Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has such expertise, for endorsing that point.

It goes even further. Often we are talking about offences that are not indictable. They are what are regarded as offences in the mind of the electorate. They may be genuine or they may not be genuine, but if they are genuine and bear upon conduct in this House and are, on the face of it, a breach of our code of conduct, they should be considered by due process. We are trying to make the process in this House as fair as possible.

I have heard Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, be very critical of the processes relating to past decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Let us be clear: we have made changes in this Parliament to standards and privileges. We now have a Standards Committee that examines matters not solely at the behest of MPs who are members of the Committee but has three lay members. We should consider this Bill alongside, and I hope with the benefit of, the review that will be conducted by the Standards Committee and its lay members. I am sure that in Committee the Chair of the Standards Committee will be able to add further to that.

When I was Leader of the House I made it clear to the Standards Committee that I saw these two things happening to some extent side by side, because the second trigger in this Bill depends upon the credibility and authority of the Standards Committee and the recommendations it makes. We can improve that. I think it will require more lay members and I think it will require a veto whereby a recommendation from the Standards Committee may not be made without the support of its lay members.

For reasons not least of parliamentary privilege we cannot give lay members a vote. However, as Leader of the House I said—I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House confirmed this—that if there was a recommendation arising from a vote in the Committee on Standards relating to the conduct of a Member that did not have the support of the lay members, when the House came to consider that recommendation, I would see it as my responsibility, as I hope that my successors would, to put alongside any motion that was presented by the Chair of the Committee an amendment that would reflect the view of the majority of the lay members of the Committee. Therefore, while it would remain true that the membership of the House as a whole was responsible constitutionally for the regulation of the conduct of Members of this House and for a decision to suspend or expel a Member, it would be transparent whether the House was acting directly in accordance with the majority view of lay members. It would of course be acting with the benefit of the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend places a lot of emphasis on the issue of due process, but due process is not necessarily just the preserve of this House. There can be due process through a proper and appropriate trigger, threshold and referendum. Ultimately, an election has a due process. We have heard about being concerned about reputational damage from spurious allegations and the rest. If there is a judicial process, the recall could be suspended. We are already besieged by spurious complaints. Surely we should put this to a proper recall mechanism so that the electorate can put up or shut up.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I am afraid that there are too many risks to be confident that the process of notice of intent to recall leading to the 20% petition could necessarily be regarded as objective and fair. All that is required to be done to damage substantially and perhaps fatally the reputation of a Member of Parliament is for such an allegation to be made, which may or may not lead to any charge for an offence or even relate to an offence and which may be something that is the product of their private and personal life and not of their activities in their professional responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. The fact that that kind of recall can be triggered for whatever reason gives an opportunity for substantial damage to be done without any objective and fair conclusion having been reached, which should be the case if one is going to have one’s livelihood put at risk in that way.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will be interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. I will make sure that the Treasury sees what he has said and he may find other opportunities between now and the Budget to raise the matter. I entirely agree with him. I know from business angels in the Cambridge area that we in this country have a very strong environment in which to undertake start-up investment. One of the key things we need is to ensure that we have the quantity of venture capital available to support those start-ups through development, because we in this country have a very high level of the initial research and start-up businesses, but sometimes we lose control of the business as it grows.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May we have a debate on Cyprus, following the courageous decision on Tuesday by President Anastasiades and Dr Eroglu to restart talks to reunify Cyprus? We can then join the Prime Minister in fully supporting efforts to reach a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement for all Cypriots.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad my hon. Friend raises that. I saw that and I shared with him the sense of optimism that those brave steps generated. It was important for Cyprus and for the European Union and member states of the European Union that those steps were taken. I will, if I may, refer what he says to my hon. Friends at the Foreign Office, who might want to find an opportunity to say something about that to the House at some point.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point and I wish it were possible. There are so many issues on which it would be helpful to have a debate, not least to be able to look at how the measures being brought forward by our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary and his colleagues are promoting improvements in standards, including making sure that we have the right discipline in schools and the right academic ambition. Progress has clearly been made as shown by the improvements in results and the dramatic reduction in the number of pupils in underperforming schools. There is still some distance to travel in terms of the PISA results, and that is being undertaken by the Government, but the continuing disparity between England and Wales must concern my hon. Friend and his constituents in Wales, and I am sure it would be helpful for this House to address that.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

While I was in Green Lanes, Palmers Green yesterday morning, I counted 12 betting shops along that stretch of road, which is saturation level. Following the welcome Department for Culture, Media and Sport review of fixed odds betting terminals, may we have a statement on any necessary additional local planning or licensing powers, such as a cumulative impact test, so that our local communities can regain the power to control their local high streets?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly raises an issue that has been the subject of debate in this House, including quite recently when we were looking at the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill and related issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is sitting beside me, and if I may I will ask him to respond particularly in relation to the powers of local authorities in respect of betting shops in local areas.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the responses from the Prime Minister yesterday and from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last week on this issue. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; one of the objectives that we are achieving through the responsibility deal is the reduction of sugar in foods in a manner that reflects the successful approach that we have taken to the reduction of salt. This is not something we can unilaterally impose, not least because of the structure of the single market. Making misleading comparisons with tobacco is unhelpful in this context; any consumption of tobacco is harmful, whereas it is the excessive consumption of sugar that is harmful. We want to tackle the inclusion of excessive amounts of sugar in food, and we can do so.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May we have a statement following the visit of the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, which resulted in a significant joint communiqué yesterday that reaffirmed the active commitment of the Prime Minister and the President to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem? Significantly, it included an agreement to allow property development within the sovereign base areas. Does not that demonstrate that the British Government are a true friend of Cyprus?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Yesterday’s meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus was very welcome, and the statement was an important one. I hope that, as a result, there will be opportunities for my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to set out further details relating to this matter.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a written statement on Monday, which set out the basis of the policy. He will also remember the debate of 5 June, when the House voted against an Opposition motion that the badger cull should not go ahead. I know that my right hon. Friend is basing his policy on the best possible scientific advice.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

When he was Health Secretary, the Leader of the House referred a case of gender selection abortion to the police, no doubt considering it was in the public interest to prosecute. Does he share the grave concern about the fact that, despite sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped the case? There is urgent need for a statement to clarify whether the restrictions on choice in the Abortion Act 1967 are now meaningless.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand when I say that these matters are the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities, and that inside the Government the Attorney-General is responsible for them, not individual Ministers. In so far as we express a view, it is best for us to leave it to the Attorney-General to look at such issues with the CPS.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I was Secretary of State for Health, so I understand the position. The NHS quite properly recorded a surplus for the previous year, amounting to about £1.6 billion. However, there is a distinction to be drawn between the availability of resources within the NHS and Government financial accounting for the Department of Health as a whole. What happened—and I think it is reflected in what has happened this year—was that a surplus in the Department was not spent during the financial year and was therefore once more available to the Treasury; but that does not mean that the Department did not ensure that the NHS organisations with the surpluses would continue to have access to them in future years.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Next Thursday, theoretically, I shall initiate an end-of-day debate about the appalling human rights situation in Burma. It is particularly appalling for the Rohingya people, who are being slaughtered daily. The European Union will decide on Monday whether to end sanctions against Burma. May we have an early statement to confirm that, while approving of political reform, the EU does not approve of ethnic cleansing in Burma?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the issue raised by my hon. Friend is causing concern throughout the House. The British Government regularly raise our human rights concerns with the Burmese Government, and both the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi did so this week during meetings with members of a visiting Burmese Government delegation. We have always said that when serious crimes have been committed, those who have perpetrated them must be held accountable for their actions.

If my hon. Friend were to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he might have an opportunity to raise the issue during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, and, given the business that I have announced, I personally imagine that he will have an opportunity to initiate his debate on Thursday.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the programme motion on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, given that there will not be a debate on that subject on Tuesday? That would allow the Government, and indeed the Opposition, to explain why they appear to be running scared of the Committee of the whole House deliberating on the issue, and why they are breaking with established convention from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts of 1990 and 2008 in not enabling Members of Parliament fully to express their consciences at Committee stage.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain. We have thought very carefully about the issues raised by him and colleagues on both sides of the House. I will not go into the 1990 analogy at length, but at that time there was no precedent or practice for taking evidence in a Public Bill Committee.

[Mr Burrowes]

What about hybrid Bills?

[Mr Lansley]

The Bill is not a hybrid Bill.

We propose that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill be debated in Committee, which affords the opportunity for the taking of oral evidence. From my point of view, that was a compelling reason for considering the Bill in Committee. Because of its technical character, the unitary nature of the argument and the need for oral evidence, particularly on the permissive religious marriage provisions, that is absolutely the right thing. It is also right to make it clear that we are prepared for two days of debate on the Floor of the House for consideration on Report.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about that. I am not familiar with the background to the hon. Lady’s point; the availability of statistics through Government Departments is normally approved through the UK Statistics Authority. I will certainly inquire through the Statistics Authority or the Department to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a proper reply, which I can see, too.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The equal marriage Bill will be published next week. Will there be a statement to explain the rush to redefine marriage and will it address the information from the Commons Library that in the past 12 years no Government Bill determined by a free vote has been announced before the Queen’s Speech?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend seems to have constructed a very particular question about something that may not have occurred because relatively few Government Bills are conducted on a free-vote basis, but I will gladly look back to see what the precedents are. Let me reiterate what I said in last week’s business questions: we have not yet introduced this Bill. My hon. Friend seems to be more knowledgeable than I am. I do not have a timetable for its introduction; I know that we will do it soon but I have not established a date. When the Bill is introduced, we will of course make it very clear how it is properly to be considered.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I know that my hon. Friend has been in correspondence on this matter, because we have discussed it with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I know that he is also in correspondence with the Department for Transport. Without going into detail, let me say that there is no opportunity to intervene over any lack of competition in relation to these services. From the Department for Transport point of view, neither is there a case for a public service obligation. I will ask both Departments to meet him in order to discuss the service as a whole and what the Government’s relationship to it might be.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I will resist the temptation to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a debate on green onesies to show that we are the greenest Government ever. Instead, I would like to ask for a debate on finding a better way to determine issues of conscience, so that such Bills do not have the Government’s fingerprints all over them. If the Government are to propose such Bills, however, they should be introduced in the Queen’s Speech, as has happened for the past 12 years, up until now.

[Mr Lansley]

The Queen’s Speech foreshadows legislation; it always says, among other things:

“Other measures will be laid before you.”

Indeed, in this Session we have introduced a number of Bills, which were desired for a number of reasons, that were not foreshadowed in the Queen’s Speech—the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the HGV Road User Levy Bill and the Bill relating to infrastructure guarantees —and that will continue to be the case in future.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are literally leaving no stone unturned, as Michael Heseltine might have put it, to ensure that we support lending to businesses—especially to small and medium-sized businesses. That is why the funding for lending scheme is so important; it is clearly getting going and significant amounts are starting to be lent as a consequence. It is also why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have together been pushing for the business bank, which will be able to leverage additional specific lending to small and medium-sized businesses—not only through that bank, but through many of the new challenger banks that are giving support in that market.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the latest OBR report. He might recognise that the OBR has published updated figures on the scale of the recession under the last Labour Government, showing a total loss of gross domestic product of 6.3%. We are having to live with the economic consequences of Labour, and I think the Labour party should start from an understanding of the recession and the depth of debt it left this country.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May I pick up on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), particularly the last part of it, which the Leader of the House did not answer? As it is an issue of conscience, all parties will be entitled to a free vote on the management and scrutiny of the redefinition of marriage Bill. May we therefore follow the precedent set by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in a previous Parliament of holding the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, allowing all Members to exercise their conscience?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if I neglected to answer that point—perhaps I did not hear everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) had to say. That is always a mistake—I should listen carefully to him, and I attempt to do so. I cannot promise what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asks for. We will introduce and hold Second Reading of the Bill in the new year. When he looks at the Bill, I think he will realise that the Second Reading debate may well crystallise the issues. I share the view expressed by the shadow Leader of the House: I completely respect the views of those who oppose equal civil marriage. I recall listening to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who I thought expressed the Church of England’s view on the matter very well. I completely understand it, but I do not think that that view should necessarily be translated into the view of the state on what constitutes equality in civil marriage. That, I think, is the difference of view. Expressing that difference of view on Second Reading is the responsibility of this House as a whole. I welcome the fact that all parties appear to be giving Members the opportunity to vote freely on the issue.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Education Committee is pursuing precisely those issues, and it is right that it should. The Secretary of State for Education was absolutely right to say that Ofqual is an independent regulator. He did not interfere with its decisions, and, frankly, the Welsh Education Minister is wrong in seeking to substitute his own judgment.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May we have a debate on bigotry, which will enable the many hon. Members who hold a traditional view of marriage not to declare an interest?

[Mr Lansley]

I am in favour of marriage and I do not think we need to debate bigotry because in the House we seek to engage with all our affairs in a way that respects good language. If my hon. Friend is referring to the draft of a speech for the Deputy Prime Minister, I reassure him that the Deputy Prime Minister did not make the remarks and nor did he intend to.

Life Sciences

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May I be the first warmly to welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and to make a bid for the catalyst fund for regenerative medicine, which not only offers great hope for the future but is providing life-saving treatment through umbilical cord blood? I refer him to the recommendation the UK stem cell strategic forum made last year for collaboration between universities, hospitals and farming industries to make greater use of the application of cord blood now and in future.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and heartily welcome his support for the opportunities in regenerative medicine. I was fortunate enough to meet at the UK Stroke Forum last Thursday, among those exhibiting, a company that is based in England but undertaking trials and research activity in Scotland and is looking precisely at how it can use foetal-derived stem cells for regenerative purposes. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) talked about Pfizer. In my constituency, it has been one of the companies leading the development of new regenerative medicine techniques. That is clearly one of the areas that this country has tremendous potential in developing. The technology innovation centre for regenerative medicine was announced in the “Plan for Growth” published alongside the Budget earlier this year, and I hope that it will be one of the areas in which we will see those developments.

Public Health White Paper

Debate between Lord Lansley and David Burrowes

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I entirely agree. The extent to which charities and the voluntary sector can initiate new ideas is woefully underestimated. This is not just about local authorities, and still less about central Government saying, “Here is a programme, would charities like to bid to run it?” Even more importantly, we must be clear that charities should now come forward to anticipate the resources needed to improve public health, and to suggest their own innovations to deliver better health for their communities.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recognise the description of alcohol treatment as a Cinderella service, which is sadly not just a seasonal description but often the soft target of cuts by PCTs. I therefore welcome the opportunity in the White Paper for pooled budgets and for co-ordination between public health service directors and children’s services directors to prevent and tackle alcohol misuse.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I think that through these measures we will help to integrate drug, alcohol and sexual health services, rather than see them in silos. Even in primary care trusts, those services have often been treated as completely discrete activities, because they have been related to specific targets that central Government have set, rather than part of an holistic community view of how we improve health.

Inside the NHS we are shifting public health to that degree of protection, because back in 2005 when the Labour party was in charge, the Chief Medical Officer said:

“There is strong anecdotal information from within the NHS which tells a…story for public health of poor morale, declining numbers and inadequate recruitment, and budgets being raided to solve financial deficits in the acute sector.”

Under Labour, public health was raided and denigrated; under this Government, public health will be given the place it deserves.