NHS (Government Spending)

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Wednesday 28th January 2015

(9 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
- Hansard - -

When I was first campaigning in Dover and Deal, I found that the previous Government’s legacy was that they had run down the much-loved Buckland hospital in Dover. Wards had been axed one by one; services had been withdrawn one by one; and the hospital had been decimated for more than a decade. There had been talk of plans to build a new hospital, but they had gone nowhere for the better part of a decade. It was a total disgrace; we did not get a fair share of health care in Dover and Deal.

In addition, an agreement appeared to have been made by the hospital trust in 2006 to take away the out-patient services at Deal’s hospital. There were claims of a consultation with the then MP and the then elected representatives to withdraw those out-patient services. So when I was elected I faced a situation where the hospital trust wanted to axe out-patient services and people were very concerned that Deal’s hospital was so undermined that it would be lost altogether. That was unacceptable.

What did the Conservatives do about it? Thanks to our funding of the NHS—the amount of money we have put in and the increase in spending in real terms—we managed to get a new hospital built and it opens in March. That is a real achievement, ensuring that we will have a fairer share of health care back in Dover. After the years of going backwards, we will go forwards, and people in our community will be able to be seen and cared for in our community. Rather than have Deal’s hospital being run down and closed, as people feared, because Labour left it teetering on the edge, we campaigned hard.

I undertook a large survey across the whole of Deal and I listened to people’s views. Thousands responded and we had hundreds in a meeting in a church to listen to the doctors and put the case for keeping the hospital, and now the clinical commissioning group, using its new funding powers, is ensuring that that hospital is safeguarded for the future. In that way, under the Conservatives, we have safeguarded Deal’s hospital and we are getting a new Dover hospital.

We also had difficult times in our local hospital trust—the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust had the CQC come in and investigate. In the past there would have been a cover-up and things would all have been swept under the carpet, just as they were in Staffordshire. That was the disgrace under the previous Government; the shadow Health Secretary oversaw that shameful episode. This Government have been open, honest and frank about the situation, and have ensured that special measures are taken and that we will have more nurses, more investment and better health care as a result. That is an important milestone. It shows not only that we have a new Dover hospital and that we have safeguarded Deal’s hospital, but that we have a better trust thanks to the reforms the Government have put in place.

But I think we should go further. I want to see five-star health care in Dover and Deal, so that rather than the cold wards of old, we should have new individual care and recovery suites, which can enable flexibility. People could be there for short-time observation; for step-down care for a week or two, rather than blocking up the acute hospital; for re-ambulation over a two to three-month period; or for much longer-term palliative care or perhaps end-of-life care. I am working with Kent county council, the local CCG and other health stakeholders to examine how we can bring forward that sort of innovative proposal. It will help with NHS funding because it will save money lost through bed-blocking; it will save money because its beds will be less expensive than elsewhere in the NHS; and it will provide a better experience for patients because they will be able to get better and recover within the community.

We need to rethink A and E more generally, by having more local emergency centres. My plan is that at the new Dover Buckland hospital, which opens in March, we should see a local emergency centre being used as an out-of-hours base for the doctors and CCG. It should be beefed up so that it has a much more emergency flavour to it, rather than a minor injuries one, so that more people use it, more people have trust and confidence in it and fewer people will inappropriately admit themselves to A and E down the road in Ashford. In that way, we will be able to get the right kind of cascading, the right level of treatment and the right places, given how our health system works. Such an approach would allow simpler stuff to be carried out more locally in our communities, whereas the more complicated accident and emergency problems would be dealt with in a more centralised A and E unit. That kind of modernisation in how we deal with out-of-hours care and A and E-type care is something I hope we will think about and see more of in future. I do not see this as a left/right issue, just as I do not see community hospitals, which I believe in, as a left/right issue. I see it as being about people who are concerned about localism, and the localisation of health care and bringing it closer to the patient and to the community. That is the way we should be building the future of our NHS. It is a great shame we have seen so much politicisation and weaponisation of this—

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I call Grahame M. Morris. You have five minutes.

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

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Tuesday 10th September 2013

(11 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

There is a legitimate role for third sector organisations in making their case to elected representatives, as they have done, but some charities’ pay is out of control and their administrative expenses are too high. In those cases, not enough help is reaching the front line. I am concerned about the alleviation of poverty and about helping people in need on the front line, and it is really important that charities should have those values—

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I think we are starting to stray from the matter before us.

Economic Growth

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Wednesday 15th May 2013

(11 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adrian Bailey Portrait Mr Bailey
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give way very shortly after he has made those comments.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

My constituents feel that 5 million in this country could work but do not. They ought to have more investment and opportunity, and more chances to fulfil their potential. That is why the reforms to welfare to make work pay, the reforms to the skills agenda, the reforms to control migration, and the reforms to control, police and secure our borders are important—they give our fellow citizens more of a chance to do well and succeed in life, and to see their potential unleashed.

Directors’ Pay

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Wednesday 20th June 2012

(12 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Last but certainly not least, Charlie Elphicke.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome this announcement, because power going to the shareholders and the business owners is how capitalism is supposed to work, yet it is essential that shareholders are able to exercise their votes in practice. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what action he has taken to ensure that brokerages communicate to their nominees—shareholder-owners—the fact that they have the right to vote at board meetings and are able to exercise it? What action he will take to address stock lending, which is all too often used to steal away votes from the real owners so that other people can use them instead?

Border Checks Summer 2011

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Wednesday 9th November 2011

(13 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. People want to listen to interventions, and we certainly want to listen to the answers from Alan Johnson.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) should not stand up for such a long time. If he wishes to intervene, he must rise quickly and then sit down straight away.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Tuesday 25th October 2011

(13 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for that notification.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

(Dover) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I say, on behalf of the people of Dover, how very welcome that is? Not everything in this House is political and partisan; some matters touch and concern our constituencies and affect us as constituency MPs.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I call Andrew Percy to move amendment 2.

Finance Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Tuesday 28th June 2011

(13 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

I respectfully put it to the right hon. Gentleman that our priority is not to bung £200 million at people, as he describes it, but to see real increases in NHS spending as against the cuts that were in the last Budget of the Government whom he long supported.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I let the hon. Gentleman’s previous question go, but he is drifting way off the mark. This debate is about medical insurance.

European Union Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Tuesday 8th March 2011

(13 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Binley Portrait Mr Binley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have no wish to ask you a question.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Can we conduct the debate through the Chair, please?

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude my remarks.

European Union Bill (Programme)(No. 2)

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Lindsay Hoyle
Monday 24th January 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

I agree with my hon. Friend. What will we discuss? A wrecking amendment, tabled by the Labour party, which cheated the nation of a referendum in the past.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. If it was a wrecking amendment, it would not have been selected. I remind the hon. Gentleman that amendments are selected with due consideration.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

I defer to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and apologise for using language that was perhaps too simple. Of course, the amendment could not be a wrecking amendment; it is an amendment that would bring destruction on the Government’s intent and purpose in the Bill. I hope that I remain in order with that description.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who makes an important point about the time that is needed to discuss the purpose of referendums and whether we should have a national debate—perhaps a referendum?—on whether to hold an in/out referendum. It seems that we will not have time to discuss that today. I hope that, at some point—perhaps not in the Bill, but sometime—the House will be able to discuss that properly.