Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister rightly stressed the importance of this, which he has discussed with the chief medical officer directly. The chief medical officer made an important report on the subject, in addition to her annual report. Last year we published the UK’s five-year anti-microbial resistance plan. That is world-leading, but it would be better if we were able to work with others. The World Health Organisation’s report gives us the basis on which to work with others at stimulating the necessary research to develop new antibiotics. If we can make sure that we use antibiotics more sensibly in the meantime, that will prolong far into the future the effective use of the existing supply of antibiotics, the stocks available and the kinds of antibiotics available at present.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Last Thursday in a debate on freedom of conscience and religion, a number of Members, including me, raised the issue of the abduction of the schoolgirls in northern Nigeria. We have had no opportunity to discuss this with a Minister, and the Foreign Secretary is not the only Minister in the Foreign Office. Bearing in mind that Prorogation approaches, may we please have a statement in the House on this issue so that we can ask questions of the Government and obtain some answers?
Mr Lansley
I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from my previous answer that I am not at all unsympathetic, but I want to make sure that we look carefully with my colleagues to see when and how we can give the House the best opportunity to consider these issues.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and he is quite right. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that, by establishing the work of the new flooding Cabinet Committee, he is ensuring that there is strategic ministerial oversight of policy on flood recovery and long-term resilience, which is exactly the point that my hon. Friend makes. As those lessons are learned and exercises come together, Ministers who are overseeing the matter will, I am sure, take an opportunity to update the House as soon as possible.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
A month ago, the Business Secretary told me that links between donations to the Conservative party and profits made from the sale of Royal Mail shares were nothing to do with him. Now that we know there are links, may we have an urgent debate on propriety in politics? In a week in which my constituents have seen a Member resign over propriety issues, it is clear that these matters go right to the heart of belief in British politics.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong; there are no such links. I was involved in this area more than 20 years ago, and we made it absolutely clear that in the Conservative party, donations never buy influence over policy. I wish it were the same in the Labour party, but it is not. Last year, Len McCluskey gave the Labour party £1.2 million and said that the time had come to have a policy for rent controls. What did we get—a policy on rent controls.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an important point for his constituents, but there is a general point, too. In many cases, local authorities are making effective decisions about how they can reduce costs, increase efficiencies and maintain services for their public, but they should never take the easy route out. They should always look for the opportunity to reduce their costs while maintaining their ability to support the services and expenditure that are of most importance to their constituents.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
There was a deeply disturbing report on the “Today” programme this morning concerning Oakwood prison in Staffordshire, the largest prison in the UK. In my constituency of Wrexham, an even bigger prison is planned by the Government but many major decisions concerning it have not yet been made. May we please have a debate so that we can consider prison capacity and the effectiveness of Oakwood prison and so that we know what the Government have planned for my constituency?
Mr Lansley
I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision made by this Government to establish a large new prison in Wrexham. On the specific question of HMP Oakwood, he knows that the incident there was resolved successfully in the early hours of 6 January. I cannot comment further on that particular issue, but he will know from what my colleagues have said that large category C prisons elsewhere in the prison estate often operate very successfully. The number and type of incidents Oakwood has experienced over the past six months are not notably different from those experienced by other such prisons.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have discussed this matter before in business questions, so I am interested in the point he makes. I confess that I have not seen that answer to that question. I will look at it and talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to see whether we can advise him further on their plans.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On Monday of this week, 615 of my constituents lost their jobs at Sharp’s solar plant in Wrexham when investment, which was hard won in 2004 under the previous Government, ended. May we have a debate on this Government’s chaotic investment policy on renewables, which is deterring international investors from bringing jobs to the UK for constituents such as mine, who will have no jobs this Christmas?
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an issue that is important not only to his constituents, but to those of other Members in that travel corridor in the south-west. Given that wider interest, he might find that there is a wider constituency of Members who might be able to seek a debate. I certainly encourage him in that regard. He knows that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was with him in his constituency over the summer to discuss those issues. I will of course ask him to respond further, but it is very much in the minds of Ministers, not least because they have a feasibility study looking at some of the most notorious hot spots on roads across the country, including the A303, the A30 and the A358 in that travel corridor.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is presiding over increasing chaos in his Department, with a black hole existing where the independent living fund used to be, and there are still questions about interference with the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Leader of the House arrange for him to come here and speak for himself?
Mr Lansley
I seem to remember that the Secretary of State was here last week—on Monday, I think—to answer questions and speak for himself and for the Government, and I am delighted to say that when he does so he contrasts the situation in which we are creating jobs with the one under Labour in which jobs were not being created. He contrasts the situation in which every time people move off benefits and into work, work pays, which was not the case under Labour, ensuring that there is serious benefit associated with working. He also talks about the fact that we have effective systems, including under the Work programme, that are delivering effective routes back into work for the long-term unemployed.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in welcoming the Amnesty International event to which he refers. As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in Afghanistan yesterday, when she raised with Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmadi and others the need to uphold the historic gains in women’s rights since 2001. We work in partnership with the Afghan Government and others to further progress the rights of all Afghan citizens, including the equal rights of women and girls. As for a debate, it would clearly be helpful at some point, but it might be premature in advance of the presidential and provincial elections in Afghanistan scheduled for April next year.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal found against the Department for Work and Pensions on the very important issue of the independent living fund. Today, serious allegations have been made about the Department’s conduct. Is it not correct and proper that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should come to this House to be held publicly accountable to all Members on these issues and not have private conversations with the Leader of the House that are supposed to satisfy my constituents?
Mr Lansley
On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, the purpose of the conversation was so that I could give the House the assurance that I clearly have given to it. On his first point, we were pleased that the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which we undertook our consultation on the future of the independent living fund and accepted that it had been carried out properly and fairly. By contrast, we are disappointed with some aspects of the decision. We will examine the judgment very carefully, consider its implications, and, in due course, take and announce decisions on how we intend to proceed.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that he notified each of those Members that he planned to refer to them in the debate?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have done that.
In our parliamentary democracy it is well established and accepted that many MPs have responsibilities beyond those of individual Back Benchers representing their constituents. There is nothing unusual about that. We do it as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and even in the distinguished role of Deputy Speaker of the House. Such responsibilities do not in any sense constrain Members of the House in being effective advocates and representatives on behalf of their constituents. I have not heard a serious suggestion that MPs should be barred from taking on responsibilities that go wider than their role as a constituency MP. The motion does not preclude Members from maintaining second jobs or paid outside interests; it merely sets out to impose a ban on a very specific type of employment.
Mr Lansley
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I was rather disappointed because the implication of the motion seems to be that if someone is in business, they ought specifically to be excluded from being able to pursue those interests in this House. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was perfectly happy for people in all sorts of profession to continue—doctors, farmers, lawyers and, presumably, architects. There are all sorts of partnerships and a sole trader or partner would be able to continue to work in their interests, but a director of a company would apparently not be able to do so. I presume that he would exclude paid directors of companies that are limited by guarantee, which are often not-for-profit organisations. I fail to see why so many such organisations, which do good work, should be precluded from having any Member of Parliament participating in them.
The motion refers to the
“wider regulatory framework for second jobs”.
I failed to hear in the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech what he meant by that, so perhaps we will hear some more about it from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when he concludes the debate.
There are practical issues that mean that the proposal is flawed. It refers to a director but not to an employee of a company, and it does not refer to partners—trustees have been mentioned. A range of circumstances have been ignored and left out, and the effort is to preclude directorships specifically. It refers to “consultancies”, although that is undefined, and apparently being an adviser would be okay. Or would every adviser be treated as a consultant? If we put the word “adviser” into the motion, instead of referring to consultants, it would no doubt extend widely among those on the Labour Benches, but apparently that is okay—[Interruption.] I will not go through every entry in the register, as I have already done that, but there are many circumstances in which Members are advisers to organisations. Apparently, I do not understand whether they are consultants or not.
As I have said, many professions, including many that are very time consuming—there are Members in the Chamber who consume quite a bit of time in writing books and articles and taking part in broadcast activities, but that seems to be perfectly okay—are ignored.
I cannot see from the motion who would police the new rules. Who would define who was a director for this purpose? Who would undertake the difficult task of deciding what was a consultancy? I cannot imagine the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would welcome the task of monitoring the provisions—we might hear whether she would. Do we need a new quango? Would Members rather the function be given to IPSA—[Interruption.] I think that was an ironic cheer from Opposition Members. IPSA considered the matter in its latest report and stated, perhaps with a moment’s regret, that it was not within its remit. It then made an ex cathedra statement about it anyway—
Mr Lansley
Well, IPSA is a bit cathedral-like, is it not? A bit papal, really.
IPSA considered the issue and, although it decided it was not within its remit, said that
“the proportion of MPs with significant outside earnings is small.”
At least IPSA agrees with the hon. Member for Hemsworth that there is not a problem, but, like most people, it imagines that when there is no problem it is not necessary to find a solution.
The solution—the key to which is in the Bill published today—is transparency. Members are free to divide their time between their different and varied responsibilities. They represent constituents, scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account and pursue the interests of their party—all those things take up a lot of Members’ time—but they must judge how to balance and allocate their time. Individual Members will be accountable through the register for where their interests lie and to their constituents for how they undertake their responsibilities.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen in the past how parish plans have successfully informed local development frameworks, but we have gone further and entrenched in statute the ability of those neighbourhood areas to shape their own area. That is very encouraging, and already more than 150 neighbourhood areas have been designated. He, like others, will be pleased that the Department is running a support programme from April to help local authorities with neighbourhood planning.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
As the only parliamentary vote we have had this week was one where seven parties came together in the national interest to defeat the Conservative party, is it not an appropriate time to extend the cricketing metaphor employed by the Leader of the House, for the Government to draw stumps, to return to the pavilion—where most of the Conservative Back Benchers appear to have gone today—and to allow Members to have a say on the non-existence of a forward programme for this Government?
Mr Lansley
The premises of that question are almost entirely wrong. I will not re-run the vote on Tuesday, but I am absolutely clear that what we set out to do was in the national interest—more particularly, it is in the democratic interest for votes to be of equal value. Those on the Opposition Benches have to explain why they have continuously, over many years, sought to frustrate people in having their vote count equally in more equal-sized constituencies. On the idea that there is no forward programme, what did the hon. Gentleman think we were doing when we published the mid-term review? That is a comprehensive statement not only about the delivery of the coalition agreement but about additional clear, strong priorities. This week, he saw the reform of child care and support for child care provision come through. Those and other priorities are coming through, as the mid-term review set out.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is
“a terrible time to have the diversion and uncertainty which build-up to a referendum would entail”.
Those are not my words but those of the Business Secretary, reported in the Financial Times as what he is going to say today. Is not the reason the Prime Minister will not come to the House with a statement following his speech the fact that he cannot speak on behalf of the Government he leads because they have no coherent policy on Europe, and that is damaging British business and British interests?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid I simply do not accept a word of that. The Government are very clear about what we are doing. We are conducting a review of competence the purpose of which is to enable this country to engage in a negotiation that would lead to a more competitive and more flexible Europe. I heard the hon. Gentleman’s leader saying on a radio programme this morning that he was in favour of a more flexible European Union and that he believed that there were powers that needed to be brought back to this country. He and his party appear to be willing the end but denying the means.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not had the opportunity to see the questions to which he refers, although I would be glad to. As far as I am aware, collective ministerial responsibility continues to apply as it always has done, as has the ministerial code.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On the question of keeping the House informed, before Christmas I asked the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about proposals for new prisons in north Wales, but he refused to meet Members of Parliament from north Wales. As we speak, the Department is briefing journalists on new prisons and on a super-prison that might be placed in north Wales. Why are the Government so disrespectful of Members of this House that they are briefing Lobby journalists, rather than Members of Parliament, on the matter, which is of profound concern to my constituents?
Mr Lansley
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning—[Interruption.] He says that he wants an oral statement. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid a written ministerial statement that is very full and detailed, and there will, of course, be opportunities in future, for example during Justice questions, for Members to ask questions on that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
4. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the treatment by the NHS of patients with defective breast implants.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My officials have kept colleagues in the Welsh Government closely informed about the advice of Sir Bruce Keogh’s expert group and about our plans for the NHS treatment of patients with PIP breast implants.
Mr Lansley
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the latest figures and place a copy of the letter in the Library. Overall, however, I am aware of 5,232 referrals to private providers, as a result of which 2,704 scans have been conducted. Consequently, the decision to explant breast implants has been taken in 298 cases. Some 75 such operations have been completed.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Lord Lansley and Ian C. Lucas(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
With his knowledge of European matters, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are in the later stages of the collective approval through the European Union of the European cross-border health directive, which allows precisely that and makes it clear that the same criteria are applied to patients seeking health care in other countries as would apply were they to seek it through the NHS in this country.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) precisely that reassurance. I was with NHS London at the beginning of last week, and it is clear that GP commissioning groups are coming together with providers to develop those kinds of commissioning plans, going beyond trauma and stroke care, which has already happened in London, to look, for example, at the integration of diabetes care between primary care and hospital services.
Under the Bill, patients will come first and will be involved in every decision about when, where, by whom, and even how, they are treated—“there must be no decision about me, without me.” The 2002 Wanless report called for patient engagement, but that did not happen. Now it will. Because patients cannot be empowered without transparent information, an information revolution will give them more detailed information than ever before, showing them and their doctors the consultants who deliver the best care, giving them control over their own care records and enabling everyone to access the care they need at the right place and at the right time. Patients and their doctors and nurses will be able to see clearly which health care provider offers the best outcomes and to make their decisions accordingly.
Mr Lansley
I agree with my hon. Friend. In effect, that gives the lie to what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) suggested. The coalition agreement states:
“We will strengthen the power of GPs as patients’ expert guides through the health system by enabling them to commission care on their behalf.”
Our manifesto stated that we would strengthen the power of GPs,
“putting them in charge of commissioning local health services.”
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but 57 Members wish to speak, as you have rightly told us, Mr Speaker. I will give way as often as I can, but more than one intervention from each Member is excessive. [Interruption.] I have just quoted from the coalition agreement and our manifesto, so hon. Members have heard both.
Through the outcomes framework, which we published in December, we will stop the top-down, politically motivated targets that have led to real quality being sidelined. We will ensure that we focus on the outcomes that really matter and back them up for the first time with quality standards that are designed to drive up outcomes in all areas of care. Those standards have not been dreamt up in Whitehall, but are being developed by health professionals themselves. Similarly, doctors and other health professionals will not be told by us how to deliver those standards. The standards will indicate clearly what is expected, but it will be up to clinicians to decide how to achieve them. At every step, clinical leadership—that of doctors, nurses and other health professionals—will be right at the forefront. It will be an NHS organised from the bottom up, not from the top down.
The shift in power away from politicians and bureaucrats will be dramatic. The legislation none the less builds on what has gone before. It is not a revolution, but as the shadow Secretary of State said just a fortnight ago:
“The general aims of reform are sound—greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes—and are common ground between patients, health professions and political parties.”