10/01/2018 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello, and welcome to the programme.

Coming up:

The Labour leader mocks the Prime

Minister over her reshuffle.

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.

Theresa May 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 just roll your sleeves

up and get stuck in, because I don't

really see the evidence of that?

It was the first Prime Minister's

Questions since Theresa May

reshuffled her cabinet.

But, to be honest, you did

have to look quite hard

to spot the new faces.

Sitting on the front

bench for the first time

were Esther McVey, the new Work

and Pensions Secretary,

and Brandon Lewis the new

Conservative Party chairman.

A few victims of the reshuffle had

returned to the backbenches -

Damian Green, the former

First Secretary of State.

And in a corner, quite

near to where the Brexit

rebels seat themselves,

was Justine Greening,

lately of the Education Department.

So with everyone in their

places we were off.

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 A&E 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 two the

17,000 patients 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 readily

and a pressure at wintertime is. I

have been very clear that I

apologise to those people who have

had those operations delayed and

those people who have had their

admission to hospital delayed but it

is, indeed, the case that the NHS

was better prepared this winter than

ever before.

Be known Prime Minister

recognises there is a crisis in our

NHS because she wanted to sack the

Health Secretary last week but was

too weak do it. 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?

In terms of being prepared,

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 have made clear

there are absolutely no plans to

delay the start of chemotherapy

treatment or reduce the number of

cycles given to cancer patients.

What Simon Stephens has said is

happening in the NHS in relation to

this is over the past three years

highest cancer survival rates ever,

latest survival figures show an

estimated more than 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

stroke than France and Germany and

when our closest match for cancer

survival as Chile and Poland, is it

not time to act on calls from across

this House and backed 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. We need

to continue looking at the national

health service and continuing to

ensure we improve the performance in

a variety of areas.

And the NHS remained firmly

on the agenda later in the afternoon

when Labour used an opposition

debate to highlight

the strain winter was placing

on the health service.

It was the first chance MPs had

to questions the Health Secretary

since the reshuffle,

when he'd not only held on to his

job, but extended it

to encompass social care.

The Shadow Health Secretary said

the NHS was suffering from a winter

crisis that was

"entirely preventable".

This is not just a winter crisis.

This is an all-around year funding

crisis. A year around staffing

crisis and social care crisis and

the deer health inequality crisis,

manufactured in Downing Street by

this government. Isn't the truth

that doctors and nurses have lost

confidence in him? Patients have

lost confidence in him? The Prime

Minister in seem to have lost

confidence in him? He fights for his

own job but he won't 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 going to be

postponed and no one wants to

minimise the distress that it

causes, but what happened last year

and what has happened in previous

winters is that operations have been

cancelled at the last moment and

that is much more distressing and it

is much more challenging for

hospitals to plan around that said

the decision was taken this year to

do it in a much more planned way and

we actually hope that overall we

will see fewer operations cancelled

at the last moment.

And he defended the government

from accusations of under-funding.

We spent 9.9% of our GDP on health,

that is 1% above the EU average and

about the same as the EU 15, the

Western countries. We want to spend

more so this is what we have been

doing, in England from 2011 funding

went up by 15.6%. In Wales Labour

chose to only increase it by 8%.

This motion is about money and I

just want to conclude by saying

this, when it comes to NHS funding,

Labour give the speeches but

conservatives give the cash.

This

government is putting 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 this is

a particularly tough winter because

there has been an outbreak of flu on

top of a bad freeze. I would point

for those of you who think the worst

is passed that the flu season goes

until March and at the moment this

is an outbreak, it isn't an

epidemic, it is an outbreak. But it

comes on top of underlying pressures

and obviously we see right across

the four nations that this is

involved staff having to really, as

I said, go above and beyond the call

of duty.

The money they came in the

budget was too little too late. It

is really hard as a commissioner and

a provider to spend that money when

you get it at the last minute

because you have to get people to

come into work in order to do work

to do -- to spend the money. If the

money had come earlier than they

would have been able to put in place

better contingencies.

Since 1984I

cannot remember a winter when there

was not talk of pressure, we have to

understand this is not a new

phenomenon. I remember particularly

the bad winter of 2009, and

actually, to be fair, the very

positive way in which the then

opposition approaches and helped the

government at the time, in the

interests of not

politicising and westernising the

issue and it is a pity we haven't

seen the same repeated.

One of the

real problems or the real absences I

have seen is any acknowledgement

from ministers about the huge

knock-on effect rescheduling a whole

month 's worth of operations will

have. It will simple make patients

already on the waiting list have to

wait even longer and it will be

very, very difficult to bring 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.

You're watching Wednesday in

Parliament, with me, Mandy Baker.

Now the Chief Executive

of the energy regulator Ofgem has

admitted the organisation should

have done better for

vulnerable consumers.

Dermot Nolan was given

something of a roasting

by the Commons business committee.

Can you just explain to me how you

think the price cap will help

vulnerable custard to switch?

By

itself it will not help them to

switch.

Warble of gem do to make

sure that they do have adequate

protections for vulnerable

customers?

I would say there are

three answers to that. First is they

will have a basic level of price

protection. It strikes me that

standard variable, vulnerable

customers on standard variable are

now paying some of the highest

prices in the market and a price cap

will reduce their prices and offer

them direct protection. The second

point would be in general as we go

forward, and I think it was said by

the CM a panel before Christmas as

well, we will attempt to promoting

gauge route and specifically attempt

to promoting gauge meant for

vulnerable customers and thirdly we

have a variety of other protections

including the vulnerability

principle that every supplier in the

market must treat its vulnerable

customers fairly.

Given that you

accept a high proportion of

vulnerable customers are being

failed by the current system, isn't

that a failure of engagement and the

failure of regulation by off gem?

I

think it is a problem and I accept

that point we could have done better

and we should have done better on

vulnerable customers. We put in

place principles for vulnerability

relatively recently which will give

a strong level of protection.

Given

that you accept you have a statutory

duty to protect the vulnerable

customers, do you think that you

have effectively admitted that you

have failed them to date? I think we

have not done as well as we could

have. I fully accept that.

You are

the single most important player in

the market because extraordinary

powers as a 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 that?

I apologise if I seem

passive, I honestly do not feel

passive. I said before that I wished

we'd moved earlier in putting price

caps in.

What lessons have you taken

from that and how has it changed

your behaviour?

We're rolling up our

sleeves very strongly at the moment

and have been doing so in the last

year. Since the CMA finished in

terms of bringing forward a price

cap for vulnerable customers which

is at the limit of the powers that

we have.

You just admitted that you

wished you'd acted earlier and the

consequence has been a vulnerable

customers have paid much more money

than they should have done.

I accept

we should have moved earlier on

vulnerability.

Due apologise to

those consumers?

I do.

Dermot Nolan also told

the committee that, if Parliament

passed the necessary legislation

by the end of July, an energy cap

could come into effect by Christmas.

Labour has 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,

promising the government more

than £3 billion in premiums.

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 aims

and objectives for rail franchising.

These were to encourage

a flourishing, competitors passenger

rail market which secures high

performing value for money services

for passengers and taxpayers

while driving cost effectiveness.

Madam Deputy Speaker,

it's 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.

The Virgin Stagecoach didn't deliver

and defaulted on their contract,

and the Secretary of State has given

them a gift.

I'll give way.

I'm very grateful to my honourable

friend for giving way.

Given, on the East Coast Main Line,

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 ran 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 idealogically demanding

that anyone could bid to run it

but not the company that had

done it so successfully?

My right honourable friend has made

an absolutely perfect point,

and it's a theme 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 the operator defaulted

and taken the contract back

into the public sector.

If a company defaults,

it doesn't deserve the contract.

That way, there'd 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 you might also say it

would be unparliamentary of me

to call him hypocritical,

so I would call him personally

hypocritical, but I've 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's absolutely untrue,

and with which they make inaccurate

claims based on a lack

of facts on subjects

they appear 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 a committee led by

the independent peer Lord Burns

to reduce the numbers

from 800 to 600.

At Question Time, Mrs May

was urged to show restraint.

Would it not be an 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, 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 Steel.

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 in 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

on the basis of two out, one in,

as on a 15-year term limit,

probably from the last general

election, we will abide by that.

Will the government

agree 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 pick 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,

the Leader of the Lib Dems?

What she said was 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 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 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 resign,

this would all be resolved!

I think that question,

if I may say so, from my noble

friend is 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,

in credit to them, they actually

recognised this join 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 Dems 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 whole of the proposals

of the Lord Speaker's Committee

are dependent on the Prime Minister

accepting the proposal

and the principle that is inherent

right through their report that it

must be two out before

they=re can be one in.

Will the ministers on the front

bench make that clear

to the Prime Minister?

And if she's not prepared to respect

that, how can we expect anything

to come from this exercise?

I thought he struck a slightly

different tone in his wind-up speech

to that of his noble friend,

Lord Newby.

Winding up for the Liberal

Democrats, despite what the noble

Lord has just said, he referred

to Burns as a temporary

expedient, a process

appropriate for the membership

of the gentleman's club,

an incestuous process that

runs the risk of leading

to our abolition.

That doesn't sound to me

like wholehearted support for Burns!

The understated view of Lord Young.

The House of Lords has voted

for a proposal requiring

the Government to proceed

with the second stage

of the Leveson Inquiry.

Stage two would examine unlawful

conduct by media organisations

and the relationship

between journalists and the police.

The Government opposed

the amendment, but it was approved

by 238 votes to 209.

The Brexit debate of the day

concerned the return of the EU

Withdrawal Bill to the Commons next

week and, more particularly,

Clause 11 of it.

This is all about the restriction

on the ability of the devolved

legislatures to modify

retained EU law.

A Conservative raised the issue of

LCMs or Legislative Consent Motions.

The minister will be aware that

personal assurances were given to me

and colleagues that the government

would bring forward amendments

to clause 11 of the Repeal Bill,

and it has failed to do so.

Can he assure me that the government

remains committed to working

with the devolved administrations

to find a form of words that will be

agreed and allow LCM to be passed?

I can certainly give

my honourable friend

that commitment and,

when I spoke to the Deputy First

Minister of Scotland last night,

I said that we were disappointed

that we had not been able to reach

agreement with the devolved

administrations on an acceptable

form of words for such an amendment

but that I was committed now

to intensifying our discussions

with the devolved administrations

to seek to reach an agreed form

of words in time for proceedings

in the House of Lords.

The Scottish Nationalists

returned to the issue

at Prime Minister's Questions,

quoting Paul Masterton.

The government's EU withdrawal bill

is quite simply not fit for purpose

and must be changed.

These are not my words.

These are the words

of the honourable member

for East Renfrewshire.

Does the Prime Minister

agree with her colleague

that we must amend clause 11,

which is nothing more

than a power grab from Scotland?

The honourable gentleman knows

full well that we have

said that we will look

to improve clause 11.

Indeed, if he was in his place

when my right honourable friend,

the Chancellor, the Duchy

of Lancaster, was answering

questions earlier, he made it very

clear that we continue to look

to amend clause 11.

We are, however, and this

is something I discussed

with the First Minister before

Christmas, we are looking to work

with the devolved administrations

to ensure that we put the right

frameworks in place so that,

when we come to bring

any amendment forward,

it is being donw in

possible way in the interests

of all concerned.

I thought that had been

accepted by the SNP,

but we will be looking to bring

forward amendments in the Lords.

Ian Blackford.

Mr Speaker, that simply

is not good enough!

The Secretary of State for Scotland

promised a power bonanza

for Scotland and that,

crucially, amendments would be

tabled ahead of next week's debate.

Yesterday, it was revealed that no

amendments would be lodged.

The Tories always promise Scotland

everything and deliver nothing.

The Prime Minister

has one last chance.

Will she assure the House

that these amendments will be

tabled ahead of next

week, as promised?

The SNP say they want to work

with us on the future frameworks,

and we are doing exactly that.

They say they want clause

11 amended, and we are

doing exactly that.

My right honourable friend

is intensifying his discussions

with the Scottish Government

and indeed with the Executive

in Wales as part of this.

We will be bringing forward

amendments, but the honourable

gentleman says that this

is a government that never

delivers for Scotland.

£2 billion extra as a

result of the budget.

That's delivering for Scotland!

On a scale between 1-10,

how does the Prime Minister

think her Brexit is going,

with ten being all going perfectly,

we know what we want to achieve

and we know how to get it,

and one being chaotic cluelessness?

I know what I'd give

the Prime Minister.

What would she give herself?

Can I say to the honourable

gentleman that I think...

At this point, out of camera shot,

Pete Wishart held up a banner

which read "nul point".

Let me just say to the honourable

gentleman, who I've known

for a long time, I think,

when he comes to reflect

on his conduct, he'll know he can

do better than that.

He can do better than that.

The Prime Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Can I say to the honourable

gentleman that I think anybody

who saw the success we had

in negotiating phase one of Brexit

and getting that sufficient

progress will say that,

actually, this is a government that

knows what it's doing and is getting

on with the job and is doing well?

But she wouldn't put a figure on it.

Well, during the course of the day,

there were many words

of congratulation for the various

ministers who gained or moved

jobs in the reshuffle.

One of the main talking points

on Monday 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

very brief achievement.

And I also want to congratulate

the Secretary of State

for his superb stewardship

of the Conservative Party.

There's never been a finer record.

No elections lost, no major

scandals, and I think he's

maintained his membership of around

70,000, so not bad for 27 seconds'

work, so all the best to him.

Chris Grayling - the mayfly

of Conservative chairmen.

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

So, for now, from me,

Mandy Baker, goodbye.