Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Burrowes and Ben Gummer

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

At the risk of repeating what the Secretary of State and I have said previously, we very much welcome the contribution of all EU nationals working in the NHS. It is for the process of the negotiations to establish the precise status of everyone, both EU nationals and British nationals working abroad. That was not my choice at the referendum, but the decision has been made by the British people. I hope that the hon. Lady will take comfort from what the Home Secretary has been clear about: that she hopes to be able to secure a deal so that we can retain EU nationals in this country.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the challenge to NHS budgets will not compromise in any way the provision of sufficient consultants and middle-grade doctors to not only keep North Middlesex hospital open, but to provide sufficient care to patients and proper quality training to trainee doctors?

[Ben Gummer]

The problems at my hon. Friend’s hospital are a result of management issues and long-running troubles that the hospital has encountered. I hope we will be able to fix them in the short term and provide long-term solutions, which I will be briefing about in the days to come.

A&E Services

Debate between David Burrowes and Ben Gummer

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

Walk-in centre closures were supported by the hon. Lady’s hospital because that gave a safer service. I walked through the Lobby with her also. Because her party is unable to make a decision about money being spent on benefits and on the general budget for government, she would not be able to pledge any more than my party; in fact, she could only promise less funding for social care. She has to be straight with voters. Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot spend money on the NHS, benefits and all the other things that they are pledged to increase funding on, and also claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. It just does not hang together.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome the focus on integration, particularly in relation to social care. Enfield suffers from historical underfunding, with a lack of fairness in relation to the growing deprivation and age profile. We have made great progress, but we need to make more to ensure that there are winners, such as Enfield. That may lead to other parts of London, and inner London, being losers, but let us take these decisions now and make funding fairer, particularly in relation to social care.

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is right. Again, he highlights a local solution to a serious problem, and one that will not reflect what is needed in other parts of the country. That is why it is so important that we concentrate the additional money that we are providing on local solutions rather than on a top-down reorganisation.

The shadow Minister spoke about primary care. He does not seem to have listened to my right hon. Friend’s latest announcements on the new deal for GPs to increase the workforce, support new buildings for GPs, and improve access through local innovation. We are trying to reduce the pressures that we understand are on GPs and that go back many years, not helped by the GP contract signed by his Labour predecessors. We have a choice in government about whether we declare an ambition—the ambition on primary care declared by Labour at the last election was, the Royal College of GPs said, an

“ill-thought out, knee-jerk response”—

or we can try to do something about it, listen to concerns, and remodel care so that it helps patients. That is what the Government have done. My right hon. Friend has spoken about it, and the work is being carried on by the Minister with responsibility for primary care, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between David Burrowes and Ben Gummer

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

This is an important moment in the way that we run Budgets in this country, it is an important moment for the accountability of politics and it is an important moment for the way we deal with the welfare crisis we were left by the previous Government. It is an important moment in the way we run the Budget in this country because most people would be astounded by the notion that we do not already have a managed expenditure limit on welfare. What most people, even in this Chamber, will not be aware of is that last year, for the first time in the history of setting Budgets in this country, unmanaged expenditure rose above managed expenditure—51% of Government spending came within annually managed expenditure, or AME, and not within departmental limits. So for the first time we are, in effect, writing a larger portion of the Budget on a blank cheque, rather than on the basis of the limits set by the Chancellor at his Budget every year. That, in itself, is astounding, but in five and 10 years’ time people will look back and wonder why on earth we had not come to this point earlier.

The reason, as we have heard so often from Opposition Members—they prefer to pretend that it is not their position now, because the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said in private a few days ago that they would prefer all the Government’s reforms on welfare to have been reversed—[Interruption.] It is down there in the transcript. She would prefer all the Government’s reforms to be reversed—not only that, she would prefer all existing benefits to be made universal. She is very welcome to intervene on me to deny in the House that she made those comments. I am open to have that discussion with her. She has been given that opportunity before, she is not doing it and the House will draw its own conclusions. The fact is that what the Opposition say in private is very different from what they say in public.

[Mr Burrowes]

Nothing to hide!

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between David Burrowes and Ben Gummer

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

At the risk of this turning into a mutual affection session, let me say that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and agree with the foundation of his argument, which is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was the most significant advance in criminal law in this country since the second world war and we must take into account the abuses that led to its introduction. On that basis, it is an important principle that there should be free and unmolested legal advice at the point of arrest for all people, no matter how much they are worth, so that no one need be worried about the quality of the advice they are getting.

We could, however, debate whether it is appropriate to have retrospective charging for people of means who have subsequently been convicted.

[Mr Burrowes]

All Members want there to be proper access to justice for all, and informed legal advice that can address miscarriages of justice and uphold people’s basic human rights in police stations. Might those charges be best recovered at the point of conviction? That would not create risks in respect of access to justice. Also, in prosecutions by the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies, applications are made that cover the costs for the whole of the investigation as well as the court costs.

[Ben Gummer]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior experience of such matters. There might be a mechanism under which retrospective charging would be possible. We could debate that, and Members on both sides of the House would make reasonable arguments. Given the phrasing of the provision currently under discussion however, such a debate is not possible now.

I hope the Government will be able to provide assurances on another problem. In principle, I am against contingent legislation. I remember sitting up in the Public Gallery when I was very small, watching others in this Chamber discuss prevention of terrorism legislation. The then Opposition, headed by Neil Kinnock, were arguing passionately against that legislation for precisely the reason I am discussing. I do not think that they were right in that circumstance, but I find troubling the idea of putting contingent legislation on the statute book that could be re-enacted by order later without reference to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will either flesh out their proposals for the retrospective charging of defendants should they be convicted or decide to approach this matter in a different way.