourable gentleman long

enough to know he has a fertile mind

and likes to explore all possible

avenues. I hope the honourable

gentleman will forgive me if I

resort, and I do resort to my usual

response to what I regard as a

hypothetical question, which is to

pray in aid of the wisdom of the

late Lord Whitelaw, who was known to

observe I think I'm more than one

occasion, personally, I prefer to

cross bridges only when I come to

them. I think that is probably the

safest course in virtually every

sense. Finally, I hope, point of

order...

The discussion we have had Leeds

relate to the select committee

problem. Can I say that as someone

who has generally select committee

for ten years, there is a long

established precedent of the chair

of the select committee to be able

to receive a highly sensitive

documents on his own and look

through it and then deal with it

sensitively and in a public spirited

way? That is a long tradition,

respected, and fairly sensitive...

Why can apply at some stage to this

point?

A helpful piece of information.

Thank you from this extremely

experienced former select committee

chair. I am grateful to the

honourable gentleman. The house will

have heard what he had to say. Point

of order.

Eubank the delayed because it is

related to what has gone but not the

same. -- Eubank may delay. This

arises from the careers practice

started in this Parliament of the

Government of not voting on

opposition motions, which has never

happened in the history of the

House, I don't think. I think the

result is that the proceedings of

the house are becoming littered with

motions which are extremely critical

of the Government and its policies,

the bustard majority of which I do

not agree with, but really it does

reduce this House are debating

chamber and it does raise the

question of, what is parliamentary

accountability in modern times?

Could you perhaps initiate some

discussions between yourself and the

usual channels to see how we can get

back to the undoubted constitutional

position we should have, which is

that the Government is accountable

for all its actions and policies to

this House of Commons and it cannot

simply ignore them, behaving as

though they are the resolutions of

some local tea party?

Hear, hear.

I am not sure how grateful I am to

the right honourable gentlemen for

his point of order about my response

is twofold. Firstly, the address is

just that. The address. Whether an

attempt was made to amend it or not,

and it is binding, whether or not it

is binding is just that,

irrespective of whether an attempt

was was not made. It stands anyway.

Secondly the question of the

Government deals with opposition day

debate motions is a matter for the

Government. What the Government has

done to date is not disorderly. If

the right honourable and learned

gentleman has suggested as I think

he has that the least thing it has

not been helpful to the House, I

would not dissent from what the

right honourable gentlemen has said.

I think it would be helpful if

people would reflect upon the wider

implications or ramifications of

their conduct on individual

occasions. The Right honourable and

learned gentleman has served in this

House without interruption over 47

years. Plus five months and ten

days. And I think he knows of what

he speaks. If there are no further

points of order, and I thank

colleagues, that will do for now. If

there are no further points of

order, we can add to the statement

by the Secretary of State for

Health, for which he has been state

patiently waiting. Secretary Jeremy

Hunt.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

permission I make a statement about

the Government's new strategy to

improve safety in NHS maternity

services. Giving birth in England is

the most common reason for admission

to hospital, thanks to the

dedication and skill of NHS

maternity teams, the vast majority

of the roughly 700,000 babies born

each year are delivered safely with

high levels of satisfaction by

parents. However, there is still too

much avoidable harm and death. Every

child lost is a heart-rending

tragedy for families that also with

them for the rest of their lives. It

is also deeply traumatic for NHS

staff involved. Stillbirth rates are

falling but still lagging behind

many developed countries in Europe

and when it comes to injury, brain

damage sustained at birth can often

last a lifetime. That is with about

two multi-million pound claims

settled against the NHS every single

week. The Royal College of

obstetricians and gynaecologists

this year had 76% of 1000 cases of

birth related deaths or serious

brain injuries that occurred in 2015

that may have had a different

outcome of different care. In 2015,

I announced a plan to half the race

of maternal deaths and Natal deaths

and brain injuries and stillbirth.

Lost that are set out a strategy to

support this ambition. Since last

September, local maternity system

support across England were

producers of NHS maternity services

to make them safer and more

personal. Over 80% of trusts now

have a named board level maternity

champion and 136 NHS trusts and

receive a share of the £0.1 million

training fund and we are six months

and a year-long training programme

announced in June over 12,000

additional staff have been trained.

The maternal and neonatal health

said the collaborative unit was

lodged on the 20th of February, and

44 trusts have attended intensive

training and quality improvement

science and are working on implement

a local quality improvement project

with regular visits from dedicated

quality improvement managers.

However, the Government's ambition,

is for the health service to be the

safest, highest quality care

available anywhere in the world, so

there is much more work that needs

to be done. Today, I am therefore

announcing a series of additional

measures. Firstly, we are still not

good enough at sharing best

practice. When you fly to New York,

your friend stood tell you to make

sure that you get a good pilot. But,

if you get cancer, that is what they

ask about your doctor? Win to

standardise best practice, so that

every NHS patients can be confident

they are getting the highest

standards of care. When it comes to

modernity safety, we will try a

different approach. From next year,

every case of a stillbirth, neonatal

death, suspected brain injury, or

maternal death that is notified to

the Royal College of obstetricians

and gynaecologists, so that is about

1000 incidents annually, will be

investigated, and not by the trust

by the incident happened, but

independently, with a thorough

learning focused investigation,

conducted by the health care safety

investigation Branch. This new body,

started this year, drawing on the

approach to investigations in the

airline industry. It has

successfully reduced fatalities with

thorough independent reviews. The

new independent maternity safety

investigations will involve families

from the outset, and will have an

explicit remit, not just to get to

the bottom of what happened in an

individual instance, but she spreads

knowledge of round the system so

that the states are not repeated --

so that mistakes are not repeated.

These will be rolled out nationally

throughout the year, beginning in

April. That will mean that we have

complied with recommendation 23 of

the report into Morecambe Bay.

Following concerns that some

neonatal deaths are being wrongly

classified as stillbirths which mean

that the coroner 's inquest cannot

take place, I will work with the

Ministry of Justice to look closely

into enabling for the first time a

full-time stillbirths to be covered

by Corinne you'll Law, given due

consideration to the impact on the

devolved administration in Wales. I

would like to thank the Honourable

member for East Worthing and

Shoreham for his campaigning on this

issue. Next, we will do more to

improve the training of maternity

start is -- staff in best practice.

We have launched an e-learning

programme for health care

professionals. The programme works

with reduce avoidable causes of harm

that can lead to infants born at

term being admitted to a neonatal

unit. We will also increase training

for consultants on the care of

pregnant women with significant

health condition such as

cardiovascular disease. We also know

that smoking during pregnancy as

closely correlated with neonatal

harm. Our tobacco control plan

permits the Government to reduce...

Today, we will provide new funding

to train health care practitioners

such as maternity support workers,

to give evidence -based smoking

cessation according to national

standards. We want to try and

transform it what can be a blame

culture into what needs to be a

learning culture, but one of the

current barriers to learning is

litigation. Earlier this year, I

consulted on it rapid revolution

redress scheme, which offers

families with brain-damaged children

access to support and compensation

as to an alternative to the court

system. My intention is that the

incidence of possibly avoidable

brain injury at birth, successfully

establishing investigations will be

an important step on the road to

introducing a full, rapid,

resolution and redress scheme in

order to reduce... And delivered

support a competition for families.

Today, I am publishing a summary of

our responses, which is the fact

that back reflects strong support to

the scheme, to improve is safety,

patients' experience, and going

forward I would like to launch the

scheme I do from 2090. A word about

the costs involved. NHS resolution

spent almost £500 million settling

obstetric claims in 2016. For every

pound the NHS spends on delivering a

baby, another £60 is spent by

another part on the NHS on settling

claims related to previous births.

Trusts who improve their maternity

safety are also sailing the NHS --

saving the NHS money, allowing more

funding to be available for

front-line care. So, in order to

create a strong financial incentive

to improve maternity safety,... But

refunds that increase, possibly with

an even greater discount if they can

demonstrate compliance with ten

criteria identified as best practice

on maternity safety. Taken in

together, these measures give me

confidence that we can bring forward

the date, by which we achieve a

halving of neonatal deaths, injuries

and stillbirths, from 2030, the

original plan dates to 2025. I am

today, ticket setting that as the

new target date for the heart of it

ambition. Our commitment to reduce

the rate by 20% by 2020, remains.

And falling powerful

recommendations, I will also include

a reduction in the national rate of

preterm births, from 8% to 6% this

book within this ambition. We need

to build in the good evidence that

women who have good continuity of

care throughout their pregnancy are

less likely to experience preterm

delivery, with safer outcomes for

themselves and their babies. I would

not make a statement, but not the

campaigning of numerous parents, who

have been through the agony of

losing a treasured child. Instead of

moving on, and try to draw a line

under their tragedy, they have

chosen to relive it, over and over

again. I have often mentioned,

members of the public to whom I

again pay tribute, but I would like

to mention members of this house to

have safely spoken out about their

own experiences, including the

Honourable members of Colchester,

pedals bree, Lewisham, and

Washington and is understood --

Oxfordshire, and Aaron. Their

passionate hope, and our personal

hope, as we stand shoulder to

shoulder with them, is that by

drawing attention to what may have

gone wrong in their own case,

mistakes are not repeated and others

are spared the terrible heartache

that they and their families

enjoyed. We're rich to each and

every one of them, to make this new

strategy work, and I commend the

statement of the House. -- we owe it

to each.

I am grateful for the

advance copy of his statement. I

also paid tribute to those members

who have spoken out in recent

months, including as he said those

that he mentioned. They are all a

credit to their house. The National

Health Service offers some of the

best neonatal care in the world. And

the progress that out by the

Secretary of State today is a

tribute to the extraordinary work of

midwives and maternity staff across

the country. We welcome the

Secretary of State announcement,

that all the two Bibles cases of

stillbirth and neonatal death in

England will now receive an

independent investigation by the

health care safety investigation

Branch. This is an important step to

help bring certainty and vision to

hundreds of families every year. We

also welcome the move by the

Secretary of State to allow coroners

to investigate stillbirths, and can

I show him, that we, on the side of

the House stand ready to work

constructively with him, to insure

that the smooth and timely passing

of a decision, should he and the

commentaries to bring any to the

House. Can I also paid tribute to

the work carried out by the team at

University of which leads on the

perinatal aspects. Which forms the

evidence that day's announcement.

The numbers of death in childbirth

has halved since 1993, saving

around... We welcome to bring

forward the target date to 2025. If

it is to be delivered, it is

essential that the NHS, the NHS

units providing these services, are

properly resourced, and publish

staff. We welcome the launch of the

e-learning programme, as well as the

increased training from consultants

on the care of pregnant women with

significant health conditions. We

further welcome the emphasis on

smoking cessation programmes, but we

should remind the Secretary of State

that public health budget cuts have

meant that many anti-smoking

campaigns have been cut back. He

will know the heavy workload in the

maternity units, and that those are

some of the main issues identified

by today's study which is severely

incapacitate maternity units in a

fifth of the deaths reviewed. During

this year, our research revealed

that half of the maternity unit had

closed their doors to mothers in

2016, with staffing capacity issues

the most common reasons. The Royal

College of midwives tell us that

around 3.5 thousand midwives short

of the numbers needed. A survey

covered by NCT this year showed that

50% of women, having a baby

experienced what Nice advised as...

So, we believe that the NHS remained

underfunded and understaffed, so I

would be grateful if the Secretary

of State could tell as the day what

that further action he intends to

take to make sure that maternity

services are probably funded, and

that staffing shortages are

addressed as part of that strategy

to improve safety across the board.

The NHS has excellent psychological

and broom and support services for

women affected by baby loss.

However, I think we all know, that

the quality of the services remains

variable across the country. Indeed,

we are still a long way from full

parity of esteem for men to have in

neonatal care. I be grateful if the

Secretary of State could tell us

what action he intends to take to

plug some of these gaps. Mr Speaker,

this is a welcome set of

announcements overall from the

Secretary of State. This can help

the NHS provided the best qwerty of

careful mothers and their babies. We

look forward, on the side of the

House to working constructively with

the Secretary of State and the

Government, but I do hope that he

can reassure us today, that the

garment will provide the resources,

NHS midwives and their colleagues

need, to deliver on his ambitions.

Mr Speaker, can I thank the Shadow

Health Secretary for the

constructive tone of his response to

that statement. I think is right to

point out both the achievements that

have been made, over many years, but

also the challenges ahead. We have

about 1700 neonatal deaths every

year. That has actually fallen by

10% of that since 2010, but in that

figure, is very Asian across the

country, which, for example, our

best trust is about three and a

thousand deaths, but another trust

they can be ten in a thousand

deaths, is an elite three times as

many neonatal deaths. What that we

are not as not as good as we need to

be at spreading best practice. That

is why today's announcement is

really about ensuring that we can

confidently look every expecting mum

in the eye and say that you are

getting the best man's account we

are able to deliver in the NHS. I

accept his offer to cooperate on any

legislation needed to expand... We

will get back to him on that. I also

thank him for raising the issue of

proven services. I actually spoke to

a bereavement midwife this morning.

They are some of the mystics or the

people working the whole NHS. We do

indeed have a programme to improve

the consistency of bereavement

services, and indeed roll out the

use of bereavement suites across the

NHS, which are best -- which our

breast trusts have -- best trusts

have. But others do not. We have

seen an increase in the numbers of

obstetricians and doctors working in

different departments, of 600, which

is about 600%. But, we need more,

and there are lot of pressures

across the NHS. We also need to find

those extra midwives and doctors

that we need. There was able welcome

boost the NHS in the budget, and

Exim £1.6 billion available for the

NHS, next year. But, I don't

pretend, looking for to the next ten

years, and will be pressures that

are coming down the track for the

NHS, with a growing birth rate, but

also with the ageing population,

that we are not going to need to

revisit the issue of NHS funding,

and find a long-term approach to

funding, and I think, probably the

most appropriate time to do that is

when we come to the end of the

five-year forward view, and salvage

about what happens following that.

But, if we are to put more money

into the NHS, we need to have the

doctors, midwives, and nurses, to

spend that money on. And that is why

in the last year, the Government has

committed to a 25% increase in the

numbers of nurse training places,

and it ended 5% the number of

medical school training prisons. The

final thing I would say, is that we

have got lots of debate in this

house, where we take different

positions related to the NHS, but

think one thing that we can be

united on, is our aspirations shared

across this house, that the NHS

should be the safest health care

system in the world. I very much

thank you for your support in that.

And on and on matter for Mac and

sensitive matter.

But the business

to follow, the final day of the

budget is also extremely important.

Order. Many members have indicated a

wish to speak. Exceptionally, I may

not feel able to call everybody on

this statement and in any event

there is a premium upon brevity from

back and front benches alike. Doctor

Sarah Wollaston.

I welcome the Secretary of State's

announcements today, including the

move to allow coroners to

investigate stillbirths. Well he set

about the current waiting time for

waiting times for postmortems for

infants because there is a shortage

of the highly specialised

pathologists to carry out this vital

work?

I don't have that information to

hand but I will find out.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The debate on

baby loss from last month has been

referenced and I took part in that,

although thankfully I have been

spared the pain suffered by members

and this House. I think it helps to

bring up everybody around the House

how important this is a big there

will be anyone who does not welcome

the statement this morning and the

ambition it shows. In Scotland in

2012, we actually had a higher

stillbirth neonatal and perinatal

death rate. From our new Chief

Medical Officer was actually an

obstetrician and maybe that'll help

whether the focus in 2014 when she

established the literal and

children's quality improvement

collaborative and the National

stillbirth group, all as part of the

Scottish patient safety initiative

and neonatal initiatives across

Scotland. That has managed to drop

our stillbirth rate by more than a

quarter and drop our neonatal death

rate by 50%. Despite the challenges

we face with really difficult

geography and getting people off

islands. It is easy to spot the

woman who has a past history of

difficult birth and it is easy to

spot the woman with co-morbidity

such as obesity and diabetes. But

anyone who has been involved in

Perth knows that even the healthiest

pregnancy can go wrong last minute.

-- anyone involved in birth. Even

rural part of England and the West

of England, the issues of transport

and how people have identified

quickly during Labour and

transported a higher specialism is

required summing that has to be

looked at. Neonatal is very much a

rounded service, the provision and

movement of patients and

availability of expertise and the

availability of neonatal intensive

care units. One of the other things,

and this came out a lot in the baby

loss debate, is the issue around

preterm birth and stillbirth. It is

trying to change some of these

things. After trying to have our

recent review around factory in

Scotland, the focus will be on

things and consistent monitoring of

growth, as a galley to drive can a

third of impending stillbirths. -- a

filly to thrive. The Secretary of

State has mentioned already

continuity of care. They mention

getting smoking rates down and rates

in Scotland of smoking are higher

but the difference between most and

least deprived dignities is more

than four times. That has an impact

on every level of child lost.

Finally, research. It is important

that we learn such as the new

information perhaps about women

sleeping on their side in the last

trimester, we need to learn these

things and we need to find the we

search and then share...

Order. I have the highest regard for

the honourable lady, who is a

considerable medical authority, and

I gave her a little bit of leeway,

but can I gently say not only did

she exceed her time by a minute, but

she pursued her usual rather

discursive approach, and in these

situations what is required is a

question or a series of questions

with a question punctuation or a

series of pieces of question

punctuation, rather than general

analysis. So we will leave it there.

I fear any most good-natured spirit

to the honourable lady. Oh, I had

forgotten had heard from the

honourable lady but not yet the

Secretary of State. Secretary of

State.

Mr Speaker, I actually agreed with

everything the honourable lady said,

but I will give a rather brief

response. Although given... I have

just been advised by a distinguished

clerk at the table who swivelled

around so to advise me that there is

really no need for a response

because there was no question. I

will indulge the honourable

gentleman to the point of a

paragraph.

Let me say that I think there is an

excellent Scottish patient safety

programme happening and given that

one of the main objectives of our

discussion today is to share best

practice, I would be happy to talk

to the Chief Medical Officer in

Scotland as to how we can exchange

information we have both learn from

each other's systems.

As every parent who has lost a child

knows, they want most answers. So

can I congratulate the secretary of

state in Rio for the health safety

investigation brands because that

independence will be crucial for the

buying of parents to know what has

happened in that particular case.

How will learning from those

investigations be shared?

I want to thank her for her

extraordinary campaigning on this

issue, and so yes we want parents to

get the answer more quickly, but we

also want to be able to answer the

question every parent asks, which

is, can you guarantee this will not

happen again? Those investigators

will have explicitly a remit to get

to the bottom of what happened but

also spread that message around the

system so that same mistake is not

repeated. That is the whole

objective of setting up this new

team of people.

My constituents Jack and Sarah

Hawkins have spoken briefly about

the tragic death of their daughter

Harriet down to tell years of

careful study you have heard in this

morning. I spoke to Jack earlier and

I am pleased to tell the Secretary

of State may feel listened to and

heard. They and I very much welcome

this statement and support for

extending the power of coroners, but

Jack and Sarah must be able to stop

fighting and begin the healing. So

can I ask, will he urges Ministry of

Justice colleagues to now support

the honourable member for East

Worthing and Shoreham's bill to

bring about this change as as soon

as possible?

If I may express my thanks to Jack

and Sarah, through her, or what they

did this morning and the media

telling their story, which was

moving and touched a lot of hearts?

And our objective is, with respect

to allowing inquests into a

full-term stillbirths, to move as

quickly as any legislative vehicle

allows, so if I am able to work

closely with the right honourable

friends to do that, including the

member for East Shoreham, to do

that, then I will do so.

We welcome and congratulate the

Secretary of State for his basement.

We'll be Secretary of State agree

with me at the best majority if not

all grieving parents want to know

why but they also want to know that

their child's life, however short,

will have had meaning, by ensuring

we learn lessons not as a statistic

that as a baby? That is why the

independent investigation unit is so

important that we can learn the

lessons not just in contrast but

across the whole NHS, spread that

learning and insurers few people as

possible go through this emotional,

personal tragedy.

He is absolutely correct, and as he

knows, because he has spoken so

movingly on this many times, there

is absolutely nothing we can do to

make up for the searing loss of

losing a loved one, a baby, the

worst possible thing any parent

could go through. But we can at

least make them a commitment to

learn. If we're honest, we jumped at

the moment, because what happens as

we can wait ten years for a court

case to be settled. Even then, it is

not always clear to me lessons have

been properly learned around the

system through what happened. This

is an attempt to change that.

Mr Speaker, I very much welcome the

Secretary of State's approach to

more openness and transparency in

the NHS around baby deaths. You'll

remember signing a letter in May 20

16th along with the Secretary of

State the local government and the

Secretary of State for Justice for

an independent inquiry into the baby

Ashes scandal in old town. This has

never happened and parents still

don't have the answers as to what

happened in the NHS and in Hull City

Council about the baby Ashes. I

wondered whether the Secretary of

State would recommit to the

independent inquiry going ahead with

his commission?

I'm happy to recommit and I

apologise to her and her

constituents for the delay in will

look into what happen right away.

The honourable lady pre-empted my

question about my own bell and

coroners, so can I make the first to

the Secretary of State now to sit

down with him and his draughtsmen to

decide on the wording of my members

bill on the 2nd of February, as the

fastest way to achieve his goals and

get to that solution that all

members of this house want to see?

I am happy to do that I'm grateful

for the generous offer.

Mr Speaker, I'm sure the Secretary

of State would realise that even

after all these years, my wife and I

when we hear news that we heard this

morning, it takes us back to our

first baby daughter who died in

birth. After that we had for healthy

children and ten grandchildren and

we still think back to that awful

time. Our baby was sickly and it was

not poor care about she was sickly.

The back of the matter is that we

care very much about the people that

lose their child. And I as a

constituency Member of Parliament

became increasingly worried with

this rationalisation that is made,

the view that it gets further and

further promote the main population

live, but also I get worried when we

don't give our midwives and doctors

the full support or the morale to do

that difficult job.

We must give doctors and nurses and

midwives all of our full support

because they do an extraordinary

job. Sometimes there are difficult

issues where the centralisation of

certain maternity services can

actually improve patient safety if

it means you can have a

round-the-clock consultant service

and so on. But in my experience the

most important thing in all of this

is making sure that you spot the

most risky births early in the

process, and it isn't actually...

Sometimes there is an assumption, I

am not the doctor either, but

sometimes we assume that it is all

about what happened at the moment of

Labour when you going to the

hospital, that actually a lot of

this is about thinking about earlier

in the process than Labour. High

risk mums, mothers who smoke and

from lower sociodemographic

background, and intervening earlier.

And that is important for his