Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Is my right hon. Friend not drawing the distinction between the Government’ proposals, which, although not perfect, are formalising the fact that the recall process will be around criminal behaviour and misdemeanours rather than the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), which will be focused on conscience and policy issues? That distinction is very dangerous, which is why my hon. Friend’s amendments should fall.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend leads me on to the most important aspect of this, which is that what is being sought here is an opportunity for recall in order to seek to influence the views of Members of Parliament. If that is not the case, why would the public be doing it? I have made the argument about allegations of poor behaviour. The Government’s recall Bill, which I support and was involved in, directs itself towards a perceived gap in the regulatory process relating to Members of Parliament who commit criminal offences or who behave in a manner that seriously breaches the code of conduct.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be wrong to have a power of recall to try to sanction Members of Parliament. This recall Bill puts in place an objective and fair process whereby, if something is proven, members of the public may, by means of a petition, recall a Member of Parliament and subject them to a by-election. However, the amendments that we will consider in due course would put in place a substantially different process by giving people the opportunity to intervene by saying, “You, as my Member of Parliament, are expressing a view with which I do not agree”—for reasons of conscience, policy, party or whatever it might be—“and I want to demonstrate that you are doing something that we do not agree with to try to influence you to take a different approach.”

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat myself at length, but the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday and I have already said today that about 3,000 children’s centres are open and only 49 have closed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

There is concern in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire that the future funding of the clinical commissioning group might be based on historical primary care trust budgets, rather than on the formula developed by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, which focuses on such things as demography, age and rurality. Will the Leader of the House implore Health Ministers to base future health funding fairly and equitably on empirical data?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. Although I will obviously ensure that Ministers at the Department of Health see what he has said, that is no longer a matter for them. By virtue of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, that matter is no longer susceptible to the kind of political influences we saw in the past. It will be determined by NHS England and, as I understand it, we do not expect it to do so until its board meeting in December.

NHS England has conducted a fundamental review of allocations, and it has statutory responsibilities that are set out in the Act. Under the mandate—openly—the Government have made it clear that we expect

“the principle of ensuring equal access for equal need to be at the heart of the NHS England’s approach to allocating budgets.”

I think that that will be of help to my hon. Friend.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will not comment in detail on that, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury to respond to the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

As a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, may I begin by making it clear to Opposition Members that no pressure was exerted on any Members in respect of universal credit?

May we have a debate on technical and vocational education in Peterborough? The number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—is falling, the number of apprenticeships is rising and youth unemployment is dropping, but we need to drive up skills. Serendipitously, this week a very strong bid for a university technical college in Peterborough comes before Ministers. Will the Leader of the House nudge them in the right direction?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, including for his confirmation of the point I have repeatedly made now at these questions to Labour Members, who do not appear to be able to understand when they are being told a simple fact.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s reference to a UTC. We have a UTC being developed in relation to skills to support the life sciences industry in Cambridge. The possibility of a UTC in Peterborough is an interesting and important opportunity. The UTCs will help us ensure that young people have the training to support economic growth in the future. In terms of the applications, I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to announce the successful projects in January.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I had not had, but now have, an opportunity to see early-day motion 337. I will take an opportunity, as I know many hon. Members will, to read it and perhaps to read about it. I very much welcome what she has had to say; she rightly raises important issues that we need to commemorate and always reflect upon in current circumstances.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the anomalous situation of precipitous demolitions ahead of planning applications being considered? High Trees in Eastfield road, Peterborough, a striking Victorian house, previously occupied by the Family Care charity, faces the threat of demolition as a result of a speculative application for 90 student bedsits by a mystery developer. Will the Leader of the House persuade his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to look again at this issue, so that we can avoid precipitous demolitions ahead of planning application consideration and, thus, protect our heritage and built environment?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I can imagine how he and his constituents might be alarmed by an experience of that kind. I will, of course, raise it with my colleagues at DCLG and encourage them to respond to him regarding what powers are available and how they are appropriately used. He might note that our DCLG colleagues will be here answering questions on Monday, which might give him an opportunity to raise the matter then.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that from January next year 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will potentially have access to the UK under the free movement directive. This Government are at risk of exhibiting institutionalised torpor on this issue. There has been no proper liaison with local authorities, no proper analysis of the likely numbers coming here and no analysis of whether we can vary the free movement directive to protect our core public services and our employment market. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to look at this matter as a matter of urgency, because we have only 11 months left?

[Mr Lansley]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are actively considering the issue. Rather than adopting the last Government’s attitude to the accession of member states, we are deploying as much of the extension of transitional measures as is available to us. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government are in contact with local government representatives, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is leading a ministerial group which is considering matters relating to access to benefits and other services for those who come here. We do not want to exaggerate, as it were, the pull of this country rather than others for people exercising free movement in the European Union as a result of the differential in that regard.