Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

We are proceeding with legislation that is urgent. For that reason, some of the normal processes are being telescoped together. The short answer to the first request is yes, I will certainly ensure that it is possible for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading so that they may be considered in Committee and on Report. However, manuscript amendments are a matter for the Chair.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate next week on the courtesies to be shown to Members of Parliament by the machinery of government better to enable us to do our jobs properly on behalf of our constituents? Is there any possible reason why the leader of the district council in my constituency, the chief executive and I have been banned by Defence Ministers from meeting Neil Firth, who leads a defence and storage centre in Bicester? That is a significant local employer and there are a number of relevant and immediate local issues about job security and planning.

[Mr Lansley]

May I take the opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend a happy birthday? I am sorry to report that due to an administrative error he was sent an incomplete and inadequate response to his letter to the Minister responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne). That did not follow the proper process, and I assure my right hon. Friend that the Minister will write to him with a comprehensive response. The Minister has offered briefings to all interested Members on the competitive process, and indicated that he is willing to meet the delegation from Cherwell district council to hear its concerns.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit confused. The vetting process is a security vetting process, which is quite distinct from the choice that the Prime Minister rightly makes about whom he employs as his advisers, including in special adviser positions. Those are not the same process and should not be regarded as such. However, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday and as is reflected in the evidence to Leveson, a process of inquiry was of course undertaken when Andy Coulson was first appointed director of communications to the Conservative party. At that time and subsequently, questions were asked and assurances were received, which unfortunately led to—as we completely understand—the Prime Minister giving Mr Coulson a second chance, but it proved to be misplaced.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, can we at some point have a debate on Europe that would enable those of us who are inherently pro-European to make the point to our colleagues in Europe that, if members of the Council of Ministers are unable to make provision for and find a position for countries such as the UK that do not wish to have the euro and are never going to be part of the eurozone—if we cannot be found an honoured place in Europe, and are unable to protect the inherent national interests of the City of London—inevitably, they are starting to push this country nearer and nearer to the exit door?

[Mr Lansley]

We often have debates on this issue. My right hon. Friend is right, both in relation to the statement next week and subsequent debates, that it will be immensely important for us to set out clearly that we must have a reformed relationship with the European Union, one where we can be clear that this country’s interests can be protected. As one who also supports our membership of the European Union, I would say that our national interests have to be protected—the Prime Minister and this coalition Government have done that on issues such as banking union, the EU budget and the fiscal pact, where the Prime Minister exercised our veto. However, we can also promote our interests through membership of the European Union. That is equally part of this debate, and we can promote those interests by completing the single market, promoting competition, deregulation in Europe and ensuring that the EU budget is used effectively to support growth across the EU.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House following the Cabinet Secretary’s report. I saw the report and the papers associated with it, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. The Foreign Secretary made clear that the report constituted a comprehensive and conclusive response to the issues that had been raised, and I do not currently expect any further statement to be made.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Next Monday, the House will debate the Report stage and Third Reading of the Deregulation Bill. My right hon. Friend will have noted that our hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have tabled a number of new clauses which, if passed, would completely deregulate Sunday trading. I must tell my right hon. Friend that any such move by the House would be seen by the Church of England—and, I am sure, by many other faith groups—as an act of bad faith on the part of Parliament. The present Sunday trading arrangements arose from a series of compromises that were agreed in the mid-1990s to strike a balance between keeping Sunday special and enabling more stores and shops to open on Sundays. I should welcome my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that if you, Mr Speaker, select any of the new clauses for debate, they will be resisted by the Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House would respond on behalf of the Government if the new clauses were to be debated. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government believe that the current position constitutes a reasonable balance between some people’s wish for more opportunities to shop in large stores on Sundays and the desire of others for further restrictions, and that we are therefore not minded to legislate for further liberalisation.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It was necessary for us to move from the previous system of the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which is a much better system. In the past, people sometimes stayed on allowances for years without any assessment. It is important to have a proper assessment. As we make progress—we are doing so steadily—we need to make sure not only that we do it properly, but that we get to the point where decisions can be made quickly.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Could the Leader of the House or the Backbench Business Committee give the House an opportunity to hold a general debate on the concept of recall, so that the House collectively can work out what we are seeking to achieve? Some are arguing that oversight of the behaviour of Members of Parliament should be performed entirely externally, but any external body would, by definition, have to be statutory, and any statutory body would be subject to judicial oversight, which would mean the intervention of the courts and the potential for judicial review and applications in due course to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It could, therefore, take a considerably long time for an MP who was under a cloud to go through that judicial process before their constituents had any opportunity to recall him or her.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said in that past, I do not think we can contemplate a body other than the House itself reaching right into this Chamber to determine the circumstances in which a Member could continue their membership of this House. I think it is the House itself that should have such regulatory responsibility, not least for reasons of privilege.

As far as a debate is concerned, the recall Bill will give exactly such an opportunity. It is also important that we hear from the Standards Committee, which is conducting a review of how to further strengthen this House’s standards process.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Now that we have five-year, fixed-term Parliaments, we are obviously in the longest general election campaign ever, and perhaps the business of the House should be changed to reflect that. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition is not going to ask the Prime Minister any questions on jobs, growth or the reduction in the deficit, so can we change Prime Minister’s questions so that the Leader of the Opposition can ask the Prime Minister three questions and then the Prime Minister can ask the Leader of the Opposition three questions? That way, we might have a proper examination of the fact that we have created 1.5 million new jobs, growth was up by 3% last year and the deficit has been halved.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but I fear that it is not one we will take up. When the Leader of the Opposition asks his six questions, often what he leaves out speaks volumes, and I think that will inform the public as he continues to be bereft of anything to say on Labour’s plans for the economy.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I hesitate to get into a debate with the hon. Gentleman on these issues. I certainly know that, during the 19th century, there were many reasons why people were appreciative of a Tory Administration who brought in protection for workers through the Factories Acts and the like. In any case, his question about portraits is probably a matter for the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art, rather than the Leader of the House.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that on Tuesday evening, the House finishes its business promptly at 7 o’clock, so that we can all get home, finish our pancakes, and have an early night, as on Wednesday, the first day of Lent, at 7.45 am, the Archbishop of Canterbury is celebrating Holy Communion in the Undercroft chapel? Everyone working in the Palace of Westminster is very welcome to attend.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that the House appreciates the opportunity to go to the Ash Wednesday service that he advertises. I think that there is nothing on the Order Paper at the moment that would require us to extend our proceedings beyond the moment of interruption at 7 o’clock on Tuesday.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who has responsibility for fire services, to look at that issue and respond to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, we should always try to have fair competition in markets and there should be no unfair subsidies from the public sector.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the minimum wage, which would enable many Members from all parts of the House to argue that it should be increased significantly now? The cost to the Government of any increase in the minimum wage would be largely met by more income tax coming in and fewer tax credits being paid out. An increase in the minimum wage could simultaneously help the lower paid and save money for the Treasury.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I cannot promise a debate immediately. I hope that there will be opportunities for Members to discuss issues relating to the minimum wage, including the situation for low earners, who have benefited from the Government’s approach to income tax. Changes to the national minimum wage are introduced on 1 October each year. I say gently that there are good reasons for that. Changes in October are an established part of the labour market and many companies operate their pay reviews to coincide with them. Although I completely understand the point he makes, I do not sympathise with the idea of accelerating the timing of any increase in the minimum wage.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Opposition Members seem to have arrived in the Chamber expecting to be able to make points without listening to the answers that I have given previously. I have had a conversation with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and there is no truth in the allegations.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on local government finance? That would enable Members to reflect on the fact that, given that both sides of the House now accept the public spending limits until 2016-17, even if there is a change of Government at the next general election, there will be no more money for local government and, difficult though it may be, all local authorities are going to have to live within the funds allocated to them?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. When we came into government there was no money, as a message from the then departing Chief Secretary stated. We are trying to escape from the mess we inherited from the Labour party. In part, that depends on every bit of the public sector doing its bit. Local government has undeniably had to contribute substantially to the reduction in the deficit. It continues to do so, and does so very well as local authorities are achieving more for less and are delivering public satisfaction with many local government services, notwithstanding the substantial reductions. The Government are giving support to enable councils to address some areas of greatest need, such as supporting them in freezing their council tax. That is relieving the pressure on hard-working families. We are also supporting local government directly through the work that the NHS is going to do on joint funding for social care; £3.8 billion in additional support was announced in the latest spending round. Full details on the local government finance settlement will be published in due course, but we have made encouraging progress.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is why, when I was Secretary of State for Health, I instituted a review, which reported in the middle of last year. That review is the basis on which the Government are proceeding with the Immigration Bill, and there will be occasions to debate that issue during the progress of the legislation.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on early-day motion 598?

[That this House notes that World Polio Day is on 24 October 2013; further notes that within five years polio, like smallpox, can be eradicated across the world; recognises that in the last 25 years cases are down 99 per cent with 2.5 billion vulnerable children reached through vaccination programmes which offer a blueprint for cost-effective, targeted and outcomes-driven international public health intervention; further notes that just three countries, from an original 125, now have endemic polio – Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan; understands that vaccination programmes must focus on these countries to eradicate the disease and prevent its return elsewhere; further recognises the contribution of more than 50,000 British Rotarians towards a polio-free world through their volunteering and £20 million fundraising contribution; realises that the funding gap for this final effort to eradicate polio is a tangible £620 million; appreciates that the Government has contributed a world-leading £600 million towards eradicating polio to date; and calls on the Government to help finish the job of creating a polio-free world by continuing to commit funding, maintaining the UK’s commitment to the World Health Organisation, Rotary International, CDC and Unicef’s Global Polio Eradication Initiative and associated Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan 2013-18 and ensuring the UK's continued global leadership role through seeking support from international bodies, governments, non-governmental organisations, corporations and the wider general public to help eradicate this disease once and for all.]

That would enable the House to reflect on the £600 million the Government have already given to eradicating polio; on the fact that we could eradicate it completely, as we have smallpox, within five years; and on the fact that Rotarians across the country have raised £20 million through voluntary efforts to eradicate polio. This is a once-in-a-civilisation opportunity to eradicate polio once and for all. May we have a debate in which we can commit to eradicating polio in our lifetime?

[Mr Lansley]

I have read early-day motion 598, which highlighted world polio day last week. I cannot promise time immediately, but it would be appropriate to discuss this issue either through the Backbench Business Committee or in an Adjournment debate. It is very important that we achieve this aim, but it is fraught with risk, because of the circumstances we have seen most recently in Syria, where the breakdown of the health infrastructure as a consequence of the conflict has led to an outbreak of polio. We have to achieve polio eradication alongside getting health services into places such as Syria that do not have them at the moment.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and I agree that health services should be designed around the needs of people—that has always been our view. It is important that commissioning organisations—the new commissioning organisations, with general practitioners who know their population and patients best—have the influence necessary to make that happen. As he knows, Sir Bruce Keogh is undertaking a review generally of A and E services. I cannot comment on the specifics in Shropshire, although I remember them well, but I am sure the Secretary of State will have an opportunity before too long further to update the House on that review.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The Humble Address on Monday to mark the birth of Prince George of Windsor—[Hon. Members: “Cambridge!”] I am sorry; I meant to say Prince George of Cambridge. The Humble Address will provide an opportunity for hon. Members who were fortunate to be born in the reign of Prince George’s late great-great-grandfather, the much-loved and last King George, to observe how fortunate we are to have the leadership, continuity and security of the royal family. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give some thought to the possibility of affording an opportunity to Members of the House to subscribe to a decent christening present for the young Prince George of Cambridge? Perhaps it could be something he could use in later childhood, such as a really good cricket bat.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

We could have both.

[Mr Lansley]

I can feel a coat of arms coming on—[Laughter.] I appreciate the recognition of that joke from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). As one of the two Members who represent the city of Cambridge, I can say that we are only too delighted to have the titles not only of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge associated directly with the city, but of Prince George. Mr Speaker and others more fitted than I am might have a word about whether there is an opportunity to follow up my hon. Friend’s idea. No doubt they will let him know in due course.

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

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Sit down. I am not giving way at the moment.

To ensure the independence of the system, the register will be administered and enforced by an independent registrar of consultant lobbyists who will provide guidance on compliance and publish an online register on a quarterly basis. The registrar will have the power to issue information notices to investigate where he or she believes that consultant lobbying is taking place without registration. Where this is found, the registrar will also have the power to impose civil penalties. Criminal sanctions will be available for those guilty of deliberate non-compliance.

The register will be funded by the lobbying industry via a subscription charge, but to reduce the burden on the smallest businesses, organisations that are not VAT-registered will not be required to pay the charge. There will therefore be no impact on the public purse as a result of these measures.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May I return briefly to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and give an example? Richard III is dead; he is clearly nobody’s constituent, yet the hon. Members for York Central (Hugh Bayley), for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) want his bones in their constituency. In campaigning for that, do they need to register under the provisions of the Bill, and if not, what is the purpose of the reference to Members of Parliament’s constituents in schedule 1? Why not simply rely on the protections to Members of Parliament in the Bill of Rights and the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009?

[Mr Lansley]

We could not simply rely on the parliamentary privilege provisions because they would not extend to all the activities of Members of Parliament beyond those in this Chamber and our activities directly in relation to the House. That is why in the Bill there is, we believe, both a specific exemption in schedule 1—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) were less insistent, he might listen more.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will just settle for George, if that is all right.

On the European Union (Referendum) Bill, I have announced that private Members’ Bills will be considered on Friday 5 July and I know that my colleagues are all looking forward to supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).

I do not think that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked any further questions, but I want to say one more thing. She and her colleagues have scheduled a debate on lobbying next week and I want to emphasise that the Government are committed to enhancing the transparency of political life. This Government are the most transparent ever, proactively publishing details of ministerial meetings, Government procurement and other items of public interest. I am looking forward to next Tuesday’s debate, because it will be an opportunity to make very clear that we are proceeding with the coalition programme, as we always said we would, whereas the Labour party, over 13 years, never took a step. In fact, it put the issue in the “too hot to handle” basket. We as a Government are making it clear that we are going to do it and have said so time and again. It is curious that an Opposition motion is asking for a Bill to be introduced when we have said that we will introduce such a Bill before the summer recess.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the protocols that should apply to the information given to Members of Parliament if failings are found in NHS or care home facilities in their constituencies? It is not just the Care Quality Commission but other organisations, such as Monitor and, indeed, the royal colleges that investigate concerns about safety in the NHS. The Royal College of Surgeons recently undertook an inquiry into surgery at Horton general hospital in my constituency. The report exists and is being talked about, but it has not been published. In such circumstances, there should be, post-Francis, a clear understanding of what information is provided to MPs if failings are found in the NHS or social care in their own constituencies.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that, under this coalition Government, there has never been as much clarity in terms of the standards that the NHS is setting out to meet. They are expressed in the NHS clinical standards and the measurement of outcomes. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said yesterday, rightly, that emphasis on the publication of data in order to inform patients and the public and to hold everybody in the NHS better to account is critical.

My hon. Friend asks what Members of Parliament should do. I hope that in any case all Members of Parliament would, in the first instance, be alongside the providers of health care in their constituencies, because the first responsibility for delivering standards lies with the management of the health care providers. Alongside that, the new clinical commissioning groups and NHS England have a responsibility. I think that Members of Parliament will find it extremely helpful to have a continuing dialogue with their clinical commissioning groups, which have a responsibility for delivering high-quality care to the patients for whom they commission services. They are supported by NHS England, where we have mainstreamed the patient safety responsibilities of the former National Patient Safety Agency.

When those measures fail to deliver satisfactory responses in the view of a Member of Parliament, the Member can and should go to the Care Quality Commission. The CQC would then have a responsibility to investigate and secure action to ensure that essential standards are met and that those who are responsible for failures are held to account.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should know that the broadest shoulders are bearing the greatest burden and that in every year of this Parliament the richest people in this country have been paying an increasing proportion of the overall tax burden. He should also know—the Chancellor will, I know, take every opportunity to make this clear—that we are therefore focusing the help that we can give on those with lower incomes, which is why 24 million basic rate taxpayers will be £700 better off next year than they were under Labour, specifically as a result of the measures to increase the personal tax allowance.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the British overseas territories? Quite rightly and reasonably, the Prime Minister wants all the British overseas territories to sign the OECD convention on tax transparency and information. It would be wholly unreasonable for countries such as Bermuda to frustrate this commitment to greater tax transparency. Surely overseas territories cannot claim the privilege of being British and then fail to co-operate on tax evasion.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, with the G8 summit happening in the days ahead. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to report to the House next Wednesday on that, and I hope he will be able to report on unprecedented co-operation internationally in eliminating tax evasion and reducing abuse and avoidance of tax internationally through international mechanisms. I hope that will include British overseas territories. I know that Bermuda has reiterated, including this morning, its wish to form part of what is an unprecedented international effort to tackle international tax avoidance.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the perspicacious and insightful fifth report of the Procedure Committee, which recommends that the Second Church Estates Commissioner and the other colleagues who answered questions earlier today should be allowed to make statements to the House on serious matters of national importance?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, and, if I may, I will seek time, as it is our practice to do, to try to secure an opportunity for the House to consider matters recommended by Select Committees relating to House business. We will discuss that through the usual channels in the normal way, but I entirely recognise my hon. Friend’s point, although, as he will recognise, only in extremely rare circumstances will it be felt appropriate for such a statement to be made.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I should be happy to ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport about the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised, but I think that, in general, it should be recognised that the coalition Government have achieved a £3.3 billion reduction in cumulative regulation costs since the election. One cannot wish for growth and at the same time continue, as the last Government did, with the constantly accumulating cost of regulation.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes sobering reading. It emphasises the need to continue to control public spending. May we have a full day’s debate on the economy? Given that there are only about two years to go before the general election, and given that the Opposition have so far failed to support a single public spending cut or endorse a single welfare reform, the nation is entitled to be able to consider in some detail how both we and the Opposition are to address control of the nation’s public finances in a responsible manner.

[Mr Lansley]

We made an additional day available for a debate on the economy following the autumn statement, and we do not have long to wait until the Budget and the debates that will follow it. However, my hon. Friend has made some good points. Control of public spending is integral to our economy. If we did not control our spending, we would lose credibility. There would be a risk of a rise in interest rates, and a significant risk of our losing the international confidence and credibility that we currently command. The Government have maintained that spending control: we have consistently met the target in the spending plans that we have set out, or even achieved a reduction below that level.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It is interesting that, when it comes to tackling poverty, the hon. Gentleman might have included in his list of things that impact on poverty the extent to which people are in work. The level of poverty in this country is not simply a product of the redistributive changes by Government. It is about getting people into work, and one of the central achievements of this country over that past two and a half years has been—we can see it in the contrast between the United Kingdom and many other European countries—the extent to which the private sector is creating jobs and people are going into work. As has been acknowledged by Labour Members, although they appear not to follow through the logic, work is the best means of escaping poverty.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When he considers business for next week and the coming few weeks, may I urge my right hon. Friend not to rush bringing forward the legislation on same-sex marriage until Government officials and officials in the Church of England and other faith groups have agreed the draft clauses that will give protection to Churches and faith groups that do not wish to perform same-sex marriages, and have agreed that those clauses will do what they say on the tin? Whatever the views of the Church of England and other faith groups might be on same-sex marriage, I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that it is in everyone’s interests that we get the quadruple lock provision properly sorted, and that it will not help the Government’s handling of the measure if there is any confusion about these provisions on Second Reading.

[Mr Lansley]

It is absolutely our intention to ensure that the legislation that comes forward is clear and will carry support. To that end I am grateful not only to my hon. Friend but to representatives of the Church of England for enabling us to have those conversations before the Bill is introduced.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I must say, I was struck last week at business questions—perhaps it will be true again this week—that there is a lot of interest in sport, from governance through to the Olympic and Paralympic legacy and on the point that he raises. That might make it appropriate for issues related to sport to be debated in the House at some point. Perhaps those of us who timetable business can discuss that.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend a question in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner? The Scrap Metal Dealers Bill will soon have its Third Reading debate. It has had two years of hard work put into it, with consultation with Home Office officials and other Departments, and there is support for it throughout the House. If it is frustrated and talked out on Report or Third Reading by just one Member, will he undertake to find Government time for it to complete its passage through the House? Churches, communities and the transport system up and down the country cannot allow Back-Bench filibustering to prevent the Bill from passing into law.

[Mr Lansley]

I heard what my hon. Friend said when he responded to questions on that matter on behalf of the Church Commissioners. He knows that the Government fully support the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). Members throughout the House will know, as I do from my constituency, of the damage, distress and expense caused by metal theft. That is true not only in relation to churches but perhaps particularly in relation to the theft of metal from memorials in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday. I cannot give him the undertaking that he seeks, not least because I am hopeful that the Bill will attract the House’s support on the day in question.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall how the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Secretary focused on the issue of energy costs more than a year ago. They, along with the regulator, Ofgem, have been focusing on how we can ensure that energy costs and opportunities for those who are at risk with regard to fuel costs are able to access the best possible price for energy.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When pre-legislative scrutiny takes place on the draft Care and Support Bill, how will my right hon. Friend ensure that every Member of the House will be able to engage in the detail, rather than its being a Second Reading debate on a grander scale?

[Mr Lansley]

Our intention is that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be undertaken jointly between the two Houses—I hope that that is what will happen. As with any pre-legislative scrutiny, all Members of this House will have an opportunity to make representations about the Bill’s character to the Joint Committee.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

When the Opposition have wished to present an issue for debate and have chosen the issue of tuition fees, I have announced it as a consequence.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reference to legislation. I wonder whether he meant by it the piece of legislation which, shortly after its introduction, he described as “consistent, coherent and comprehensive”.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

It is clear from what the Prime Minister said yesterday at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and will be clear from the statement that we shall hear shortly, that a considerable number of initiatives are being taken throughout Whitehall to promote growth and jobs. Indeed, it is sometimes quite difficult to keep up with what is being done. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a quarterly statement to be deposited in the Vote Office, in which every Whitehall Department reports to the House on the initiatives that it is taking to promote growth and the progress of those initiatives?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course reflect on my hon. Friend’s suggestion. However, although he says that it is difficult to keep up, the connection between the things that are being done is often very straightforward. For example, our announcement in July of funding for lending that would allow increased access to mortgages at more affordable rates will be followed up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in his statement shortly. While we wish to create more demand for new housing, we also wish to ensure that some sites that have not been developed can be developed in future.

Care and Support

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the hon. Gentleman will not have had a chance to look in detail at the White Paper, but it makes it clear that the costs in the spending review period are more than adequately met by the additional resources. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are confusing two different things. The White Paper looks at specific additional tasks—for example, in the provision of independent information and advice, including local information about access to care services. That is more than fully funded. The figure he mentioned referred not to the number of care workers but to the number of care apprenticeships that are being developed with the sector.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, I welcome the new rights for carers that are proposed in the White Paper. However, a couple of things follow from that. First, GPs, social workers and others have a responsibility to do everything possible to identify carers, because unless people identify themselves as carers, they will not be able to access those rights. Secondly, we should support carers by developing training programmes for them, so that those who find themselves in that position are empowered to undertake their caring role.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful for the work of my hon. Friend and the all-party group. This is an important moment. If the House approves the draft Bill, the rights and entitlements of carers to assessment and support will be set out in law for the first time, in the same way as we have done for those for whom they care. He makes an important point. The draft mandate for the NHS that I published last week gives specific attention to the need to identify and support carers. I hope that these proposals will also enable the NHS and social care to join together in support of carers.

National Health Service

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No. I think that the moratorium has led to a better way forward even in Enfield. It is in the hands of the commissioners and the local authority in Enfield collectively, to make decisions for Enfield. Within two months I shall receive a report from NHS London advising whether it would be better organisationally for Chase Farm to be combined with North Middlesex rather than Barnet, and I should be interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s view on that. We continue to seek not top-down forced reconfigurations, but reconfigurations that consistently meet the four tests, and do so in the best interests of the NHS.

[Tony Baldry]

The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) implied that my right hon. Friend should have completely ignored the advice of the independent reconfiguration panel. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, there were any occasions on which he sought to ignore the panel’s advice?

[Tony Baldry]

What is the point of having such a panel if it is to be ignored?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Member for Leigh says from a sedentary position that he did not ignore the panel’s advice. I do not believe that a Secretary of State has directly sought to contradict the panel since its establishment, or has sought not to comply with its recommendations. After all, it is there for a reason. The point is that, as I have made clear, the panel should be involved in the application of those four tests, and in the past that has tended not to happen.

Let me explain why I am asking the House to reject the motion. I believe—and this was always my approach in opposition—that when we table such a motion, we ought at least to be clear about what our alternative solution would be, but there is no such solution in the motion. Let me remind the new, or recycled, shadow Secretary of State what his old friend James Purnell wrote last February:

“The Tories appear to have the centre ground. Labour need to take it back—by coming out in favour of free schools and GP commissioning”.

The right hon. Gentleman did not come out in favour of free schools. He now says that he is coming out in favour of GP commissioning. If he believed in GP commissioning, why did he do nothing about it? Why did everyone in the general practice community, throughout the length and breadth of the country, believe that practice-based commissioning had come to a virtual halt? Why did David Colin-Thomé, the right hon. Gentleman’s own national clinical director for primary care, effectively say that it had completely stalled and was not going anywhere?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with this at one time. Back in 2006, he said of GP commissioning:

“That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area, so it should give more power to their elbow than they have at present. That is what I would like to see”.—[Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 861.]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants that to happen, he must support the Bill that will make it happen. The same applies to health improvement and public health leadership in local government, and to our finally arriving at a point when, as was the last Labour Government’s intention, all NHS trusts become foundation trusts. We are going to make those things happen, but in order to do so we must have a legislative structure that supports them. That is evolutionary, not revolutionary. However much the right hon. Gentleman rants about the changes being made in the Bill, the truth is that it will do—in what his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) described as a “consistent, coherent and comprehensive” way—much of what was intended by our predecessors as Secretaries of State under the last Government. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman turned his back on that at the end of his time in office—mainly at the behest of the trade unions, which seem to be the dominant force in Labour politics—does not absolve him of his responsibility to accept that we are now delivering the reforms that he talked about.

Reform of Social Care

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise. I am not going to revisit the past, but the truth is that, since I became directly involved, I initiated cross-party discussions before the election on the reform of social care, and I did not leave those discussions. It was her former Prime Minister who effectively broke them down.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I think everyone knows where we want to get to on palliative care. We want to provide those people who want it with a much better opportunity to die at home or to die in a hospice while being properly cared for and supported. How does my right hon. Friend see us getting from here to there? What process will be involved, and who is going to drive that process to improve palliative care?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. This is very much about ensuring that, at the same time as engaging on the palliative care report, we build pilots that will enable us to see how the proposals would work in a number of places across the country. I know that some areas of the country are ready and willing to do that. The essence of what we are doing is to be increasingly clear about what quality services for those at the end of their lives look like, and to be sure that we can integrate those services by developing a system of per-patient funding. That would enable the providers to work together within the funding framework, without the current constraints and demarcations, and without the silo system that currently divides palliative care and end-of-life care services in a way that makes the system immensely confusing and difficult for people at the end of their lives. This is a real opportunity that has been fashioned by Tom Hughes-Hallett and Alan Craft’s report.

NHS Future Forum

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, in relation to the changes we are now bringing forward, I do indeed give credit to some of my colleagues—very much so—but I also give credit to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the time and trouble they have taken; they have spent a great deal of time listening, and engaging with people across the health service. We give credit, too, to the NHS Future Forum and the thousands of people across the NHS who have now made their contribution to the NHS’s future, and I think they will be very disappointed to hear Opposition Members just wanting to denigrate that, and to make political capital out of it, rather than supporting the NHS in its future objectives.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

GPs collectively throughout Oxfordshire told the Field commission that they wanted to get on with GP commissioning, and that they were wholeheartedly committed to it because they believed they could be catalysts for change and better design NHS services for local people. When are GPs in Oxfordshire going to be able to get on with GP commissioning?

[Mr Lansley]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I know his local GPs, and that they want to work with their professional colleagues across their area and to get on with that now. We will continue to be able to delegate commissioning responsibilities to all commissioning groups who are ready to do that; if they show that they are ready, we can give them the capacity to do it through existing NHS structures.

NHS Reform

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am afraid I do not accept that. All that 100 Divisions demonstrate is that time and again the Labour party was simply trying to divide the Committee in order to delay or, indeed, to wreck the Bill.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

GPs in Oxfordshire want to be catalysts for change. Collectively and collegiately, they want to be able to design NHS services for the best and optimal benefit of the people of Oxfordshire. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this statement means that they can continue to design those services and continue to plan to have an Oxfordshire-wide GP consortium, knowing that they will be able to go forward in the future to plan the best health services for the people of Oxfordshire?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can indeed confirm that. Having joined my hon. Friend in Banbury in the past and met GPs there, I know and can say that, if they had been more fully engaged, as our plans would have meant, in the design of clinical services in Banbury or in the future of the Horton general hospital, for example, we would have had better and earlier outcomes than was in fact the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Lady will know that we have made progress in this country in reducing the amount of trans fats in foods. My personal view is that we should seek to eliminate them, rather than have them in foods and have them labelled. It is important that we have front-of-pack food labelling that identifies the extent to which there are saturated fats, and I am looking forward to making greater progress in getting a more consistent front-of-pack food labelling than we have achieved in the past.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T2. GPs and GP practice managers in my constituency are keen to get on with GP commissioning because they see that that can lead to better outcomes for local people but, unsurprisingly, they have a number of detailed questions as to how GP commissioning will work. Who will best answer those questions, and when will that happen?