All 6 Debates between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman
Tuesday 21st October 2014

(10 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I prosecuted nine murder trials and all manner of other things in my previous career, so I can endorse the fact that there will be a huge time gap in these matters. If we adopted the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the Member involved would simply be hounded out.

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman
Thursday 30th January 2014

(10 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We did indeed correspond following his previous question, and that confirmed that the Department does not have a target for completion of personal independence payment claims. It is a new benefit, and we are looking closely at how long the journey to completion of claims takes, against the original estimates. Where there are further opportunities to streamline those processes, we will certainly introduce them.

Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May we have a Treasury debate on regional cuts to air passenger duty for entrants to the long-haul market, which would stimulate growth, reduce the burden on the south- east and kick-start the regional economy? I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

I will not reiterate what I have said, but the point about regional airports is well taken. Taxes and duties are of course matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will be glad to alert my hon. Friends at the Treasury to the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Lobbying

Debate between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman
Tuesday 25th June 2013

(11 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

As I have said, it will set out a statutory register of lobbyists.

Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

No, I will not give way. It would be better for me to make my speech and explain what we are planning to do than simply to try to respond to more interventions.

We did not hear from the Opposition about this subject; they did not respond to our consultation last year. It is interesting that the first time we heard from them was when we announced that we would introduce a Bill before the summer, at which point they tabled their motion calling for the Government to introduce a Bill. This is an interesting concept: they are not jumping on someone else’s bandwagon; they are jumping on ours. This is a flagrant example of that.

In the event, the hon. Member for Hemsworth did not offer any practical ideas; instead, he offered assertions and slogans masquerading as policy. He should have had the honesty to admit that the Labour Government put the issue in the “too hot to handle” box. They did not resolve the complex nature of the problem, which has been revealed by the divergent responses to the consultation. The responses showed that we are far from achieving consensus on the nature of regulation that is required.

The Government will set out to promote the culture of openness that best delivers the positive behaviours and public confidence that we all seek.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman
Thursday 25th October 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman may like to look at the composition of clinical commissioning groups with great care. They combine managerial and clinical expertise, and he should not diminish the importance of clinicians being directly involved in the commissioning process. Securing the right medical and clinical services for patients in an area is not simply a managerial task; it is both managerial and clinical.

Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May we have a debate on equal pay for women? That request arises first out of yesterday’s landmark decision on the issue by the Supreme Court, but also because county councils up and down the country are facing a problem caused by a failure to pay the women they have employed over the years. In Northumberland, for example, hundreds of my constituents face a five-year delay to be paid.

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

The Government very much support equal pay—yesterday’s decision seemed a bit of a “Made in Dagenham” moment, did it not? Although the circumstances of that case are particular to it and relate to time limits and jurisdiction, I hope that it conveys a message about how to ensure equality and equal pay in every work force, which should be in every employer’s mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman
Tuesday 27th March 2012

(12 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

8. What his policy is on the rationalisation of PFI deals in the north-east for the purposes of making savings on long-standing PFI hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [R]

Lord Lansley Portrait The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
- Hansard - -

Any plan to rationalise a PFI contract, such as that being considered by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, would be a local decision. Any trust will need to satisfy itself of the value for money of any proposal. Northumbria Healthcare is a foundation trust, so Monitor is also considering its plans.

Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Many hospitals around the country are struggling under PFI debt. What plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure that other types of organisations, aside from Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust, will benefit from the new deal, just as my constituents in Hexham are?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have recently made it clear that where there is unsustainable PFI debt—as is the case for seven PFI contracts—we stand ready to support those trusts in meeting some of those costs, which we inherited from the last Government. Beyond that, working with the Treasury, we have undertaken a pilot project that has demonstrated how 5%, on average, can be taken out of the cost of PFI contracts through the better management of them. I hope that will be applied across the country. I welcome, as I know my hon. Friend does, the way in which Northumbria Healthcare, with its local authorities, is looking at resolving its PFI debts, and if that represents value for money, I am sure that others across the country will benefit from the experience.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Guy Opperman
Tuesday 22nd November 2011

(13 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

15. What plans he has to ensure that the NHS is prepared for winter pressures.

Lord Lansley Portrait The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
- Hansard - -

The NHS and social care systems are well prepared for winter. Our Winterwatch summary was first published last Thursday. It showed higher flu vaccination uptake, and I announced additional extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—ECMO—capacity, which will be in place by December. There is always more pressure on the NHS during winter. This year will be no different, but the preparations are in place.

Guy Opperman Portrait Guy Opperman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Given the director of immunisation’s recent report on the take-up by medical staff of the flu jab and the local efforts of Dr Alastair Blair, the chair of the Northumberland clinical commissioning group, will the Minister expand on the need for patient protection in the form of flu jabs in hospitals and surgeries around the country?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - -

I would like to take this opportunity not least to commend the work that the chief medical officer has done this year in encouraging health care workers to have their seasonal flu jab. The latest figures are that 29% have done so, compared with 11% at the same point last year. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) how well Kettering has done, and there are hospitals that are demonstrating that a higher level is entirely achievable. I urge staff across the NHS to have their flu vaccination. It is the ethical thing to do, not least to provide protection to their patients.