| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Parliamentary Procedures
36. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has further to reform the procedures of the House; and if he will make a statement. [683]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House agreed to wide-ranging reforms in its procedures earlier this month. Proposals for further reforms affecting Scottish and Welsh parliamentary business will be announced shortly. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific proposal in mind, he might like to draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
Mr. O'Brien: Will the Lord President of the Council consider allowing Members to debate significant and topical current issues, such as the "Panorama" interview with the Princess of Wales? Could we have the same facilities in the House as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had on television debating that issue? If such facilities cannot be made available, what action will be taken against the Minister?
Mr. Newton: That question appears to be an attempt to rerun a number of exchanges that took place with me at business questions and, perhaps more importantly, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions last Thursday. As I said then, I have nothing to add to what has been said.
37. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to improve the efficiency of parliamentary procedures. [684]
Mr. Newton: In addition to the procedural reforms to which I referred in my previous answer, we believe that the legislative work of Parliament can be improved by the publication of draft Bills when timing and other considerations make it practicable and appropriate. That practice has already been adopted for a number of Bills in the past two years. In the present Session, we intend to publish draft Bills on adoption, building societies and merchant shipping.
Mr. Flynn: The long-established procedures of the House make it clear that we are unable to discuss the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or the members of the royal family, except under a substantive motion. Will the Leader of the House make time available at least once a year so that we can discuss the future of the royal family and the funding of the monarchy?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise you to learn, Madam Speaker, that I have no plans to proceed in that manner.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his recent answer to me in a written question that he is in favour of retaining the use of opera hats for points of order during Divisions? Will he take steps to ensure that there is more than one hat in the Chamber--perhaps the Clerk to the House could keep a hat for the convenience of Members?
Mr. Newton: I think that I made some reference to that matter in an earlier exchange with my hon. Friend. If I remember rightly, I suggested that that was a matter that the Procedure Committee, the distinguished Chairman of which I am glad to see in his place, might care to consider.
Mr. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House accept that, while we welcome the move to publish Bills in advance, it would be better if the Government were agreeable to having Select Committee hearings on many Bills? Does he realise that the Procedure Committee originally recommended that that should become commonplace on most Bills? Two experiments were carried out and the process then fell into disuse. Will the Government reinstitute the process and ensure that we have Select Committee hearings on most Bills to improve scrutiny in the House?
Mr. Newton: Just as I said in respect of the draft Bills in my speech last Wednesday, all those matters need to be considered carefully in relation to particular cases. A number of other factors have to be taken into account, including the need to pass legislation speedily, the degree of controversy and therefore the likelihood of whether such proceedings would be helpful. I note the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Given the success of the Jopling experiment and the changes that have been incorporated into Standing Orders, the comments that the Leader of the House made at the end of the debate on the Queen's Speech and the fact that this Question Time is always very brief and there are many substantive arguments, such as that just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), would it not be a good idea for us to hold a proper, well-informed debate on many of the suggestions that have been made by the Procedure Committee of ways in which we may make longer-term, more fundamental changes to our procedures so as to make Parliament work more effectively and efficiently?
Mr. Newton: As always, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive approach that she has brought to those issues, which has helped the whole House to make progress. I will therefore examine her suggestion carefully.
I should perhaps draw attention to the fact that the House has had a fairly substantial opportunity to debate procedural matters very recently, in the debate on the Jopling proposals, but I would not rule out the hon. Lady's suggestion. Specifically, there would be some merit in bringing the attention of a wider audience to the progress that we have made, not least in respect of the publication of draft legislation.
National Blood Service
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the organisation of the national blood service in England.
I have today accepted revised proposals from the National Blood Authority for the future of the blood service. The details of those changes are set out in a policy document, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
The blood service is an essential part of the NHS. Modern medicine relies on the ready availability of blood and blood products, and the national blood service has an enviable reputation for providing a service that is safe, reliable and efficient. The changes that I am announcing today build on that reputation.
In this country, the blood service is based on a gift. Blood is given by voluntary donors, who neither seek nor receive payment. The blood service accepts two obligations in return. First, it accepts an obligation to provide donors with a service that is safe and convenient. Secondly, it accepts an obligation to ensure that their gift is used as effectively as possible.
The changes that I am announcing today will mean an improved service to donors. New information technology will mean that donor sessions are better planned; higher standards will be set for the premises that are used; and greater use of mobile units will allow for more local donor sessions. Those changes will be underwritten by the publication today of a blood donors charter, which will set out the standards that donors are entitled to expect, as well as a new complaints procedure to operate if those standards are not met.
Today's changes will also mean a better service to hospitals. Every hospital will continue to have its own blood bank. The blood service will continue to supply those hospital banks from its own network of 15 NBS blood banks. In addition, it will open two more facilities, in south Lincolnshire and central London. The addition of those two new facilities will, for the first time, allow the blood service to give every NHS hospital the assurance that emergency hospital supplies can be delivered within a maximum of two hours.
Furthermore, the blood service is increasing the resources that it commits to research and development. It has for the first time appointed a national co-ordinator of research and development, and it is developing centres of research excellence at Cambridge and Bristol. An extra
£1 million will be devoted to ensuring that the latest developments in transfusion medicine are made available to hospital consultants.
It is important that every consultant whose practice relies on the effectiveness of the national blood service should be confident that it is able to meet his or her requirements. I have therefore decided to establish a national user group to monitor the service provided to hospitals by the blood service. It will report to me annually, and its reports will be published. I am delighted to inform the House that Professor Edward Gordon-Smith, professor of haematology at St. George's hospital, London, has agreed to be its first chairman.
As the House knows, I attach great importance to minimising unnecessary administrative and support costs in the NHS. When the National Blood Authority assumed responsibility in April 1994, the structure of the blood service reflected its history as the responsibility of 14 regional health authorities. There were 13 administrative centres, with computer systems that were not compatible with one another and considerable duplication of both administrative and specialist clinical support services. Those arrangements made it difficult to move blood stocks from one region of the country to another when the need arose.
The changes that I am announcing today will simplify those structures. A new computer system will allow blood stocks to be managed on a national basis, specialist clinical support services will be reorganised to make more effective use of the skills available and the administrative functions now carried out in 13 administrative centres will be concentrated at three centres in Leeds, Bristol and London. Those changes will release £7.5 million for patient care elsewhere in the NHS.
Furthermore, the organisation of processing and testing of blood supplies on a regional basis has led to a significant overcapacity and waste of resources. I have therefore accepted the NBA's proposals to concentrate processing and testing work in fewer centres. That work will cease in Lancaster by March 1996, in Oxford, Cambridge and Liverpool by December 1997, and in Plymouth by March 1998. Concentration of the work at the remaining centres will leave the blood service with sufficient capacity to meet projected demand, and will release a further £2.5 million for patient care elsewhere in the NHS.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |