Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have every sympathy with what the hon. Lady says and absolutely agree with the principle of trying to bring more women into engineering. Clearly that is very much in our interests, by supporting the further rebalancing of the economy and the growth in manufacturing. It has been pursued by successive Governments. I remember working as a civil servant, way back in 1980, on the Young Engineers campaign, and Women into Science and Engineering was established at that point too. That was 34 years ago and we have still not succeeded. We must ensure that engineering is at the forefront of careers advice, that there is support for the right courses and, indeed, that engineering role models are made available to young women.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on the independence of think-tank charities? Last year the Institute for Public Policy Research took up to £40,000 in donations from the TUC and then published a report calling for—wait for it—more trade union power. It looks more like a sock puppet than an independent think-tank charity.

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. He might want look for opportunities to raise the matter himself, perhaps in an Adjournment debate. In any case, I think that it is an important subject for all of us to be aware of. Wherever we are engaged in public policy making, I hope that it will be evidence-based and objective. One of the Nolan principles is objectivity. That should be as true for those who seek to influence policy as it is for those who make it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady was able to celebrate international women’s day with women in her constituency. She raises an important issue. Some of the most damaging effects of objectification of women are evident in some of the violence against women and girls, which of course was the subject of the further action plan that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on Saturday. We do not have the immediate prospect of a debate on these issues, but I hope that she recognises that in the sense I have outlined we are addressing some of the abuses that result.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May we have a debate on banking? In the light of recent events, the House should particularly explore whether The Co-operative Group has

“the ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship”

claimed in 2012 by the Leader of the Opposition or is simply a very badly run institution with appalling corporate governance?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right; many Members will be very disappointed by this situation, particularly given that, not very long ago, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the ethics and responsibility of the Co-op—it is a pity that it came to all this. Many of us have a sense that we are having to deal with so many of the abuses in the banking system in the past. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 will be very important in that respect, and I hope that some of the principles that this Government are putting in place for future conduct in the banking system will be fully embraced in the governance of the Co-op.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but I think that, in this respect, my hon. Friend has not understood how these issues have often worked. I shall not go through all the amendments in detail, but many of those that he says are coming back to us as Government amendments were tabled as Government amendments on Report in recognition of the character of the preceding debate and consultation in Committee. Members of the House of Lords often raised issues in Committee. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Gardiner did magnificent work in determining where it was appropriate for the Government to make amendments in recognition of the concerns expressed. [Interruption.] I do not think that Opposition Members should sneer at the idea of the Government tabling amendments in the other place in order to bring them back here to meet the concerns, which is nothing other than a proper process of scrutiny.

There are a lot of amendments in the group, so let me set out the Government view of the main ones, starting with those with which we disagree. It is important for Members to understand where the burden of the debate lies.

Lords amendment 108 seeks to exclude staff costs associated with any member of staff of a third party from the calculation of controlled expenditure for transport, press conferences, organised media events, public rallies and public events. When Parliament passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it believed that the inclusion of staff costs was an important element of ensuring a transparent regulatory regime. As Labour Members will recall from their time in government, that Act included staff costs in the calculation of controlled expenditure for non-party campaigners. The decision was taken on the basis that where a third party undertakes other activities besides political campaigning and enters into political campaigning, its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My understanding is that our election agents would count as part of our costs when we stand for election, as would hiring a phone bank, so why should there not be full transparency in connection with the staffing costs in this case?

[Mr Lansley]

There is a distinction between the handling of staff costs for political parties and their handling for non-party campaigning. That was the point I was making: in so far as political parties have permanent staffing costs, they are not necessarily included, but it was determined in the 2000 Act that we should aim to identify the additional costs. [Interruption.] They are included in individual constituency calculations, but not in the total spending limits for political parties, as applied under PPERA on a national basis. Otherwise, if a political party had more staff, it would automatically have less money available to spend at the time of the election. It is essentially about parity of arms. Where third parties are concerned, except in relation to the election period, almost by definition they do not have permanent expenditure on party political campaigning, so what they spend at election time needs to be calculated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I shall deal with Lords amendment 99 later. What I will say now is that the amendment that we are discussing would leave the spending limit in Northern Ireland as it is under existing legislation, not least because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House went to Northern Ireland to meet organisations there and discuss these matters.

The third party spending limit allows for a great deal of activity. That is partly because much electioneering activity can be now conducted by means of new technology at a much lower cost than used to be the case, but in any event a third party could print 40 million leaflets, it could take out a dozen front-page advertisements in a national newspaper, or it could make 780,000 telephone calls from a professional phone bank. That, I think, demonstrates that the limits proposed by Lords amendment 20 are proportionate.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants to increase the amounts. Given that elections are meant to take place between political parties, why are the limits so extensive, and why have the Government allowed them to be so high?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the spending limits for political parties, or—

[Charlie Elphicke]

My point is this. Should not the third-party interventions be lower, given that elections are meant to take place between political parties?

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am trying to get to the argument, as I understood it, of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and his point about the public perception that where Members of the House are in receipt of money from outside organisations, they are in the control of those organisations. I do not think that is true and I want to know what the motion is trying to achieve. It does not ensure that Members spend any given amount of time working with their constituents. A paid directorship or consultancy for one or two hours a week would be ruled out by this motion, but if a Member was engaged in travelling the world, for example, to undertake speaking engagements on behalf of some other organisation, which took them away for weeks—[Interruption.] Apparently in the view of Opposition Members that is absolutely fine and would not interfere with their ability to look after their constituents at all.

The motion does not stop Members having second jobs; it simply tries to stop them having certain kinds of second jobs, which is rather bizarre. It imposes no limit on the amount of money Members can earn outside politics; it simply wants to stop them earning money in particular ways.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend has set out how what he considers to be the conflict issue has not been made into a real issue by the Opposition; it is just a hypothetical issue. There is also the issue of time. What is his view of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? He said:

“I devote around 60-70 hours to my duties as an MP, both national and constituency-related…After allowing for sleep, and family/social activities, there are another 30-40 hours available for my other work.”

[Mr Lansley]

My view is that as a result of the reforms, Members are accountable through the transparent registration of interests, which includes the amount of time they spend on those interests. They are accountable to their constituents through the register in a transparent way, and their constituents will judge them. The implication of what the hon. Member for Hemsworth was saying is that none of that has caused any problem and all is fine.

David Miliband was a director of Sunderland football club and engaged in other consultancies, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) may also be engaged in activities. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is a consultant to a company, which apparently is absolutely fine, as is the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who is in his place. I refer to those right hon. Members because apparently it is fine for them to do those things and it does not impinge on their constituents or responsibilities, yet the hon. Member for Hemsworth wants to stop them doing that. How absurd is that?

Lobbying

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important point. My personal view is that we should not be doing that. I do not wish to engage you directly in this debate, Mr Speaker, other than by way of approbation. I thought it was absolutely right that you made your proposal in the light of recent press allegations. In particular, it was absolutely right that you considered the question of the number of passes made available to sponsors of all-party parliamentary groups and asked the Committee on Standards to consider the matter. I had planned to refer to that in a moment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

As I am referring to this point, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I want to underline my support for the idea that no lobbyist should have a parliamentary pass. In particular, nine Labour MPs sponsor parliamentary passes for union lobbyists. Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that, and will he say, here and now, that it is wrong?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear, along with my colleagues, that parliamentary passes should be made available for the purpose of supporting Members of Parliament in their parliamentary responsibilities, not for the benefit of third parties. It is not to conflate unrelated issues for the Government to focus on this issue of third-party influence in the political system. The process must be transparent. If third parties are involved, as inevitably they will be—that includes trade union relationships with the Labour party, which are absolutely fine—it must be transparent and not convert what should be a transparent third-party relationship into the undisclosed control of, or influence over, parliamentarians.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I know my hon. Friend has written to Department for Education Ministers—I will encourage them to respond more fully than I can now—but he knows that we have taken steps to protect funding in school budgets with a minimum funding guarantee. Announcements were made only last week, I believe, on further simplifying and protecting schools in the context of the complex structure of school funding we inherited from Labour. I hope we can go further in that regard after the spending review.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May we have a debate on tax reform? Hon. Members are concerned about the shameless tax avoidance by the likes of Google and Amazon, and, we now learn, by the Labour party. They need to change, but we need to consider what we can do to fix things for the long term.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is perfectly obvious that we need to ensure that we actively enforce the current legislation. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has set out to do so. Something like—[Interruption.] Thank you. If I am at all disorderly, Mr Speaker will tell me; I do not need the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to do so. HMRC has secured something like £23 billion in total through improved enforcement measures and up to £2 billion in revenue in relation to contentious current issues such as transfer pricing in large companies. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should not only enforce the law as it is, but look continuously to ensure that it is clear and ensures that everybody makes their contribution. Tax rates can be lower if everybody is under the law and pays the tax they are due to pay and the appropriate level in relation to their activities.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May we have a debate on unemployment? In my constituency, Dover and Deal have seen unemployment rocketing over the last Parliament. The latest quarterly claimant count figures are welcome, showing a decrease of 5%. That is a great result, but we should look at what more we can do to win the war on unemployment.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In that context, support for the Work programme is terrifically important. It is an unprecedented campaign to help the longer-term unemployed to get back into work. Encouraging as those employment figures were, we know that a substantial number of people have been out of work for some considerable time. The Work programme is directed to that, and 693,000 people are already accessing support through it.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend and I are very clear that, as I explained—really quite carefully, I thought—it is customary in another place for some of the issues that have been debated to be reflected in amendments on Report, and that is what will happen.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the principles underpinning the Bill are that the NHS is and will remain free for all patients; that a person’s GP knows them and their needs best; and that although we are spending billions of pounds more than Labour would have done, every pound needs to work as hard as possible if the NHS is to be modern and provide care for the future?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right, not least on his point that the coalition Government are investing in the NHS, with real-terms increases each year. That contrasts with the Labour Government in Wales, who in the course of this Parliament intend to reduce spending on the NHS by more than 6% in real terms.

NHS Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I had better give way now, and then that will be the end of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he has been very generous with interventions today. I am proud of what this Government have been doing for the NHS. Indeed, we can see what happens when we protect NHS spending and when we have a cancer drugs fund. We do not need a risk register to see the difference that that makes; we can just look at Wales, where waiting times are rising and cancer patients are being denied access to life-saving drugs and having to wait longer. That is the benefit of the Conservative policies in England.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is safely in Dover, a long way from Wales, when he says these things, but I go to Wales and he is absolutely right. It is staggering. The right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues can stand there and say, “Oh, well, you know, it’s only”—what is it?—“8% of patients who are not being seen within 18 weeks.” In Wales it is 32% of patients who are not being seen—

NHS (Private Sector)

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It is not. The right hon. Gentleman, having been Secretary of State, ought to understand the difference between compulsory competitive tendering and any qualified provider. Under compulsory competitive tendering, it is the primary care trust that gets to choose who provides the service, but under any qualified provider it is patients who get to choose. One example is access to wheelchair services. Voluntary sector organisations, such as Whizz-Kidz, are setting out to provide a better service. From its point of view, that is not competitive tendering. Wherever Whizz-Kidz provides the service, patients in that area—[Interruption.] If he wants to have a conversation with other Members, he may by all means do so, but I will sit down.

I answered the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I am afraid that it proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between competitive tendering processes, which have been the stuff of primary care trusts—in the past it was they that decided who should provide services—and giving patients access to choice so that they can drive quality. Unlike competitive tendering, which was generally price-based tendering decided on cost and volume, under any qualified provider it is not about price, but about quality.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the provision of wheelchair services, which we have been looking at in Kent when considering how commissioning can be taken forward. Whizz-Kidz offers really great and radical ideas. Is it not the case that the Labour party would have condemned disabled people to the same standard-issue NHS wheelchairs rather than allowing them real choice across the spectrum?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely why on that basis, using the any qualified provider approach, the chief executive of the NHS can set out the ambition that a child who needs a wheelchair should get it in a day. In the past they would have to wait and then would not necessarily get the wheelchair they wanted, or in any reasonable time scale. This is about driving improvement and quality. Many NHS providers will respond positively to that and deliver the quality, but if they do not we ought to be in a position to believe that what really matters in the NHS is the quality of the service provided to patients. That used to be what the Labour party believed in, which I suppose was why its last manifesto, written when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, stated:

“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs.”

That is a complete description of what we are setting out to do. It is a description of the any qualified provider policy and something that he has now completely abandoned, and he has abandoned patients in the process. It is absurd.

The objective of the Bill and of the Government is simple: continuously to improve care for patients and the health and well-being of people in this country, and that includes improving the health of the poorest fastest, and to ensure that everyone, regardless of who or where they are, enjoys health outcomes that are as good as the very best in the world. That is what we are setting out to do.

The motion states that the private sector already plays an important role in providing that care. Indeed, once upon a time the Labour party was in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman said in May 2007:

“Now the private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate.”

Like my hon. Friends, I do not understand where he is coming from. The motion tries to face both ways, stating that Labour agrees with the private sector but also wants to have less of it. It agrees that the private sector can make a valuable contribution, but wants to stop it doing so. What matters to patients is the quality of care they receive, the experience of their care and the dignity and respect with which they are treated. Whether the hospital or community provider is operated by the NHS, a charity, a private company or a social enterprise is not the issue from the patient’s point of view. From our point of view, we should not make that the issue. The reason it will not matter is that, whoever is the provider of care, the values of the NHS—universal health care, paid for through general taxation, free and based on need, not ability to pay—will remain unchanged. No NHS patient pays for their care today; no patient will pay for their care in future under this Government. On that basis, I can absolutely restate what the Prime Minister said: under this Government and on our watch the NHS will not be privatised.

Reform of Social Care

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will know, local authorities were keen for many of the grants that we provided not to be ring-fenced in future, including the social care, public health and learning disability grants. We aim to give local government more flexibility, but, through the NHS, we are providing additional resources—in Bromley and elsewhere—to support preventive interventions that benefit both social care and the NHS, and I think that that will make a big difference in Bromley. As we know, however, all local authorities are, of necessity, having to seek greater efficiencies, and we are working with local government to identify where they can be delivered. There is still a dramatic variation between the costs of care services provided in different parts of the country.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

As we know, going into a home is long on cost but short on life expectancy. I particularly welcomed my right hon. Friend’s comments about greater prevention. What more can be done to promote access to—and promote in general—day care and respite care?

[Mr Lansley]

We have made specific additional provision to support respite care. I hope that people will be given more independence and support at home not only as a result of NHS support—the £648 million that will be provided this year is a great deal of money, which will substantially increase access to such facilities as community equipment, home adaptations, reablement and rehabilitation —but through, for instance, telehealth, which I mentioned in response to an earlier question. I think that we can transform the quality of care and health services provided at home.

NHS Future Forum

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The latest figures on the changes in staffing in the NHS since the general election have shown a reduction of 3,800 managers, an increase of 2,500 in the number of doctors and no reduction in the number of nurses.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In Dover and Deal, we have dynamic GPs, many of whom want to get involved in commissioning, but not every GP wants to do so. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no individual GP will be forced to be involved in the work of the commissioning group and that that was always the case under his reforms?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many GPs across the country understand that clinically led commissioning is the right thing to do, but they do not personally want to be involved in that process. There are, however, leaders who do, and leaders across the country have already come forward through pathfinder consortia and will be a basis on which we can create much greater clinical leadership across the service. The Future Forum was very clear that leadership from within the service, from doctors, nurses and other health professionals, will be instrumental in improving care in the future.

Future of the NHS

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The support for cancer networks will continue during the course of this year and the start of next year, but when the NHS commissioning board takes responsibility for commissioning, including the relationship with consortia, it will need to decide how to manage its commissioning responsibilities. However, as I have told my hon. Friend in the House previously, it is now looking—we will look at this over the coming months—at how it can use networks as a basis for having precisely the kind of commissioning structures we want, and it is my expectation that that would include cancer networks that are not only helpful for providers, but that tie together commissioners and providers in understanding the future strategy for cancer.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will give way again a little later, but first I want to make a couple of further points.

The House knows of my commitment to the NHS; Opposition Members know of that, too. They know that I have not spent seven and a half years as shadow Secretary and Secretary of State to see the NHS undermined, fragmented or privatised. They know that that was never my intention; it is not my intention. Before the last election, we were absolutely clear that we would protect the NHS, but we are doing more than just protecting it; we are strengthening it. We are enabling clinicians to lead a more integrated, responsive, accountable NHS—not fragmented, not privatised, not based on access to insurance, and not compromising quality for price—and, equally, an NHS that is not run by a top-down, unaccountable bureaucracy, but that is locally led and locally accountable.

As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne admitted, this is a comprehensive, consistent and coherent vision, and it is an evolution of the better policies of the last 20 years. It was the last Labour Government who introduced patient choice; we will extend it and give patients the information they need to make it work. It was the last Labour Government who introduced practice-based commissioning; we will make it real, with health professionals designing integrated pathways of care with decision-making responsibilities. It was the last Labour Government who introduced foundation trusts; we will deliver on their broken promise to take all NHS trusts to foundation status. It was the last Labour Government who introduced payment by results, but left it half baked, distorting services and hindering joined-up care; we will change it so that it genuinely supports the best care for patients. Of course, it was the last Labour Government who brought the independent sector and competition into the NHS, but we will not follow their lead by giving the independent and private sector providers the opportunity to cherry-pick services and by giving them financial advantages over NHS providers.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before.

General practitioners and health care professionals in GP pathfinders are, in contrast to the unions, enthusiastic about what we are trying to achieve. For example, Dr Paul Zollinger-Read, a general practitioner and the chief executive of NHS Cambridgeshire, said recently:

“In our area, the GPs got together and focused on quality of care. They looked at diabetic care, for example, and services in this area improved. That means fewer diabetics will need to go to hospital in an emergency, there will be fewer amputations and less heart and kidney disease.”

Far from GPs being reluctant at the thought of taking on new responsibilities, applications to be pathfinder consortia were over-subscribed.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Since we have no plan either to dismantle or to privatise the NHS, it is no surprise that people were not told of any such plan. Before the election and in the Conservative manifesto, people were told of our determination to cut bureaucracy and get money to front-line care. They were told of the determination of both parties in the coalition to get decision making close to the front line, to enhance accountability, including democratic accountability, and to give greater responsibility to clinicians to lead the development of services.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

2. What steps he plans to take to increase cancer survival rates.

Public Health White Paper

Debate between Lord Lansley and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No; the response to infectious diseases will continue to be the responsibility of the Department of Health, with a more integrated Public Health England incorporating the responsibilities of the Health Protection Agency and recommendations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and others. There was a lot of important debate about the discontinuation of the BCG inoculation. My view is that targeted action in areas with high prevalence of TB—as there is in a small number of places—is more appropriate than the introduction of any generalised inoculation at this stage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

But when and how will action be taken on the evil of cheap supermarket booze?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will not have to wait long for announcements from hon. Friends of mine in the Government.