| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I congratulate the Secretary of State on his very positive statement this afternoon. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that breast cancer screening was a matter of life and death. Indeed it is.
The assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has given, following the failures in Exeter and Canterbury, will provide great reassurance to the women of this country, who rightly expect the national health service to provide them with the quality service that we all want, wherever we sit in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman announced a change in the system. Will he assure me that the new system, which I support, will be continually monitored to ensure that no further failures occur?
Mr. Dobson:
We cannot ensure that no further failures occur in the clinics. Failures will occur from time to time, because it is not a precise science. We need a system that
Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts over the years to sustain the national health service and work for top-quality services.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport):
In examining a tragic local problem, the Secretary of State has also identified much more comprehensive difficulties. It is clear from what he said that he intends to devote considerably more resources to, and place greater emphasis on, breast cancer screening. I welcome the extra resources for that area, where the staff involved are highly skilled. It is a stressful area, as I know because my wife works in it as a doctor. What extra costs will fall on the NHS, and from which budget will they come?
Mr. Dobson:
At this moment, I am not promising any extra resources. I said that I want to change the system so that the present resources are deployed to greater effect and so that we produce top quality. If, in the end, people make a convincing case that they cannot do that without additional resources, I will be prepared to listen and see what I can do--but they will have to make a convincing case. As I said earlier, badly run places frequently cost more than well-run ones.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
The terms of the Secretary of State's statement will give rise to obvious concerns about the quality and standards of breast cancer screening throughout the country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to headlines in the report. Will he outline the proportionate difficulty experienced around the country by referring to the evidence in the report, rather than to the headlines derived from the evidence? In that way, those listening to his statement--as hon. Members will have done carefully--will be able to see the matter in its proper proportions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the abolition of the internal market and the centralisation of quality assurance services. Does he agree that, for the time being, it remains the responsibility of purchasers to obtain those services on behalf of patients? Does it make sense for quality assurance to be separated from the purchasing function, as, to my mind, quality assurance and purchasing form part of the same function?
Mr. Dobson:
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, there is a basic philosophical and management division of opinion. Unless I am misreading the Calman-Hine report, it suggests that it is probably best to separate the quality assurance function from the purchasing function. However, I am prepared to look carefully at that matter to determine whether the opposite case is more convincing.
In fact, quality assurance was not centralised; it was first balkanised and then virtually abandoned, so that there was no one in the system--nationally, regionally or locally--who had the responsibility, resources and authority to do anything about quality assurance. The split for breast cancer screening was introduced with the abolition of the regional health authorities.
WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
Lords amendments considered.
Lords amendment: No. 1, insert the following new clause--
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael):
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government are not prepared to allow exemptions to the general handgun prohibition proposed by the Bill. We considered very carefully before introducing the Bill, and reconsidered over the summer, whether there was any way in which we could allow pistol target shooting to continue for both disabled and able-bodied shooters. We concluded that there was not. Small-calibre pistols can be as lethal as those used by the killers at Dunblane and at Hungerford, and, in most cases, they would be just as easy to conceal by someone who is determined to perpetrate an outrage.
We have not avoided the Bill's consequences. We have made it clear from the start what the effect will be, and we have made no attempt to conceal that effect. The way in which the Bill affects disabled shooters is a regrettable consequence, but we thought that a total handgun ban was necessary in the interests of public safety. We accept that the exceptions to the ban that are already in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which are largely occupational, should remain. We do not accept, however, that any other group of shooters should be exempt from the ban.
During the Bill's passage, an equally plausible case has been made for other groups of shooters. There is no reason why any one of those groups is any more deserving than the others, and to allow exceptions for them all would make a nonsense of the handgun ban.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
I may have misheard what my hon. Friend the Minister said,
Mr. Michael:
My hon. Friend is right to say that I did not suggest that disabled shooters pose a threat to public safety. However, exemptions that would allow handgun ownership among members of the public, whether disabled or able-bodied, would drive a coach and horses through the Bill and pose a danger to public safety. That is precisely the point that I made. The point is not about individuals but about handgun availability and possession by members of the public.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
I should like to make a slightly different point from that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Did not the Minister just say that, in this matter, no group of people is more deserving than another? Is he not incorrect in saying that? Surely we must be concerned for the group mentioned by the hon. Member for Erdington: disabled people.
Pistol shooting is probably the only meaningful sport in which disabled people can participate and have any real social life. Will the Minister not examine that point very seriously, and agree that disabled shooters form a group that is very deserving, and more deserving than most other groups, if not all others?
Mr. Michael:
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, at issue is not the characteristics of the group of individuals but the possibility of creating an exemption that will leave handguns in the possession of individual members of the public. There is a danger.
In the last year for which full information is available, there were 398 incidents of theft of legally held handguns. In that year, therefore, there was more than one incident per day--sometimes involving more than one weapon--of guns going from legal to illegal possession. That figure should give pause for thought to anyone who thinks that it is safe to leave handguns in the possession of members of the public.
I make it clear that there is no attempt in the Bill to disadvantage disabled shooters particularly. Disabled shooters will be treated in the same manner as any other target shooters, and will still be able to shoot air weapons, shotguns or rifles.
That the matter of North Wales and the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.--[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |