|

May 2009

Topical Questions 11th May 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Given that the Secretary of State has talked about helping the disadvantaged and given that these are topical questions, may I ask what message he has for the disadvantaged victims of Equitable Life, who are the subject of repeated pleas by the ombudsman in unprecedented critical reports?

James Purnell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said we will make ex gratia payments and also apologise where appropriate. As he also knows, the problem happened under both Governments and we have taken steps to put it right. If he has further proposals, he should say how he would fund them.

Speaker's Statement 11th May 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you have your discussions later this week, will you please discuss with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner the advisability of bringing in an implement that would be used in virtually every other capital city—the water cannon?

Mr. Speaker: We have enough problems without water cannons; we do not need water cannons.

Out of Hours Primary Care 12th May 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): But is it not elementary that the best out-of-hours services are provided by doctors who know their patients and their records? Should we not have a concerted campaign to try to ensure that, wherever practicable, out-of-hours services are conducted by family practitioners who normally look after those patients?

Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The vast majority of out-of-hours services up and down the country are still provided by local GPs, whether working in co-operatives or social enterprises, or for private organisations that are contracted or commissioned by the primary care trust. The difference between the system now and the previous system is that they are not compelled to do so. The problem with the previous system was that GPs often felt overtired: mistakes were made and the service was patchy and dangerous in many places. The Conservative idea of going back to the bad old days of forcing all GPs to provide out-of-hours-services would be an absolute disaster.

Gender Reassignment (Equality Bill) 14th May 2009

Hugh Bayley: Some transgendered people seek gender reassignment while others do not, but they all face a potential risk of discrimination at work or elsewhere. The Bill makes clear that protection is given to transsexuals, but do the Government intend all transgendered people, including those who do not seek gender reassignment, to be protected?

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): God preserve us!

Hugh Bayley: You do not need preservation.

Business of the House 14th May 2009

Ms Harman: I know that this answer will be disappointing and annoying for many hon. Members who, like all of us, are very concerned about those people who lost out because of the mismanagement by Equitable Life over a number of years and because that mismanagement was not addressed properly by the authorities with responsibility for regulating Equitable Life. That is why, following the ombudsman's serious, weighty and important report, which took four years to compile, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to the House to make an oral statement. She said that even though no legal obligation to compensate has been ordered by the court—that is, despite the fact that it is clear that there is no legal obligation, and that was the subject of a court case—

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): There is a moral obligation.

Ms Harman: A legal obligation and a moral obligation are different. I am simply stating the position in relation to a legal obligation. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that, notwithstanding the fact that there was no legal obligation, the Government apologised for the regulatory failures and believed that there should be financial recompense for those who had lost out. The question is how we establish a scheme to pay out to those many people who have lost out. Sir John Chadwick, who is a High Court judge, is establishing that scheme. He will shortly produce an interim report on how it will be framed, and at that point the matter will be brought back to the House for Members' information.

Speaker's Statement 18th May 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The times that we are living in are unprecedented, as far as Parliament is concerned. What is at stake is the institution of Parliament and its integrity. May I just say that I very much hope that you will take account of the fact that profound concern is voiced in the motion that is to go down tomorrow? May I ask you to bear in mind that the condition of the House today is rather like the condition of the country at the time of the Norway debate, and could you reflect on that?

Identity Cards 18th May 2009

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Can the Home Secretary not acknowledge that, whatever the precise figure, it is an enormous one, and that the scheme is never going to happen because no sane Government will pursue it? So why does she not chuck it?

Jacqui Smith: There are already people in this country who have identity cards in their hands and in their wallets. We have already issued 30,000 identity cards to foreign nationals, and by November this year that figure will be 75,000. The hon. Gentleman might want to wish the scheme away, but it exists in this country now. I believe, given the level of support that we have consistently maintained for identity cards, that a sane Government will recognise the benefits to individuals of being able to find a more secure, more convenient way of proving their identity, which many of us have to do often in our lives. When we put that alongside the security that comes from being able to tie our identity to ourselves in a modern world, we can recognise the benefits. Also, as I pointed out to the House either at the previous Home Office questions or the one before, the idea that there are large sums of money to be saved by doing away with the scheme is completely fallacious. Anyone who suggests that will have a black hole not only in their plans for security but in their financial plans.