Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am quite old fashioned: Members would have to look quite far back to find a point at which I did not vote in accordance with the Whip. I think that the last time I defied the Whip was on the question of same-sex adoption rules.

I see part of my role as having been elected as a Conservative. A number of Members have said, perfectly reasonably, that we are primarily and overwhelmingly elected—the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has accepted this—on a party rather than an individual basis. I do not see that as meaning that individual Members of Parliament should not have a conscience or be able to exercise their judgment, because they owe that to their constituents. They will have to come to a judgment on great matters of conscience that are relevant to their constituency. That was true on Iraq: I did not vote for the invasion, even though it was my party’s policy to do so. To suggest, however, that we should behave as individuals outside party discipline is nonsense, because the whole system will begin to break down if we go in that direction.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was slightly the other way around. He said that we all behave in the way the Whips tell us, but this has been a more rebellious Parliament—for good or ill—than ever before. I am not sure whether that is a good basis for the argument in favour of recall, because Members clearly feel that they can respond to their conscience and their constituents without the need for a recall mechanism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has suggested that if we took the Whips out of the process of deciding whether a Member should be suspended from this House—actually, I do not think that the Whips are part of that process— that would somehow relieve us of the impact of the Whips controlling our behaviour. The recall mechanism proposed as an alternative to this Bill, however, is a greater risk to Members. If a Member were subject to an allegation—a serious allegation, but not a criminal one—that threatened their reputation and position in the constituency, it is clear that they would then be subject to a notice of intent and at risk of a recall petition. The situation would develop rapidly and the question for their party would then be whether it supported them or not.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) mentioned Ian Gibson, who accused his party of abandoning him. The most dangerous thing for a Member is to be abandoned when they are at risk of having to stand in a by-election in their constituency. If the party takes the Whip away from a Member, they would, in effect, have no chance in a by-election—unless they were in a very strong position—and they would be undermined. The power of the Whips as to whether a Member has the Whip—and, therefore, their power over that Member’s position in an election—would be unchanged by this or any other recall Bill. The power of the Whips is often exaggerated, but in so far as it exists, it would be unchanged by the recall mechanisms, whatever they might be.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This is also a constitutional issue. We make judgments on behalf of our constituents on issues that are not in our manifestos. We also carry out manifesto commitments, but we are not delegates. I think that is where people tend to get a little confused: there is a big difference between making a judgment on behalf of constituents and being mandated as an individual delegate to represent something.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

This is a sensitive point on the A303, and I can see the point that my hon. Friend is making. I do not know the position, so I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to him.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, but can he give us a date or clarify when the Government will honour their promise to introduce legislation to regulate the Football League? We still have an ongoing saga in Coventry, and the latest one is over Birmingham’s ownership. Is it not about time that this issue was cleared up?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he was not making a criticism of me. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the matter, and he heard what I said about questions next Thursday. None the less, my recollection is that Ministers said not that they would bring forward legislation, but that if football governance, the Football Association and other authorities did not take the necessary steps to reform governance in football, they would consider introducing legislation. They did not make a commitment to do so.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. It is a pity it was not tabled earlier in the Session, as it could have been early-day motion 66—that would have been even better. I will take his question as a further application to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate what the result will be, but he will of course have opportunities to raise these issues during the Budget debate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate or a statement on the Highways Agency, particularly the way in which it manages temporary road schemes? Businesses at Tollbar End in Coventry, where there is a three-year scheme, have been badly affected because people have been held up while going to work in the morning. Some businesses have said that if they had known it was going to take this long they might not have invested in Coventry. May we have a statement, and will the Leader of the House get the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) to respond to the issue, as I raised it with him last week in the Department for Transport?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that Transport Ministers will be responding to questions here again next Thursday but, as I wish to be as helpful as I can, I will ask them to respond directly to him about this scheme. Transport schemes often take much longer than we might imagine they would, but it seems that this one has taken a long time.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the debate on the Francis report and the Government response. I have said before that it is important that we have such a debate and I am glad that I have been able to announce it.

The foundation trust special administration regime could and should have been put in place by the Labour party as part of the creation of foundation trusts, but it was not. The regime has to be carefully specified. It is important that it does not become a means by which the independence of foundation trusts and the role of Monitor as the regulator of foundation trusts can be overridden, other than specifically in relation to the Secretary of State’s adherence to his general duties. The Secretary of State must use the measure only in exceptional circumstances, which implies that it is a veto, rather than to impose his view of how services should be configured over the views of the local commissioners.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of the online petition organised by Coventry City football club supporters and the local newspaper, which asks the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to take evidence from both sides in the dispute? Those on both sides of the dispute have agreed to give evidence. Will he nudge the Chairman of the Committee to take evidence from both sides in order to end the dispute, because they are calling for conciliation? Finally, can we have a date for when the Minister for sport, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), will come to the House and tell us what her proposals are for reorganising the Football League?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the important report that has been produced by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Government will respond to that in due course, although I cannot recall precisely when we are due to respond or what the character of the response will be. Although I must not tell any Select Committee what it should or should not do, I will raise the issue of Coventry with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that competition is, as they say, the tide that lifts every boat. In his constituency, as elsewhere, competition will in the end deliver the best consumer benefits.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Everybody wants this country to maintain its economic improvement, but may we have a debate about cuts to local government education budgets? It seems contradictory to demand an increase in skills to compete with the world, while also cutting education at its source.

[Mr Lansley]

Notwithstanding the fact that we had to deal with the largest deficit of any country in the OECD, this Government made the commitment—among others—to protect school budgets, which we have done. The hon. Gentleman should celebrate the fact that, together with our coalition colleagues, we have put about £2.5 billion into the pupil premium to ensure that schools with some of the most disadvantaged children have additional resources to help them achieve success in future.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate, but I think one would be useful, because what my hon. Friend says is true, especially in more rural areas. There has, of course, been some notable erosion of the number of independent petrol retailers. The situation is very difficult and I hope they will hear what my hon. Friend has said as some encouragement to them that we recognise the contribution they make in rural communities.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will recall the tragic deaths of baby Daniel in Coventry and of baby P. Would it not be fitting to have some form of national memorial or new proposals for dealing with child abuse, given the cutbacks to local authority budgets?

[Mr Lansley]

I do remember, as will other Members, those tragic events and others like them. Personally, I think that the most important memorial we can achieve is to ensure that our child protection and safeguarding arrangements are as effective as we can possibly make them. We know we are not there yet. We have made progress, but we have much more to do to make that happen. I hope we can achieve that so that children can be genuinely safe wherever they are in the country.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Backbench Business Committee has selected a general debate on high-cost credit to take place on Thursday 5 September, and I am sure that will afford him an opportunity to make his points.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May we have a statement regarding the changing of the goalposts in relation to Remploy employees being able to make social enterprise bids in Coventry and Birmingham? Why have they been lumped together and put out to private tender?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has made two statements in relation to Remploy in recent weeks, but I will of course raise the point he mentions with her.

Bill Presented

Representation of the People Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1981 to amend the period of imprisonment which disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 99).

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Our practice on programming is to be flexible. It is sometimes in the interests of the House for time to be protected, but sometimes that would be an unnecessary constraint. As I made clear last week, in the run-up to the recess, there will inevitably be pressing reasons why the Government make additional announcements and statements, which will have an impact on business, but we will do everything we can to ensure that that does not frustrate us in conducting our business in good time.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate or a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the serious situation that has developed at Coventry football club? The Football League has said that the club can play in Northampton, which would involve people making a 70-mile round trip at great expense. The Football League should have allowed the dispute between the club and the owners of the Ricoh arena to be resolved before it took that disgraceful decision, so may we have a statement or a review of the regulations?

[Mr Lansley]

I know from previous questions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), that the situation greatly concerns people in Coventry South and neighbouring constituencies. I will raise it once again with my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) that the matter is precisely the sort of thing that he might wish to raise during next Thursday’s pre-recess debate, should he manage to catch Mr Speaker’s eye.

Business of the House

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have never found my hon. Friend backwards in coming forward to make his views known, and I am sure that opportunities for him to do so will present themselves. With regard to the minimum unit price for alcohol, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on behalf of the Government a consultative document yesterday. The Government are clear that a minimum unit price will contribute to tackling the deep-seated issues related to binge drinking and alcohol abuse. A report published by the chief medical officer only the week before last shows that this country has such a high relative level of death from liver disease, and the level is rising while in other countries it is falling. That tells us that we have to do something.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

When will we have a debate or a statement on the ombudsman’s report on the use of bailiffs by the courts and local authorities?

[Mr Lansley]

I have no knowledge of an immediate opportunity for such a debate, but I will of course look at whether there is any opportunity for an oral or written statement in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall from my first answer that I am looking to discuss the timing of the roll-out with clinical commissioning groups. I do not want that to be unduly delayed, because there are clear benefits to patients in the 111 system in that it gives them a more integrated single point of access to the NHS.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

12. If he will introduce proposals to require a minimum ratio of nurses to patients in hospitals.

Reform of Social Care

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I very much welcomed and encouraged the dialogue that took place between Andrew Dilnot’s team and Tom Hughes- Hallett’s team, and they have made complementary recommendations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, as far as end-of-life care is concerned, there is widespread unmet need. The disparity in the quality of care and the services provided in different parts of the country is staggering. Just as the Dilnot commission deals with care and support, we certainly aim to deliver greater consistency in eligibility and in the quality of care provided.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that there are concerns nationally—and locally in Coventry—about Southern Cross. Can he be more positive, because so far the answers we have received from the Government have been very vague? Equally, there is concern about the regulator being undermanned, so how does he intend to improve that and improve the quality of care?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that the Government have been anything other than absolutely clear about what we are setting out to do. This is a problem that derived from the commercial decisions that the company made and it should be resolved by further commercial discussions between the company, its landlords and its lenders. We are constantly in touch with all of those, but it is not the Government’s responsibility to step in and take those decisions. What is the Government’s responsibility, which we are clear about and ready to take action as necessary, is to ensure that individuals in those care homes and their families are not abandoned and do not fall through the gaps or find themselves without access to the care and support they need. I hope that, in the midst of the perfectly legitimate concerns being expressed, people do not stray into causing people to be more fearful than they need be.

NHS Reform

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not sure which Labour party we would be expected to engage with—the one whose manifesto agreed with us, the one for which the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne spoke at a King’s Fund meeting in January when he agreed with us, or the one that we saw in Committee, which opposed everything, tried to wreck the Bill and clearly has gone back to the Holborn and St Pancras view of the NHS.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is obvious that the public are extremely concerned about the Bill. Why does the Secretary of State not suspend the Bill and bring forward new proposals that we can all support?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the public support the principles of the Bill. The public want patient choice. When they are exercising their choice over treatment, they want to be able to go to whoever is the best provider. Patients believe that general practitioners are the best people to design services and care on their behalf. Patients, the public and professionals support the principles of “no decision about me without me”, focusing on outcomes and delivering an outcomes framework, and the devolution of responsibility. What we are talking about now is ensuring that other important principles, such as governance, accountability, transparency and multi-professional working, are genuinely supported by the structure of the Bill.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many jobs will go in front-line services and how many hospital closures there will be as a result of his policies?

[Mr Lansley]

I just wish that the hon. Gentleman would look at the latest published data. Since the election, we have reduced the number of managers in the health service by almost 4,000 and increased the number of doctors. For the first time, there are more than 100,000 doctors in the NHS, and we are increasing the number of health visitors, after years of their numbers being reduced under the previous Government. He should get his facts right before he starts flinging accusations about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

3. What estimate he has made of the number of redundancies which would result from the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts?

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Our White Paper set out proposals for greater devolution to clinical leadership in the NHS and an enhanced role for local authorities in setting health strategies and improving public health. That means that we will abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. General practice-led consortiums will make decisions about their requirements for management support, as will the new NHS commissioning board and local authorities. However, the requirement to cut management costs and protect the front line will mean reduced numbers of administrative posts. The extent of that will depend on local plans, and we will publish an impact assessment in due course.

[Mr Cunningham]

The coalition agreement stated that PCTs would be a strong voice for the public. How will the Government achieve that if they are going to abolish them?

[Mr Lansley]

We set out clearly in the White Paper how we will increase accountability to the public, including by establishing Health Watch. Before the election, the hon. Gentleman’s party’s Government demolished the patient representative voice in community health councils and patients’ forums and created nothing effective in its place. Health Watch will be an effective voice for patients, and democratic accountability through local authorities will be far stronger because Health Watch will enable NHS services, public health services and social care to be joined together through co-ordination in a local authority’s health and well-being partnership.