Sustainable Development Goals
Debate between Oliver Colvile and Phillip Lee(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate. I am struck that, over the course of my short life, the population of the globe has doubled. In looking at the rather numerous sustainable development goals, I note that there is no mention of population and the control thereof, by which I mean families and countries living within their means in terms of their populations. In view of the fact that population growth drives many of the problems that we are admirably seeking to deal with, it is a notable exception.
I was struck at first by the number of goals and the additional notes attached to those goals. Quite an industry seems to have grown up around the conversations that we have about the challenges that we all face. It concerns me that there has been such a growth in that industry and in the level of bureaucracy. I think we can all agree that a number of the goals are admirable and that we should seek to achieve them, but it worries me that we have ended up with 17 goals and more than 100 additional notes. If the Chamber will indulge me I will seek to try to slim down the number of goals that we should aim to achieve. I will do so not because I think anybody will necessarily implement Phillip Lee’s approach to development, but because it will highlight the fact that if we had more clarity and simplification, we may be much more successful in achieving our goals.
It is also noticeable that there is no mention of individual responsibility or of the word “opportunity”. Equality is all very well in some contexts in terms of outcomes, but we also need to emphasise that we need to see opportunity—the opportunity to be able to earn enough money to pay for food and a home.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is incredibly important to have good governance in those countries so that we can spend the money properly?
Dr Lee
Of course, and that is why I have never been particularly enthusiastic about setting a spending goal for international development funding. I would happily come here and vote to spend 1% of GDP if I thought that it would be spent effectively in countries with good governance. The problem is that there is a litany of development expenditure projects in countries where there is poor governance and where the money has not been spent appropriately or had the desired impact.
One of the goals on which I would concentrate is on healthy lives, but why not just have the simple goal of eradicating infectious disease? It is not simple to achieve, but it is simple to say and quantify. To eradicate infectious disease we must know where it is. I got into some trouble a couple of years ago for pointing out that we needed to know who had HIV and hepatitis among the migrant population. Unless we know where the disease is, how can we seek to eradicate it? I think eradicating infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis would be an admirable goal and shared by significant numbers of people in South Africa and the near vicinity.
My second goal would be to achieve gender equality. When I look at some communities in this country and some countries around the world, the absence of women in positions of power and female role models in communities and families is, in part, why those communities have problems. For example, I strongly believe that if we emancipated women in Pakistani, Somali and Bangladeshi communities in this country, they would be less likely to have problems with extremism and young men going on jihadi holidays to Syria and elsewhere.
My third goal would be to live within the means of the planet, which I think encompasses at least half a dozen of the goals that the report has sought to detail. If we live within the means of the planet we do not need to start talking about carbon dioxide emissions or anything else. If we live within the means of the planet we will be doing just that: the environment will be stable, biodiversity will be protected and we will all have access to sustainable energy and the like. Living within the means of the planet is complicated but something we can achieve, but let us keep the words simple so that we know what we are seeking to do.
My fourth goal would be to reduce inequality between countries, not within countries. If everybody was equal within a country, where would be the desire to better oneself? I do not believe in economic equality; it does not exist. We must have a sense of seeking to better ourselves and for our children to have a better life. That is human nature and part of the natural order of things. Inequality between countries is in part what is causing the current migration crisis. In fact, it is probably about inequality between continents. Anyone could have predicted 10, 20 or 30 years ago that there would be migrant pressure from Africa into Europe. It is economic migration because the population of Africa is growing at a much faster rate than that of Europe. If someone is born into Senegal, Ivory Coast, Nigeria or wherever, they will migrate for a better life, job, house and future for their families. That is a statement of the obvious and among the recent migration flux, which undoubtedly has something to do with war, significant numbers of people are also travelling from Africa for a better life.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Debate between Oliver Colvile and Phillip Lee(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend help me? Is it the case that as a doctor, he has to practise a bit in order to keep his licence going?
Dr Lee
Yes, it is true. With reference to the comments from the shadow Minister, I point out for the record that I applied to the Speaker’s office this morning at 10 o’clock to speak in the debate. On medicine and maintaining professional skills, yes, one has to practise but it is not actually prescribed, so there is a difficulty in determining how many hours I would have to practise as a GP. Indeed, I am currently going through revalidation.
After I was elected, I appeared in that esteemed organ, Private Eye, under the “New Boys” column, which listed my income and suggested that this was wrong. I was challenged at a public meeting—I hold regular public meetings in my constituency—by somebody waving the article at me and telling me that I was a part-time Member of Parliament. I pointed out to him that like most Members in the House, I do upwards of 50, 60 and sometimes 70 hours a week. It is rather different from any other job I have done in my life because I do not feel that I stop working. I am constantly thinking about this role and the challenges that we all face.
I asked the man a series of questions. I asked whether he was a parent, to which he replied yes. I asked, “Do you think that is a full-time job?” and he said yes. I asked him a second question. I said, “In the unlikely event that I am asked to be a Minister, should I say yes or no?” He said, “You should say yes.” I said, “Do you think it is a full-time job being, say, the Defence Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister? Do you think those are full-time jobs?”—not that that is on the horizon. He said, “Of course they are full-time jobs.” I said, “So what you are saying is that being a Minister is a full-time job, being a father is a full-time job, and you are having a go at me for doing about four hours a week as a GP, when I am doing about 60 hours a week as an MP. I think your argument is flawed.”
With reference to whether I should be paid for that or whether I should volunteer, I get the impression that I should be giving my time for free. I think that is a perverse argument. There are Members who want to do voluntary work in addition to their jobs and I congratulate them on that, but the idea that I should not be paid to be a doctor is, I believe, not widely held in my constituency or across the country. Most people would say that I should be paid to undertake that work.
Moving on to the question about what I bring to the Chamber as a doctor, I shall give one example, which is very relevant today. The Care Quality Commission issued a report today on the Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a trust that rather bizarrely secured foundation trust status in 2007. The trust is financially unviable and has significant clinical problems, according to the report. I highlighted this at the Department of Health shortly after arrival. My continuing work at the time was in Slough. I was working as a GP and I knew there was a problem. I contacted Monitor, I contacted the CQC, I spoke on the telephone to that fantastic individual, Cynthia Bower, and pointed out to her that there was a problem. I am slightly surprised that it has taken three years for the CQC to conclude that there is a problem, but the fact that I was still working in the area gave me evidence and first-hand experience of what was going on, and my constituents recognise that.
The other example that I can give the House is of the hospital that I would like to see built in the Thames valley. That is based on the experience of working throughout the constituency. In the register of interests, I have various entries because I do not work in just one practice. I work all over the place—whoever will take me—and from that experience I have a regional perspective on the health economy in the Thames valley, a perspective that is almost unique, particularly if one adds to it the fact that I am also a Member of Parliament in the Thames valley. The two together make me a better Member of Parliament for the Bracknell constituency. So although I recognise what the shadow Front-Bench team is trying to do, this is the wrong way to go about it. I ask the Front-Bench team to reflect on that.