Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the whole House shares in the sense of loss of our service personnel in Afghanistan, but I think we can also take great pride in what they have achieved. Their achievements include establishing, through the Afghan national army, the ability to take and hold locations that were previously taken and held by the British Army. Actually, some of the places he refers to have been taken and held by the Afghan national army.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the success of the Tour de France in Yorkshire, which caused great excitement and showcased what a great county Yorkshire is? Such a debate would highlight the strength of feeling in Yorkshire that Gary Verity, who did so much to bring the Tour de France to Yorkshire, and for other things he has done, should be recognised in the next honours list, perhaps with a knighthood. If we cannot have a debate, I hope the Prime Minister, who has very kindly come in to listen to my question, will take that message ringing in his ears as he leaves the Chamber.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well. The Prime Minister will have heard it and I know he will have shared, with literally millions of people, the pleasure of seeing the Tour de France in Yorkshire over the weekend. If I may say so, I took particular pleasure in seeing the Tour de France pass through my constituency on Monday. My hon. Friend makes an interesting and good point.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think that the Prime Minister in this House and my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in the House of Lords yesterday made it clear that while this nomination is one for the Prime Minister, it is open to the scrutiny Committees of the House to request, as they could on any nomination for commissioner, that evidence be given to them. It will be a matter for the nominee concerned as to how to respond.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) raised the case of Keith Williams in Justice questions. He was released early from prison by the Parole Board, completely and utterly against the wishes and views of the victim of his terrible crimes. May we have a debate on how we can make sure that the victim’s views are paramount in the criminal justice system, so that before anybody is released on parole, moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence, the views of the victim are taken fully into account and put at the top of the priority list? Such a debate would also showcase the fantastic work of organisations such as Families Fighting for Justice.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case very well. I will ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to respond directly to him. I am sure he will find further opportunities for a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment or elsewhere, in order to raise the issues properly. I hope he recognises that, through legislation and other action, the Government have sought continuously to put the interests of victims at the forefront of the criminal justice system.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that successive Governments have never published legal advice offered by the Attorney-General, nor commented on it. All I can say is that what the Prime Minister said the day before yesterday was not intended in any way to prejudice any aspect of the completion of the trial.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that there was insufficient time last week to consider my amendments on Sunday trading. Given that the current law is absurd and prevents land-based companies from competing with the internet, protects the interests of Tesco Express more than any other company in the country and lumps garden centres in, many of which are small businesses and should not be prevented from opening for longer hours when they are often one-man bands, can he find time for us to have a proper debate about these absurdities so the House can consider whether further amendments need to be made?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall the answer I gave at previous business questions about the Government’s position, which is that we feel we are currently striking the right balance in the law on Sunday trading. I know that the debate on consideration of the Consumer Rights Bill was abbreviated—it was short—but there was an opportunity for points to be made in the course of it. Of course, if my hon. Friend wishes to bring forward any proposals, he can seek an Adjournment debate to raise issues in the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, which I will of course discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends. On the short consultation, we have tried to ensure that we are able to press forward more rapidly; therefore, many of our consultations are not as long as they used to be. That the changes will be in the form of secondary legislation affords the House an opportunity to consider them, if necessary. I do not believe that the regulations will be considered under the affirmative procedure, but that does not mean that they cannot be the subject of consideration in this House if Members so choose.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on immigration, particularly from within the EU? If there is one lesson that all parties need to learn from the recent elections, it is that the public are sick to the back teeth of open borders with the EU and unlimited immigration from within the EU. Surely the least that they can expect from this House is a debate on the subject, so that as we go into the general election, everybody’s constituents know where their Member of Parliament stands on the issue. If the Leader of the House wants to tie that in with a debate on who should be the next European Commissioner, I am happy to go along with that.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that he will have an opportunity to raise that issue in the debate on the Queen’s Speech on Tuesday. During that debate, I hope it will be possible to make it plain how the Government have already acted, such that non-EU net migration is down by a third; non-EU migration is at the lowest level since the late 1990s; economic immigration from outside the EU is capped; for those from within the EU, jobseeker benefits are limited to just six months and entitlement to housing benefit has been removed; and EU migrants are barred from re-entry following removal. The Opposition and the Government share the view that it is important to enforce the minimum wage. We are increasing the maximum fine for payment below the minimum wage to £20,000 per employee.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know of any civil servant who is in any sense compromised in relation to conflicts of interest. I do not think one can reasonably say that any relationship at any point in one’s past professional life necessarily constitutes a conflict years and years later. Civil servants are committed impartially to working on behalf of the Government. They have no conflicts of interest, or if they had any conflict of interest it would have to be declared.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Two years ago, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Food Labelling (Halal and Kosher Meat) Bill, to ensure the compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. It was defeated by three votes—voted down largely by the politically correct brigade on the Labour Benches. As usual, I was ahead of my time, because the Leader of the House will appreciate that there is now widespread concern about the use among retailers of halal and kosher meat that is not labelled as such. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House to explain what the Government are doing to ensure that consumers can make an informed choice when they are making their purchases?

[Mr Lansley]

I do recall my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill and indeed he correctly anticipated what is clearly a continuing and emerging debate. I will, if I may, talk to our ministerial colleagues at DEFRA, but if he is able to—I am not sure quite how closely it will link—he may find an opportunity, on the first day on Report of the Consumer Rights Bill, to draw attention to these issues, because that Bill is very much about something that I am sure we all believe in, which is giving consumers not only rights, but the information on which they can base their purchasing decisions.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Of course I cannot promise an immediate debate on that. Securing our energy supply in a manner that enables us to meet our decarbonisation objectives is a proper and continuous source of debate, and I know there will be further debates on it. What I think the Minister of State was saying from the Dispatch Box was that he is thoroughly engaged with the company and the trade unions, and has been for some time, in considering the consequences of the prospective closures.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for regular debates on whether we should stay in or leave the European Union? Will he insist that the Deputy Prime Minister participates in each of those debates? Now that Nigel Farage has, unsurprisingly, twice wiped the floor with the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue, is it not clear that the more people hear the debate and the arguments about whether we should be in or out, the more likely they are to conclude that we should be out? It is equally clear that those who want to stay in are relying on dodgy figures, desperate scaremongering and personal, cheap insults.

[Mr Lansley]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I believe we should have a debate in this country about our future relationship with the European Union, but that we should have it once we have had the opportunity that only a Conservative victory at the next general election would afford us: to have both a renegotiation of our relationship with our partners, with that mandate behind us, and the mandate for a referendum in the next Parliament. That gives force to such a debate. In the absence of a referendum, there is no force to this debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the proper role of Governments and shareholders in the setting of pay and bonuses in the private sector? We seem to be in a ridiculous situation where the Government want to lecture profitable companies in which they have no shareholding about their pay and bonuses, and yet they equally appear to be sitting idly by and allowing a company in which they are a majority shareholder to pay more than £500 million of bonuses, despite the fact that the company is costing the taxpayer more than £8 billion a year?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my hon. Friends at the Business, Innovation and Skills Department. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think we are lecturing companies. We are being clear about what we regard as social responsibility, and that companies have a responsibility that extends not only to their shareholders and employees but to the wider society. All companies should recognise that. Where the Government have a substantial shareholding in a company, of course we should use that shareholding similarly—in a socially responsible way. We are aiming for, and have seen, a substantial reduction in bonuses in the banking sector, which I know is occurring in those companies in which the Government have a shareholding.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on equal pay, and when we do perhaps the Minister responsible can explain why the Government Equalities Office pays men more than women, white people more than ethnic minorities and non-disabled people more than disabled people? Does the Leader of the House not agree that the Government Equalities Office should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing everybody else around the country about equal pay?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend recognises, as I do, that it is our responsibility to meet our obligations under the Equal Pay Act and, more generally, our obligation to ensure that there is access to equal pay. I do not know the circumstances in the Government Equalities Office. I will of course ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport so that she may respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I regret that I cannot advise the right hon. Gentleman and the House on the timing of the completion of that inquiry, although it is being proceeded with as a matter of urgency. As I have said, for that reason I cannot advise the House about the character of the statement that will then be made.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House early next week to make a statement on the latest idiotic comments from the Council of Europe that benefits levels in this country are too low and should be almost doubled? For how much longer will this Government allow the Council of Europe and unelected pseudo-judges in the European Court of Human Rights to decide things in this country that should be decided by this Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions would welcome the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box on that subject. He might well say, as I do, that it is lunacy for the Council of Europe to suggest that welfare payments need to increase when we paid out £204 billion in benefits and pensions last year alone. Millions of people find that the welfare system in this country provides a valuable and fair safety net when they need it most—not least pensioners, who benefit from a triple lock that now represents the highest share of earnings received by pensioners in their state pension for more than 20 years.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course, as I always seek to do, try to expedite a helpful response from both Departments to which the hon. Gentleman has written.

It is as well for the House continuously to recognise how we as a country are leading the way in helping Syrians suffering from the humanitarian crisis. Although we contribute in many ways, including by seeking to protect humanitarian convoys taking aid into Syria, there are of course refugees. In the year up to September, we accepted more than 1,100 Syrian asylum claims made in this country in the usual way.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I say how much I will miss Paul Goggins in the House? He was not only one of the most able people in Parliament but, crucially, he was also one of the nicest. I will miss him greatly.

I understand that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are conniving to prevent the European Union (Referendum) Bill—so expertly steered through this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)—from coming into law. If they are successful in blocking the Bill going through the House of Lords in this Session, as they seem to intend, will the Leader of the House introduce a carry-over motion to allow the Bill to be taken forward in the next Session?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, not least about our former colleague. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the European Union (Referendum) Bill, but also recognise that it has responsibility to consider it timeously—[Interruption.] Timeously; it is a perfectly normal word, I think—in good time. The Lords should consider the Bill so that it can be passed in this Session of Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Timely!”] Hon. Members must not make me laugh; it makes me cough. Not least, the will of this House must be respected. My recollection is that the Bill passed Third Reading in this House by 304 votes to nil, which I think was a powerful expression of its view.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Following on from the urgent question, may we have a debate on Government inquiries into decision making? Surely it cannot be right to farm out important decisions to unelected and unaccountable people. If Ministers are not capable of working out the evidence for themselves and coming to a conclusion, or do not have the guts to take responsibility for the decision they want to take, perhaps they should not be Ministers.

[Mr Lansley]

In the context of the urgent question, which I thought the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) answered superbly, what was announced was a review, but, as she made clear, the decision that will be made in the spring will be made by Ministers.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

You have the advantage over me, Mr Speaker, because I was not able to be here throughout questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when the hon. Gentleman graced his party’s Front Bench. If he wished to raise such a question, he might have had an opportunity to do so then.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the activities of Labour-run Bradford council? Not only are there questions about whether there was a cover-up regarding Paul Flowers, but my constituents in Menston have serious and legitimate complaints about the planning process, which led to a planning application being approved on a wholly inappropriate site. I have received a letter from a developer saying that Bradford council planning officers are supporting developers in pursuing another bid for housing on another inappropriate development site, which has been rejected by a planning committee, a planning inspector and the Secretary of State twice. Is it not time that my constituents had a council that worked in their interests, not against their interests?

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House was shocked by the death of the young girl who was attacked by her dog earlier this week—our thoughts must be with her family. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent review of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, because if its provisions on dangerous dogs go through, the mother of that young girl would face up to 14 years in prison, which would be a ridiculous unintended consequence of the legislation? Will he ensure that the Bill at least involves provision on intent, or that it is changed in other ways, to ensure that the mother of that young girl, who is going through enough trauma at the moment, does not face a ridiculously long prison sentence?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the great distress and shock that people have felt as a result of those events. Many people have called for the provisions in the Bill relating to harm caused by dangerous dogs on private premises for a long time. They have been debated in this House, but the Bill continues to be considered, so I know that Members of both Houses will consider the points he makes and the application of the Bill in any individual circumstances.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

There should be no rewards for failure, in the public sector or in the private sector. We have made it clear that legal devices such as non-disclosure or compromise agreements should not be used to gag staff or brush under the carpet golden goodbyes to senior staff. In this context, it is hard to see how Haringey council’s secretive actions can be in the public interest, given the large sum of taxpayers’ money involved and the immense public concern arising from the baby P scandal. Bankrolling a state-sponsored cover-up must be a massive error of judgment on the part of Haringey council, following earlier mishandling of the affair.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate or a statement on the sentencing powers for magistrates, so that we can find out if and when the Government intend to allow magistrates to sentence people to 12 months in prison, as opposed to six months at the moment? The law is in place and it just needs activating. Such a debate or statement would help to tease out the Government’s response, and that of other hon. Members, to Frances Crook and the idiotic Howard League for Penal Reform, who believe that magistrates should not be allowed to send people to prison at all.

[Mr Lansley]

I recall precisely the point that my hon. Friend raises, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to respond to him. I also gently point out to my hon. Friend that we will have questions to the Justice Secretary on 12 November, which may also provide him with an opportunity to push forward this important point.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I believe we have an intelligent policy that focuses not just on harm reduction but on trying to get people off drugs altogether. That is the proper answer and where we need to get to, not just the shift from heroin to methadone with some of the risks and consequences that flow from that, including the risk of reverting to heroin use. I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers will be in the Chamber on Monday and he may like to raise that point with them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is it time we had a debate and vote on whether we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights, following the latest bizarre, perverse, and frankly idiotic, ruling on whole-life sentences? The British public do not want Ministers to say they are deeply disappointed; they want them to do something about it such as leave that ridiculous organisation that is full of pseudo-judges, many of whom are political placemen rather than properly qualified judges.

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, we agreed in the coalition agreement that obligations under the European convention on human rights will continue to be enshrined in British law, and he will appreciate that we took considerable positive steps forward during our presidency of the Council of Europe and in the Brighton declaration, which will help. He and others across the House will continue to be concerned at the nature of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and its interpretation of convention rights. There will be an opportunity to consider the implications of that on our future relationship with the convention, although I cannot promise that in the immediate future.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Home Secretary made it very clear in the House that she has confidence that a number of inquiries that are being undertaken into the issues surrounding Stephen Lawrence’s murder continue to be independent, but that she has not taken off the table any further steps that might be needed to ensure that there is the rigour and independence required. She continues to keep the issue under review.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Back in 2008, Bradford & Bingley was expropriated by the Labour Government in a horrid and flawed decision taken by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor. Nearly 1 million shareholders and bondholders still do not know how and why their company was confiscated. Surely the Leader of the House agrees that it is time the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority made it abundantly clear what decisions were taken in the run-up to the confiscation. Will he arrange for the Chancellor to make a statement laying out exactly what decisions were taken, so we can find out once and for all why Bradford & Bingley was treated so unfairly compared with other banks in a similar situation?

[Mr Lansley]

On behalf of my hon. Friend and other Members who share his views, I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. Friend will not himself have direct access to the papers of the previous Administration, but I will ask him what steps, not least in the context of the continuing inquiry into banking standards, it is appropriate to take to find out more about the circumstances.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether I can endorse the hon. Lady’s request for a statement at this stage, not least because I am not sure whether my ministerial colleagues would wish to come to the Dispatch Box and intervene or express a running commentary on inquest proceedings. She will know that I was able to announce at previous business questions Government support for the families’ legal costs for that inquiry, but in order to be sure I will bring her point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that they are aware of it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the case of Geoffrey Bettley, a teacher at St Mary’s in Menston, on the border of my constituency, who downloaded child porn images and was rightly sacked by the school and put on the sex offenders register? In a decision ratified by the Education Secretary, Geoffrey Bettley has been told that he is allowed to teach again. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate that many parents will be deeply disturbed by the fact that somebody who has been convicted of downloading child porn should be allowed to teach again. Can we have a statement from the Education Secretary so he can explain what on earth he was thinking when he allowed that person to teach again?

[Mr Lansley]

I have read press reports on the matter. The decision was taken by the National College for Teaching and Leadership and then endorsed by a senior official at the Department for Education. I will be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education so that he might give my hon. Friend an account of the process in the case.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I remind the House and Opposition Members in particular that, as Mr Speaker outlined yesterday, the selection of subjects for the Queen’s Speech debate was made by the Opposition. They could have chosen to debate the Government’s welfare reforms, but they did not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will respond to the debate tomorrow. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise the matter then, we will be glad to take part in the debate and to ask why the Labour party, after 13 years of talking about welfare reform that it never delivered, has turned itself into a party that is opposed to the reform of welfare.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate or statement on business rates? As he will know, retailers and small retailers in particular have faced incredibly tough trading conditions since 2008, and yet business rates have risen enormously. Businesses across my constituency and particularly those in places such as Saltaire are struggling as a result of the increase in business rates. Given that such businesses are the backbone of our local communities and local economies, the Government should surely do more to alleviate the cost of business rates.

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government about that matter. My hon. Friend will note that there is an opportunity in the Queen’s Speech debate to discuss such issues. If memory serves, the debate on Tuesday is about the cost of living. Somebody will tell me if I am wrong about that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will respond to the debate. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but due to the growth incentive, which is part of the drive towards the devolution of responsibilities, local authorities now have greater flexibility to offer business rate discounts in particular circumstances.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am very impressed that Opposition Members have made progress by actually finding page 39 and reading it. It says—[Interruption.] All I will say to the hon. Gentleman and to Labour Members is that they are asking for an opportunity to debate this issue, and it will be available in the Budget debate.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

West Yorkshire police recently lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal a case against Leeds United about who pays for policing on match days. This will lead to West Yorkshire police having to repay Leeds United £1 million. It will also lead to my constituents having to lose police officers so that they can move across to help to police Leeds United football matches because of a small element of hooligan supporters. Will the Leader of the House get the Home Secretary to come and make a statement about this so that we can find out what she is going to do to reverse this intolerable situation?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I will, if I may, make clear to the Home Secretary his interest in this matter. Of course, were he to be here for Home Office questions on Monday he might find that he attracts Mr Speaker’s eye.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage and will return to the Floor of the House in due course, when it will become clear to the hon. Gentleman that—as we have discussed previously—the Government are taking the power to require that consumers are given access to the lowest tariffs available. That, along with the electricity market reform which is encapsulated in the Bill, is a tremendous step forward.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of today’s ruling in the High Court about the children’s heart unit at Leeds general infirmary. I am sure that he would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who have campaigned so vigorously on the issue, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), whose campaigning has been outstanding. Will he also ensure that a Minister comes to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the implications of the ruling, and about how the Government intend to proceed from now on?

[Mr Lansley]

I pay tribute to Members who, as my hon. Friend has said, have been assiduous in supporting their constituents and expressing their concerns. Those concerns are understandable, but let me reiterate that—as I think has been widely acknowledged—it is necessary to reduce the number of units responsible for children’s heart surgery in order deliver sustainable, secure, high-quality care for those children in the future.

It is clear from this morning’s decision that, while the judge has determined that the application for judicial review must succeed, what that means in terms of an order relating to the process itself is for future determination. I think it best for me to wait and see what the judge says in relation to the process before pressing my colleagues to make any kind of statement about how the joint committee of primary care trusts might proceed.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that the chief inspector published a report on Birmingham airport. Regrettably, it included the fact that, over a number of occasions, 278 passengers came through the primary control point when the biometric chip-reading facility had been deactivated. As the report acknowledges, that is one of a number of checks that UK Border Force officers conduct to verify identity. All criminal and immigration checks remained in place and action has already been taken to ensure that that cannot happen again. All contingency staff deployed to the border were fully trained to enable them to undertake the necessary security checks.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Before the half-term recess, we had a debate on violence against women and girls. According to the Ministry of Justice, men and boys are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as women and girls. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a big fan of equality—I believe you once referred to me as “a troglodyte” in one such debate in the previous Parliament. Therefore, in the interests of equality, may we have a debate on violence against men and boys?

[Mr Lansley]

In the interests of equality, I advise my hon. Friend to approach the Backbench Business Committee in the same way that hon. Members who secured the debate on violence against women and girls did.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friends enjoyed my right hon. Friend’s visit to Airedale general hospital. I recall visiting the hospital myself and being very impressed with the work it was doing. When I was in Kirklees, I was also very impressed by a demonstration of what telehealth and telecare can achieve. A trial was completed which led to the launch of the “3 million lives” programme just over a year ago, which achieved a 45% reduction in mortality rates among those who were enrolled in the programme.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I reiterate the calls for a debate about Harold Wilson, and ask whether, in the event of such a debate, we would be allowed to refer to the fact that he smoked a pipe? It seems that the politically correct brigade at the BBC have decided to block out that fact, Soviet-style, for the purposes of the programme that they are making about him. Perhaps we could combine a debate about Harold Wilson with a debate about politically correct idiocy at the BBC.

[Mr Lansley]

I find it difficult to conceive of the possibility of a programme about Harold Wilson without his pipe. How would it explain how he gave himself time to think? I must say that I am not sure how he managed not to use his pipe at the Dispatch Box, given that it was such an integral part of his make-up.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am accustomed to questions to me being described colloquially as “poor man’s Prime Minister’s questions”; I did not realise they had become “poor man’s BIS questions”, as well—perhaps poor man’s every kind of question.

I will secure an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question from my ministerial colleagues. However, we are very clear—in contrast with the record of the last Labour Government—that there will be no programme of post office closures under this Government. I have seen in my own constituency the confidence that gives, particularly to villages where post offices have temporarily shut down.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Virtually every week, I read in my local papers the Bradford Telegraph & Argus and the Yorkshire Post about serious offenders having been brought to justice through advances in DNA testing and the use of the DNA database. Extraordinarily, however, this Government seem to think that there are far too many people on the database and are trying to find ways to take them off it. May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the DNA database in bringing serious offenders to justice, and how we should use it to maximum effect to help the police bring them to justice?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend addresses a very important point, which we understand: the need for effective use of the latest forensic techniques to enable us to tackle crime; but at the same time, the need to respect civil liberties and people’s right for their DNA, which can be acquired in a range of circumstances, not to be held where there is no good reason for the authorities to retain it. The balance between those two issues has been discussed, but my Home Office colleagues will be happy to discuss the issue again and answer questions in future.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if anybody should ever feel that, because it is absolutely not necessary. As the Prime Minister has clearly said, and as I have reiterated, the changes to benefits for disabled people, including the personal independence payments, will focus more resources on those most in need with disabilities. I also dispute what the hon. Lady said about the business. This week five Government Bills are being considered in this House and five are being considered in the other House—that is a busy programme.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the use of police cautions? This week, we have had the case of a burglar who admitted 113 offences and was given a caution by Surrey police. Surely that is a totally inappropriate use of a police caution. That person should not have been seen at a magistrates court; somebody who commits 113 burglaries should be dealt with at a Crown court.

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. Of course, we must be careful, as the Executive, not to trespass on the prosecuting decisions of the prosecuting authorities, but I will raise the points he makes with my colleagues at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I can attend, I will do so, and I will look forward to it. Perhaps others will join me. Many who come from Swansea might contemplate revisiting it. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is from Swansea, as is the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means—and, indeed, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the Prime Minister will be making a statement in the House next week on his speech on Europe? Such a statement would give us all the opportunity to congratulate him on the fantastic speech that the Leader of the House confidently predicts and would also expose how out of touch with public opinion the Opposition are on this issue. Given that the shadow Leader of the House was leading with her chin in demanding such a statement, surely it would be a shame to disappoint her.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is not unusual for Prime Ministers of all parties to make speeches, and they sometimes do so in an international context. In this instance, it is important that the Prime Minister does so, because is it important that we communicate not only to the people of this country, but to the people of Europe our determination to achieve changes in Europe that enable the whole of Europe to be more competitive and more flexible. That is sought not only by this country, but by people in many other countries; this is about enhancing democratic accountability. On issues that require reporting to the House, I will, of course, discuss with my right hon. Friends whether it would be appropriate for a statement to be made and ensure that the House knows of any such statement as early as possible.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps other Members, with the hon. Lady’s support, would like to ask the Backbench Business Committee whether this issue can be brought forward for discussion.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate about attacks on public service workers, particularly teachers, people in the NHS, and police officers? Over Christmas we had the appalling example of a thug who violently assaulted a headmistress, abused and punched her, but simply walked away with a community service order and having to give her £100 in compensation. Surely such crimes should always be dealt with by a prison sentence. May we have a debate to find out what we can do to protect public servants from such attacks and ensure that the perpetrators of such violence are always sent to prison?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand, and my hon. Friend makes an important point very well. I recall, particularly in relation to the health service, how strongly we felt that on many occasions too few attacks had been followed up, and that too few cases had led to appropriate action. The Government were looking at the extent to which such issues were taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing, but I will ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to look at the issue and respond to my hon. Friend.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I know it concerns Members, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s own work in this respect over the years. I will talk to my colleagues in the Department for Transport and ask them to update the House. At this time of the year, it is tremendously important that we focus on this matter, not just because of the Christmas season, but because of the weather conditions. It is really important. Overall, this country has an extremely good road safety record, but we need to improve none the less.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the merits of leaving the European Union? Even the Euro-fanatic BBC decided that it was worth debating on “Newsnight” last night. Surely we should not leave such important matters to the BBC for debate; surely this is the type of thing that should be debated in this House. Opinion polls consistently show that twice as many people want to leave the EU as want to stay in it. Such a debate will allow people to see how many of their MPs agree with the majority view in their constituencies.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House will appreciate the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has on this matter. He will forgive me, but I am not privy to any of the details, although I will, of course, ask my right hon. Friends to look into the matter and respond to him.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on compensation claims by criminals? We read in today’s papers of a criminal who received £2,000 in compensation after being bitten by a dog that he was fleeing after breaking into a car. Are such claims not ridiculous and is it not time we had an age of austerity for compensation claims by criminals?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the House has just voted through changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I hope that that will focus criminal injuries compensation on victims, as it is intended to, and ensure that the more severe victims of crime get the compensation they require, rather than compensation sometimes being spread around in places where it is not so justified.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. Members across the House know that we must never relent in the fight against terrorism. Equally, building democracy and creating the opportunities for people to take charge of their own destiny in a way that is peaceful in the long term is something that we have all contributed to and that we all support.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have debate on localism? In a referendum with a 49% turnout in Menston in my constituency, 98% of those who voted opposed a proposed 300-house development in that village. However, Labour and Lib Dem councillors from other parts of the Bradford district came in and voted to impose that housing development on the village, which was clearly against the express wishes of the local people. Until the Government resolve issues such as these, localism will seem like a pipe dream to my constituents.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. In my experience, we should have more locally led planning decisions, which this Government are making possible. Also, local authorities’ use of neighbourhood plans can give further force to local decision making, but that has to be pursued within each local authority.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the creation of the excellent new Blue Collar Conservatives group last week? As the Labour party has abandoned the working classes and appears to want to stand up only for people who do not want to work and appears to believe in suppression rather than aspiration, would not such a debate show that the natural political home for anyone in the working classes is the Conservative party?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I share my hon. Friend’s view. We are now in a coalition Government, but the Conservative party has always been most successful when it has reached out to all the nation. That is why I am a one-nation Conservative and why in the 1980s more trade unionists voted Conservative than voted Labour. They were right to do so and our country has consequently been transformed. It continues to be my ambition and that of my party that we continue to be a home for people of aspiration, wherever they come from.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

On the contrary, I heard the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House the day before yesterday how a very high proportion of regional growth fund moneys are now reaching projects and delivering the promotion of growth. I will, however, seek a response from the Business Department to the case raised by the hon. Gentleman.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the unacceptable practices of the banks in general and the Yorkshire bank in particular? It is treating its business customers in a most appalling manner, piling on unjustifiable costs and new terms, including a constituent of mine who has been a customer of the Yorkshire bank for 35 years and never missed a payment. When banks make risky investments that go wrong, surely they should stand the losses and not pass them on to their long-established, sound small business customers.

[Mr Lansley]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s important point to the attention of my Treasury colleagues. He may also like to raise it with the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which is considering such issues.

Business of the House

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not put that in the context of the overall reduction in the number of households with nobody in work, which I believe is very much to be applauded.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the appointment of judges, and on how to make them more reflective of public opinion? A great deal of concern has been expressed about lily-livered judges by many people, not least me, and yesterday we heard a judge saying that it took a huge amount of courage to burgle a house, and refusing to send a persistent burglar to prison. How can we ensure that idiots like that do not remain in the judiciary, and that the people who are appointed to the judiciary do not reflect the views of that individual?

[Mr Lansley]

I am conscious that, in my new privileged position, I stand at a constitutional juxtaposition between the legislature and the Executive. One of the last things I would want to do, on my first occasion at the Dispatch Box, would be to trespass on the relationship between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, and in particular on the independence of the judiciary, so I will avoid commenting on that. However, my hon. Friend’s observations are on the record.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to the clinical commissioning groups across the country that are delivering on the clinical leadership that will modernise and improve the NHS rather than simply sitting reading the newspapers and imagining that he knows what is going on in the NHS.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when she was in government, Baroness Williams was one of the chief architects of ruining the state education system in this country? Given that, why would a Conservative-dominated Government wish to dance to her tune?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Williams is now a member of the Liberal Democrat party, and in that respect I am not aware that she has ever transgressed in government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Under those circumstances, if a referral is made to me, I will wish to apply the kind of criteria that I set out last year for reconfigurations across the country for the first time: that they must meet the tests of being consistent with the result of any public consultation and with the public’s view, with the views of prospective future commissioners—such as the commissioning consortia that are coming together as a pathfinder in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—and with the future choices made by patients about where and how they want services to be provided to them, and that they must meet clinical criteria for safety and quality.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in urging the Secretary of State to protect the children’s heart unit at Leeds hospital as it is a very worthwhile facility for people in Yorkshire, and does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree with me that doctors should go to where the patients are, rather than the other way around by expecting patients to travel for many hours to get to such an important service?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but in response I will simply reiterate what I said to our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West: that these matters are currently the subject of consultation by an independent group representing the primary care trusts collectively, and not by the Department of Health at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T2. I believe that the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes would be gesture politics of the worst kind, that it would have no basis in evidence and that it would simply be a triumph for the nanny state—and an absurd one at that. Given that, does the Secretary of State believe that I am still a Conservative, and if so, is he?

[Mr Lansley]

I am happy to believe that we are both Conservatives. The coalition Government made a commitment in our public health White Paper to publishing a tobacco control plan. We will do so shortly, and the purpose will be very clear: to secure a further reduction in the number of people smoking, and as a consequence, a reduction in avoidable deaths and disease.

Public Health White Paper

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

There we have it: the Labour party as the opponent of local government. I am sure that people will recognise that when we arrive at local government election time. The Labour party has never trusted local government but we are going to trust it. We are going to give it not only greater freedoms but greater powers and responsibilities. Not every local authority will be brilliantly successful, but at least local authorities are directly accountable to the people who elect them—those for whom the authorities will deliver services.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Many of the measures that my right hon. Friend proposes, such as the plain packaging of tobacco, forcing responsible drinkers to pay more for alcohol in supermarkets than they otherwise would and, bizarrely, forcing employers to allow women to breastfeed at work are a triumph not for public health but for the nanny state—something that we thought had gone out with the previous Government. Why is he still so wedded to the nanny state?

[Mr Lansley]

I am wedded to achieving improvements in public health. Interestingly, today I have been accused both of being an exponent of the nanny state and of having abandoned it in favour of “nudge”. The truth is that, as one sees in the White Paper, there is a clear philosophy here that we will pursue a voluntary approach, regulate only where necessary and seek to have less intrusive and less interventionist approaches in order to make more progress more quickly. If we do not make progress through voluntary approaches, we will of course still have to protect the public’s health and we will seek other measures to do so, but they have been tested to destruction by the previous Administration. It did not happen—they did not succeed and they did not improve public health—but we are determined to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

17. What recent representations he has received on the appropriateness of the remit of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; and if he will make a statement.

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

Since 7 May, the Department has received about 120 representations from hon. Members, noble Lords and members of the public on a range of issues concerning the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, including its remit.

[Philip Davies]

May I urge the Secretary of State to get NICE to go back to what most people think it is for, which is monitoring the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of drugs? Many people do not think that it does a particularly good job on that, anyway, but it is currently indulging in empire building, with its ridiculous drivel in recent weeks about smoking breath tests for pregnant women, compulsory sex education for five-year-olds and subsidies for food companies to make healthier food. Surely it ought to go back to what it should be doing, and do it better, rather than empire building, as it is doing.

[Mr Lansley]

In 2005 the previous Government charged NICE with producing public health guidance as part of its work. As I establish a more integrated and effective public health service, I shall consider how the advice of NICE fits into that strategic framework.