12/01/2018 The Week in Parliament

Hello and welcome to

the Week In Parliament.

It's pressure on the NHS

which dominates the week.

The Labour leader mocks Theresa May.

We know that the Prime Minister

recognises there is a crisis

in our NHS, because she wanted

to sack the Health Secretary last

week but was too weak to do it.

The Prime Minister

defends her health policy.

Preparations for winter in the NHS

have been more extensive

and meticulous than ever before.

And is the head of the energy

regulator OFGEM just too laid back?

Do you ever roll your sleeves up

and really get stuck in,

because I don't really see

the evidence of that.

But first...

The Government called

it winter pressures,

the opposition called it

a winter crisis.

New figures showed that last month

300,000 people had to wait longer

than they should have at Accident

and Emergency

departments in England.

These were the worst

figures since the targets

were introduced in 2004.

The Labour leader led the attack

at Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr Speaker, I know it

seems a long time ago,

I know it seems a long time ago

but just before Christmas I asked

the Prime Minister about the 12,000

people left waiting more than half

an hour in the back

of an ambulance at accident

and emergency departments.

She told the House the NHS

was better prepared

for winter than ever before.

So what words of comfort does

the Prime Minister have to

the 17,000 patients left waiting

in the back of ambulances

in the last week of December?

Is it that nothing is

perfect by any chance?

I fully accept that the NHS is under

pressure over winter,

it is regularly under pressure

at winter times.

I have been very, I have been very

clear, I apologise to those people

who have had operations delayed

and those people who have had

admissions to hospital delayed.

But it is indeed the case

that the NHS was better prepared

this winter than ever before.

We know the Prime Minister

recognises there is a crisis

in our NHS because she wanted

to sack the Health Secretary last

week but was too weak to do it.

And if the NHS is so well resourced

and so well-prepared,

why was the decision taken last week

to cancel the operations

of 55,000 patients during

the month of January?

This is what NHS providers

said only last week.

Preparations for winter in the NHS

have been more extensive

and meticulous than ever before.

The Health Secretary said

that the government wanted to be

the best in the world for cancer

diagnosis, treatment and care.

Today, according to a memo

from the head of chemotherapy

at Oxford Churchill Hospital,

terminally ill cancer patients

will have their chemotherapy cut

because of a massive shortfall

in specialist nurses.

Will the Prime Minister

apologise to cancer

patients and their families

for this appalling situation?

I say to the honourable lady

that the trust has made clear

there are no plans to delay

the start of chemotherapy treatment

or reduce the number of cycles

given to cancer patients.

What Simon Stevens has said

is happening is that,

over the past three years,

the highest cancer survival rates

ever, and latest figures show

an estimated 7000 more people

surviving cancer, after successful

NHS cancer treatment compared

to three years prior.

With record funding,

our NHS is doing more than ever,

but when the UK is in the bottom

third of countries for heart attack

deaths, when we have significantly

worse survival for strokes

than France and Germany,

and when our closest match

for cancer survival is Chile

and Poland, isn't it time

to act across this house,

back this week by the Centre

for Policy Studies,

to establish a royal commission

on health and social care,

in the 70th anniversary year

of our most cherished

national institution?

My honourable friend is right

that we need to continue to look

at the NHS and ensure

that we are continuing

to improve the performance

in a variety of areas.

And the NHS remained firmly

on the agenda on Wednesday afternoon

when Labour used an opposition

debate to highlight

the strain winter was placing

on the health service.

This is not just a winter crisis -

it is an all-year-round funding

crisis, a year-round staffing

crisis, a year-round social care

crisis and a year-round

health inequality crisis,

manufactured in Downing Street

by this Government.

The truth is that doctors and nurses

have lost confidence in him,

patients have lost confidence

in him, and it seems

the Prime Minister has

lost confidence in him.

He fights for his own job,

but he will not fight for the NHS.

Our patients are crying

out for change.

It is a big deal for patients

who are told that their planned

procedure is to be postponed.

No one minimises the distress that

that causes, but last year

and in previous winters operations

were cancelled at the last moment,

which is much more distressing

and challenging for hospitals

to plan around.

This Government have put in an extra

£437 million specifically

for the winter period?

Would he not at least give

the Government credit for that

planning, which we have

never seen before?

All of us recognise that this

is a particularly tough winter

because there has been an outbreak

of flu on top of a bad freeze.

I point out to those who think

the worst is past that the flu

season lasts until March

and at the moment this

is an outbreak, not an epidemic,

but it comes on top of underlying

pressures, and across the four

nations this has involved staff

having to go above and beyond

the call of duty.

One of the real problems

is the absence of any

acknowledgement from Ministers

of the huge knock-on effect that

rescheduling a whole month s

operations will have.

It will simply mean that existing

patients who are already

on the waiting list will have

to wait even longer, too,

and it will be very,

very difficult to bring that list

back down.

Labour's motion condemning

government spending on the NHS

was later passed unopposed,

as Conservative MPs continued

their tactic of abstaining

on opposition motions.

Another big announcement of the week

was the Prime Minister's pledge

to eradicate all avoidable plastic

waste by 2042.

She made the commitment

after tramping around

a wetland centre in London.

The strategy is part

of the Government's 25-year plan

for England to improve

the natural environment.

The amount of plastic in the oceans

has caused an outcry.

The new measures include urging

supermarkets to introduce

"plastic-free" aisles,

while taxes and charges

on single-use items such as takeaway

containers will be considered.

The issue seemed to be the talk

of Parliament on Thursday.

In the Commons, a Labour

MP complained it was

a long time coming.

This UK Government has finally got

around to bunching is 25 year plan

catching up with the Welsh Labour

government on the rustic bag levy

just six years later. This plan

lacks substance is full of missed

opportunities, weak proposals and no

laws. It is not innovative, not

radical and it is a cheap attempt by

this Prime Minister of rebranding

the Tories green wash. Will the

Government commit to making a

statement on this plan in this House

to allow for proper scrutiny?

I am

disappointed she is is a little

churlish to what we are sickened to

do. There are some issues across the

House we can unite and do what is

right for future generations. I

would really caution her to learn

more information as to what is being

decided. I'm sure it will be

discussed at length across the House

in the forthcoming business and she

will learn more today I hope and

more in the future as well.

During a debate on forestry,

the Chair of the Environment

Committee, said he had "much

enthusiasm" for the plan.

I think what I want to see now is a

practical application on how we are

going to meet these goals because if

you want to change and

environmental, financial regulation

in banking, you change financial

regulation in banking and that fixes

hopefully the problem. If they

actually say aye want to plant

millions of trees you physically

have to plant the trees and have to

find the land for it and the policy

to do it. I'm not saying we can't do

it but it is how we deliver that

into the future.

And in the Lords, the former Chair

of the Green Party said she'd been

hoping for concrete measures,

but she was disappointed.

There was absolutely nothing new on

climate change and there was no

measures, no strong measures or

suggestions for legislative change

that could actually make a

difference. And for example I just

don't understand how the Prime

Minister can claim we as a country

are leading on climate change when

she is about to give the green light

for more fracking. We are still

earning onshore wind developers. We

are still trying to build new

nuclear power stations and we are

giving tax breaks to oil and. None

of these things are going to help us

to have a greener and safer planet.

Lady Jones.

Westminster awoke on Tuesday

still ruminating on how Theresa May

had reshuffled her cabinet pack.

The changes may have

been rather limited,

but that didn't mean there weren't

several ministers getting to grips

with new departments.

And there was no

gentle warm-up either.

Less than 24 hours into the job,

the Justice Secretary,

David Gauke was answering questions

about the decision to

release the serial sexual

offender, John Worboys.

Worboys was convicted of 19 offences

and is suspected of attacking

more than 100 women.

But the decision by the Parole Board

to free him, nine years

after he was jailed,

has raised concern

among his victims.

David Gauke said he'd look

into the transparency surrounding

the parole board's decision.

I should be absolutely clear that

I think that parole board should

remain an independent body,

responsible for making decisions

about the on going risk

that individuals pose

after serving their tariff.

But I agree with my predecessor's

assessment that there is a strong

case to review the case

for transparency in the process

for parole decisions and how victims

are appropriately engaged in that

process and consider the case

for changes in policy, practice,

or the parole board rules or other

guidance or procedures,

including the victims' code.

It is all too clear that the victims

of the vile crimes committed

by John Worboys feel that this

process has failed to do so.

And such failings risk

undermining public trust

in our wider justice system.

Mr Speaker, many women, both

the victims and others more widely,

will be every anxious indeed

about Mr Worboys being freed.

And the current legal restrictions

on the parole board mean

that we do not know why this

decision was taken.

Some of the victims

still have heard nothing

from the victims liaison officer.

They still don't know

what the parole board terms are,

and whether this man may end up

living near them.

Given that the tariff is a minimum,

why does the sole test applied

by the parole board appear to be

simply whether the criminal

still poses a risk to others?

What has happened to the concept

that the punishment

should fit the crime?

In his review, is he going to look

explicitly not at what transparency

there was about how decisions

were being made, but how victims'

voices were actually being heard

as part of that process?

Since the privatisation of probation

in the West Midlands,

there is one victims'

officer for an area with

three million people in it.

So, in this review, can

I ask the very welcome

new Justice Secretary to look

at what was taken away

and potentially why an e-mail

to a victim isn't enough

when a relationship

is what we used to have?

Worboys was up prolific sex attacker

for up to ten years.

There are likely to be

hundreds of victims.

Yet in court, he showed no remorse,

he dismissed his actions as banter,

and even two years ago,

he was claiming that he had done

absolutely nothing wrong.

So, it is impossible for people

to understand how the board

could possibly have deemed this man

to be safe.

So, would my right honourable friend

agree with me that unless,

and until the board explains

publicly the rationale behind

the decision it took,

people can't possibly have

confidence in our room

and justice system.

I completely understand the point

that my honourable friend is making.

As presently stands,

the parole board is not able

to provide in public the reasons

for their decision.

The chair of the parole

board has made clear

that he wishes that he could.

The new Justice

Secretary David Gauke.

One of the Cabinet whose

job never seemed to be

in peril was Amber Rudd,

the Home Secretary.

In fact she gained a new role, as

Minister for Women and Equalities.

One of the first issues

to confront her in her additional

capacity was the row about equal pay

at the BBC.

The corporation's China editor

Carrie Gracie resigned

from her post accusing the BBC

"unlawful pay discrimination."

Here in the 21st century,

surely women deserve total equality.

Can the Minister tell us what steps

the government is taking to make

sure there isn't a pay gap

in the civil service,

in light of the fact that

Carrie Gracie has resigned recently

as China editor of the BBC,

citing pay issues there?

Well, I thank my honourable

friend for raising such

an important element.

It is absolutely essential

that we all ensure that the equal

pay act is enforced and much

as I admire the BBC and enjoy

listening and looking

at their programmes,

they clearly have a very

serious question to answer

here which I certainly hope

they will address.

And in terms of gender pay gap,

we are committed to ensuring

that we do address that as well,

and of course, we have

new disclosure arrangements.

Amber Rudd's predecessor as Women

and Equalities Minister

was the Education Secretary Justine

Greening, who quit in the reshuffle.

From her new position

on the backbenches, she rose

to ask her first question.

First of all, I would like to

congratulate the Home Secretary

on her expanded role.

I know she will do a brilliant job.

She will know that young people,

parents, and teachers think

that it is vital in a modern

internet world to see sex

and relationships education updated.

Can she confirm that

the government will push ahead

with updating the guidance

that is now so out of date but also

if she will meet with myself,

my right honourable friend

the member for Basingstoke,

and also the honourable

member for Rotherham,

to make sure we can have cross-party

support for the work

that is being undertaken?

Can I start by thanking the Minister

for the enormous good work

she did in this role,

and I will try my best to keep up

the momentum that she has provided.

And one of the fantastic things

that she had was lead on making sure

that sex and relationship education

is going to be provided

in all schools.

I would be delighted

to work with her to make

sure that is the case,

and also across the House,

to make sure that the outcome we get

is one that the whole House can

support, as I know that everyone

believes this is an important part.

Amber Rudd.

The chief executive of the energy

regulator Ofgem admitted

the organisation "should have done

better" for vulnerable consumers.

Dermot Nolan was given

something of a roasting

by the Commons Business Committee.

So, given that you accept

you have a statutory duty to protect

those vulnerable customers,

do you think that...

Well, you have effectively just

admitted that you have

failed them today.

ball I think we have not done

as well as we could have.

You are the single most important

player in the market

because you have the most

extraordinary powers

as the regulator.

And, yet, your testimony sounds

so incredibly passive.

Do you ever just roll your sleeves

up and really get stuck in?

Because I don't really see

the evidence of that.

I apologise if I seem passive.

I honestly do not feel passive.

I did exhibit, I think...

As I said before, I wish

we had moved earlier

in putting the price caps in.

What lessons have

you taken from that?

And how has that

changed your behaviour?

We are rolling up our sleeves very

strongly at the moment,

and we have been doing so over

the last year, since the BMA

finished, in terms of bringing

a price cap for vulnerable

customers, which I

think is the limit.

You have just admitted

that you acted earlier.

But the consequence of you not

acting earlier has been

that many customers,

particularly vulnerable customers,

have paid much more money

than they should have done.

I accept that and we should

have moved earlier.

Do you apologise to those customers?

I do.

Ofgem's chief executive.

Labour told ministers that they're

rewarding failure by bailing out

train companies that

run into trouble.

In 2014, Virgin and its partner

Stagecoach signed a deal to run

the East Coast line until 2023.

But in November, ministers allowed

the companies to withdraw

from running the service

three years early.

The Shadow Transport Secretary

condemned the move.

In 2016, the Department

for Transport set out its objectives

for rail franchising.

These were to encourage

a flourishing, competitive passenger

rail market which secures high

performing, value for money services

for passengers and tax payers,

whilst driving cost effectiveness.

Deputy Speaker, it is clear

that the department has failed

to meet these objectives.

The latest collapse

of the East Coast franchise

announced in November makes

a mockery of the

department's 2016 aims.

Virgin Stagecoach didn't deliver

and defaulted on their contract,

and the Secretary of State has given

them a gift.

I am grateful to my honourable

friend for giving way.

Given on the East Coast mainline

that this will be the third occasion

in just over a decade

that the private contractor has

announced that it wishes

to hand back the keys,

was it not a fundamental mistake,

on the part of the government, not

to have allowed East Coast Trains

that successfully run the franchise

for over five and a half years,

paid back £1 billion

to the Treasury, to allow carrying

on its good work and instead

ideological elite demanding that

anyone could bid to run it but not

the state owned company that had

done it so successfully?

My right honourable friend has made

an absolutely perfect point,

and it is the scene that will be

consistent throughout this debate.

I have absolutely no doubt.

Indeed, the government should have

followed the example of Labour

in 2009 when theh operator defaulted

and taken the the contract back

into the public sector.

If a company defaults,

it doesn't deserve the contract.

That way, there would be

no reward for failure,

and other companies in the industry

wouldn't expect the same treatment.

When it came to his turn, the

Transport Secretary was scathing.

We've just heard something like 45

minutes of complete nonsense

from the party opposite.

I suspect it might also be

unparliamentary of me

to call him hypocritical,

so I won't call him personally

hypocritical, but I have no doubt

that others in the know will be

astonished by the gall

with which they simply

forget their actions in government.

With which they pretend their ideas

won't cost a penny.

I keep hearing their ideas

won't cost a penny.

It is absolutely untrue.

And with which they make inaccurate

claims, based on a lack of facts

on subjects they appear

to not understand.

Chris Grayling.

The Government has been warned that

moves to cut the size of the House

of Lords could be undermined

if the Prime Minister

appoints new peers.

Reports have suggested Theresa May

is preparing to create 12

new Conservative peers to help get

Brexit legislation

through the Lords.

In a debate last year,

there was strong support among peers

for the recommendations

of the Burns Committee to reduce

the numbers from 800 to 600.

Mrs May was urged to show restraint.

Would it not be a embarrassment

and make a nonsense of any further

consideration of the Burns report

if the Prime Minister was to go

ahead and make a series

of nominations before we had

considered it fully?

The point that the noble

Lord has just made was

made during the debate.

And I thought, if I may say

so, that it was dealt

with very well indeed

by the Lord Butler of Brockwell.

And he said this, we are told that

a further list of appointments

is about to be published,

but I do not share the apocalyptic

view expressed earlier

by the noble lord Lord Steele.

I believe this can be regarded

as a legacy issue arising

from the May general election that

does not inhibit the adoption

of the approach indeed

of the Burns report.

I hope the noble lord

is reassured by the words

of the former Cabinet Secretary.

If the government is prepared

to accept the Burns proposals,

and that includes departures

from and introductions to this House

should be on the basis

of two out and one in,

and on a 15 year term limit,

probably from the last general

election, we will abide by that.

Will the government

agreed to do so as well?

As I said, the government

is considering the report and will

make its views known shortly.

But if I can just take up

the point that the noble

baroness made in her speech.

And she made a good speech,

if I may say so, as did my noble

friend and the leader of the Lib

Dems.

What she said is this -

it is not about giving up

patronage or appointments,

but about showing some

restraint, as it used to be.

Now, the Prime Minister has

demonstrated restraint,

putting on one side David Cameron's

resignation honours,

in the last 18 months,

the Prime Minister has appointed

eight, eight new peers,

five crossbenchers,

and three ministers.

Now, I think that is demonstrating

the restraint that the noble

lady has just asked for.

Is there not another

way that an this little

dilemma might be resolved?

Quite clearly, if you look

at the electorate as a whole,

and the votes which have been cast

at recent elections,

the Lib Dem peers are grossly

overrepresented here.

Suppose 50 of them did

the decent thing and resigned,

this would all be resolved!

LAUGHTER.

Well, I think that question,

if I may say so, from my noble

friend, was not addressed to me,

but addressed to

the benches opposite.

It is indeed the case that on almost

any objective basis,

the Liberal Democrats

are overrepresented,

and credit to them, they actually

recognise this during the debate.

The noble lord Lord Newby,

when he spoke on behalf

of the Lib Dems, recognised

that their numbers would have

to come down under the proposals

of the Burns report.

Whether one could expect the Lib Dem

is to unilaterally cut their numbers

without anybody else doing anything

at all would be to exhibit

a generosity for which the Liberal

Democrats are not well-known.

The ever-understated Lord Young.

Well, during the course of the week

there were many words

of congratulation for the various

ministers who moved or gained

jobs in the reshuffle.

But one of the main talking points

was the erroneous and then

hastily deleted tweet

from Conservative Central Office

that Chris Grayling had been made

chairman of the party.

The Shadow Transport Secretary felt

it important to mark

Mr Grayling's achievement.

Also, I want to congratulate

the Secretary of State

for his superb stewardship

of the Conservative Party.

There has never been a fine record.

No elections were lost,

no major scandals, and I think

he has maintained his membership

around 70,000, so not bad

for 27 seconds work.

So, the best to him.

Chris Grayling - the mayfly

of Conservative chairmen.

And that's all we've got time for.

Keith MacDougall will

be here on Monday.

But for now from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.