DOCSLIB.ORG

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tuesday 21 February 2012
Volume 540
No. 266

HOUSE OF COMMONS

OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday 21 February 2012

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm
Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected]

723

21 FEBRUARY 2012

724 reviewed for potential savings following the Treasury-led pilot exercise that I described, which was undertaken at Queen’s hospital, Romford.

House of Commons

Tuesday 21 February 2012
The House met at half-past Two o’clock

PRAYERS

Oliver Colvile: Given that the PFI process has been proven to have flaws in delivering value for money for taxpayers, what effect does my right hon. Friend feel that that will have on new commissioning boards?

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend will know from the very good work being done by the developing clinical commissioning groups in Plymouth that they have a responsibility to use their budgets to deliver the best care for the population they serve. It is not their responsibility to manage the finances of their hospitals or other providers; that is the responsibility of the strategic health authorities for NHS trusts and of Monitor for foundation trusts. In the future, it will be made very clear that the providers of health care services will be regulated for their sustainability, viability and continuity of services but will not pass those costs on to the clinical commissioning groups. The clinical commissioning groups should understand that it is their responsibility to ensure that patients get access to good care.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR

LONDON (NO. 2) BILL [L ORDS] (B Y O RDER )

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (SUPPLEMENTAL TOLL

PROVISIONS) BILL [L ORDS] (B Y O RDER )
Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday
28 February (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): The Secretary

of State will recall that he cancelled the new hospital planned for my area shortly after the general election. Will he advise the House how many hospitals the Government are building that use models other than PFI?

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

PFI Debt (NHS Hospitals)

Mr Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that his foundation trust was looking to receive more than £400 million in capital grant from the Department, which went completely contrary to the foundation trust model introduced under the previous Government. I pay credit to North Tees and Hartlepool trust, which is developing a better and more practical solution than that which it pursued before the election—many of the projects planned before the election were unviable. The hon. Gentleman will know that projects are going ahead, and last November, together with the Treasury, we published a comprehensive call for reform of PFI. We achieve public-private partnerships and use private sector expertise and innovation, but on a value-for-money basis.
1. Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con): What steps he is taking to address levels of PFI debt in NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

[95312]

9. Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)
(Con): What steps he is taking to address levels of PFI debt in NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

[95320]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley):

The previous Government left 102 hospital projects with £67 billion of PFI debts. We have worked closely with NHS organisations for which PFI affordability is an issue to identify solutions for them, which have included joint working with the Treasury to reduce the costs of PFI contracts. Despite that, some trusts have unaffordable PFI obligations. On 3 February I announced how each of them could access ongoing Government support to help meet those costs.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): John Appleby of the King’s Fund says that PFI represents less than 1% of the total annual turnover of £115 billion. Does the Secretary of State agree?

Mr Lansley: I gave the hon. Lady the figure: £67 billion of debt. Seven NHS trusts and foundation trusts are clearly unviable because of the debt that was left them by the Labour Government.
Chris Kelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Russells Hall hospital was expanded in 2003, but still has £1.8 billion of PFI debt attached to it—debt which will not be paid off until 2042. What steps is he taking to help reduce the PFI costs for hospitals such as mine that have not been completely crippled by Labour’s PFI and therefore do not qualify for central support, but none the less have high levels of debt?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Is the Secretary of
State confident that subsidising hospitals burdened with PFI will not be deemed anti-competitive under forthcoming legislation, or state aid under EU legislation? Has he taken appropriate legal advice?
Mr Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who illustrates the precise issue with what Labour left. Labour talked of building new hospitals but left this enormous mortgage, in effect, of £67 billion. He refers to Russells Hall hospital, which, like others, is having its contracts
Mr Lansley: I always act on advice, and I am absolutely clear that the support we have set out for NHS trusts and foundation trusts will not fall foul of anti-competitive procedures.
725

Oral Answers

21 FEBRUARY 2012

Oral Answers

726

NHS Reorganisation

services in the NHS right now. Why does the Minister not put patients before his, the Secretary of State’s and the Prime Minister’s pride, drop this unwanted Bill, and use some of the money it would save to protect those 6,000 nursing posts?
2. David Wright (Telford) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the potential risks of NHS reorganisation.

[95313]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon

Burns): The Department monitors risks associated with the implementation of the health and social care reform programme on an ongoing basis.
Mr Burns: I have to say that, unfortunately, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman thought was a rather clever way of describing my answers, his figures are factually incorrect. As Jim Callaghan once said, an inaccuracy can be halfway round the world before truth gets its boots on. The facts are these: there are 896— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen to the answer he asked for, he might learn something and stop making misrepresentations. There are 86 more midwives working in the NHS—[HON. MEMBERS: “86?”]— 896, which is an increase of 4%. There are 4,175 more doctors working in the NHS: an increase of 4%. There are 15,104 fewer administrators working in the NHS—a decrease of 7.4%—and 5,833 fewer managers. There are more doctors. There are more midwives. There are fewer administrators.
David Wright: “An open, transparent NHS is a safer
NHS”: not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for Health. Is it not amazing that Ministers do not want to release documentation relating to the reorganisation of the NHS? Is it not an absolute scandal that they will not publish the documentation? Is it not the fact that the reorganisation of the NHS is looking a bit like the Norwegian blue? Should it not shuffle off the perch?

Mr Burns: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. As he, or certainly the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), will know, the risk register is an ongoing document—discussions between Ministers and civil servants on the formulation, implementation and transition of policies—and it would be wrong, in my opinion, for it to be published. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appealed to the tribunal following the decision of the Information Commissioner, in line with the precedent adopted by Secretaries of State in the Labour Government in both the Department of Health and the Treasury.

Private Health Care

3. Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the future of private health care.

[95314]

6. Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab):
What assessment he has made of the future of private health care.

[95317]

David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Does the

Minister agree that the risk of not reorganising would be the longer waiting lists, longer waits for ambulances and lower access to life-prolonging drugs that we currently see in socialist-dominated Wales under the Assembly?
13. Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab):
What assessment he has made of the involvement of the private health care sector in the NHS.

[95324]

Mr Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course he speaks from the authority of living in a country that has a Labour Administration, where we see spending cut, waiting times and lists rising, and utter chaos in the quality of care for patients.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon

Burns): The Department has made no assessment of the future of private health care. This is not the role of the Department of Health. The private sector has always provided services to the NHS and the Department monitors trends where it does so—for example, the number of NHS patients choosing a private provider under patient choice.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC): The Minister will know that large numbers of people from Wales, particularly north Wales, access treatment in England. What assessment has he made of the risks to such treatment if the legislation goes through?
Jessica Morden: Given that the Prime Minister said there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS, the coalition agreement ruled it out and nobody voted for it, what exactly is the Secretary of State’s mandate for turning the NHS into a “fantastic business”, as the Prime Minister has said?
Mr Burns: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out of me what is in the risk register, I am afraid he will be unsuccessful, but if it is of any reassurance I can tell him that for people living close to the border there have been arrangements between Wales and the English NHS and they will continue. Those people will benefit if treated in England, because waiting times are falling in this country, unlike Wales where they are increasing.
Mr Burns: I am extremely sorry if the hon. Lady really believes the mantra that she has just spewed out. If she had read pages 45 and 46 of our manifesto, she would have seen that it says that we would introduce clinical commissioning groups, take away political micromanagement from Whitehall, free up the NHS and cut bureaucracy, as we are doing, which will save £4.5 billion to reinvest in the health service. Our coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, had in their manifesto the abolition of SHAs. So I have to tell the hon. Lady that she is wrong. The test of what is going on and what is a success is the fact that if one meets GPs around the country, they support commissioning for their patients.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): What a pleasure it is to see the Secretary of State here today; he managed to make his way in.
I am afraid I have to describe the Minister of State’s answer as codswallop. Let me give him an example of one risk to the NHS that we already know about. The number of NHS nurses has fallen by 3,500 since the general election, and that figure could be at least 6,000 by the end of this Parliament. The Bill is damaging front-line 727

Oral Answers

21 FEBRUARY 2012

Oral Answers

728
Teresa Pearce: On the BBC’s “Newsnight”, the Minister of State stated that the Health and Social Care Bill would turn the NHS into a “genuine market”. How does this belief fit in with the NHS founding principle that access should be based on need, not market forces?
Mr Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, because it might clarify some of the misinformation being bandied around on the Opposition Benches. Any money generated by private patients or by the private sector within the NHS must be spent on NHS patients, so it will benefit NHS patients and the NHS, and that is to be welcomed.
Mr Burns: I am sorry—the hon. Lady has obviously

not listened properly to me. It has been my guiding principle and my core belief from the day I entered politics that we should have a national health service free at the point of use for all those eligible to use it. In no shape or form does the Bill, or any actions by this Government, compromise that core belief of mine.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration between the NHS and the independent sector can deliver real benefits for both patients and the taxpayer?

Mr Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because we need to drive up the quality of care. What we are doing with the Health and Social Care Bill is closing a loophole so that there can be no favouritism towards the private sector, so the travesty introduced under the previous Government, including the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), where independent treatment centres had an advantage that put the NHS at a disadvantage in providing care, and were paid more than the NHS, will stop, because it is unacceptable.
Mr Brown: The Minister is aware that funding for the health service in Wales and Scotland is through the Barnett formula. For every pound saved by the Government—in other words, for every pound less spent per person in England—there is a knock-on consequence for the budgets in Wales and Scotland. What assessment has he made of the fact that he will be funding NHS provision from private patient fees, rather than the public purse?

Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): Part 3 of the
Health and Social Care Bill will introduce competition policy to the NHS by law for the first time in its history. Does the Minister think that that is likely to lead to more private care in this country or less?
Mr Burns: As the hon. Gentleman knows better than
I do, the running of the NHS in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved authorities. I speak for the English NHS, and I can tell him that that we have guaranteed that the budget of the NHS in England will be a protected one for this Parliament in which there will be real-terms increases, albeit more modest than in the past. But we have seen in Wales in particular a fall of just over 8% in funding. That is the decision of a Labour Welsh Government. The moneys that are saved in the health service in England through cutting out bureaucracy and through greater effectiveness in delivering care will be totally reinvested—100%—in the NHS in England.
Mr Burns: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman, who always asks this question, is wrong. We have not introduced competition into the NHS; it was there under the previous Administration.

Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Mr Burns: It is a bit rich for the former Secretary of
State to bleat about that. What I want is the finest health care for patients so that they are treated more effectively and quickly and their long-term conditions are managed in a way that enhances the patient experience.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): I may have

an interest—a remote one—in this question. I expect my right hon. Friend would agree that every patient who chooses to have private health care rather than national health service care, for whatever reason, is one less case on the national health cost and care bases. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it may be appropriate for the Treasury to do a cost-benefit analysis so as to consider a tax encouragement for individuals, especially those over 65, to take out private health insurance?

Hospital Management
4. Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North

Ipswich) (Con): What steps he is taking to address underperforming hospital management teams. [95315]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley):

The performance of hospital management teams is the responsibility of their boards. Those are accountable to strategic health authorities for NHS trusts, and foundation trusts are accountable to their governors to ensure that they comply with Monitor’s framework. As part of our work to strengthen NHS trusts so that they can reach foundation trust status, we have published guidance on strengthening trust boards, their clinical leadership and management. We are further strengthening accountability through quality accounts and open reporting so that the public can see the absolute and relative performance of all NHS service providers.
Mr Burns: I do not want to disappoint my hon.
Friend, but I am afraid I do not agree with that. What the Government have to concentrate on is giving the maximum amount of resources within the protected budget to the provision of health care in this country, to ensure, enhance and improve the quality of care for patients in England. That is the priority, not providing tax relief in any shape or form for people who use their choice for private health care.

Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): Professionals working in the NHS told the Health and Social Care Bill Committee that income from private patients was important to the development and improvement of NHS services. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that that income benefits NHS patients?
Dr Poulter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. It is absolutely right that managers take responsibility for the decisions that they take at a local level on behalf of patients and are held accountable for
729

Oral Answers

21 FEBRUARY 2012

Oral Answers

730 them. A doctor or nurse who fails in their duty can be struck off, so there is clear accountability, but there appears to be no clear accountability or traceability for the decisions of hospital managers. Who will hold those people properly to account when they have failed?

Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab):

Has the Minister seen an article today by the respected

journalist Polly Toynbee—[Laughte r . ] Respected by

the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: “Stop laughing.”] I am not laughing at all—

Mr Lansley: My hon. Friend knows that the management of trusts should be accountable directly to their boards. As I said, the management of foundation trusts are accountable, through their boards, to their governors. An important point that arose in relation to Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust is that we should ensure—we are looking at how to fulfil this—that there is also a code of practice to which managers are held accountable. He knows, as I do, that management must be accountable through their boards.
Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the views of Polly
Toynbee, as enunciated by Dame Joan.

Dame Joan Ruddock: On a very serious issue, a

waiting list clerk of 17 years has just resigned because she was asked to adopt a range of devious methods to make sure that people coming up to the 18-week target for treatment were taken off lists. Does the Minister understand that patients will not always know whether they have had proper treatment, and that it will be far too late to refer them to an ombudsman at some later

  • date?
  • Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): The Secretary

of State has part-begun to answer this question, as he recently threatened to sack NHS boards that do not meet their financial and waiting time targets. The question is this: why is he abolishing those powers in the Health and Social Care Bill? Is he really saying that governors of foundation trust hospitals have the power and wherewithal to sack a board?
Anne Milton: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. I am devastated to say that I have not seen the article to which she refers, but I am sure that I will. The Department has made it very clear to the NHS that clinical priority is and remains the main determinant of when patients should be treated. When I was in opposition I made various visits to various hospitals and saw them fiddling around at the edges, with admin staff forced to do things that they did not want to do, in order to tick boxes for the previous Government.
Mr Lansley: The hon. Lady should know that we intend to enhance the powers of foundation trust governors, but I am simply taking what was her Government’s policy before the election—that all NHS trusts should become foundation trusts, with the freedoms that go with that, and the responsibilities and accountability. We are putting that into place where her Government failed.
Mr Speaker: Right. Can we now speed up a bit?
We have a lot to get through, and I should like to accommodate the interests of colleagues, so everybody needs to tighten up.

  • NHS Constitution
  • NHS Allergy Services

5. Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con): What recourse patients have when denied facilities to which they are entitled under the NHS constitution. [95316]
7. Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of NHS allergy services.

Recommended publications
  • European Parliament Elections 2014

    European Parliament Elections 2014

    European Parliament Elections 2014 Updated 12 March 2014 Overview of Candidates in the United Kingdom Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 CANDIDATE SELECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................. 2 3.0 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: VOTING METHOD IN THE UK ................................................................ 3 4.0 PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATES BY UK CONSTITUENCY ............................................ 3 5.0 ANNEX: LIST OF SITTING UK MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ................................ 16 6.0 ABOUT US ............................................................................................................................. 17 All images used in this briefing are © Barryob / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 / GFDL © DeHavilland EU Ltd 2014. All rights reserved. 1 | 18 European Parliament Elections 2014 1.0 Introduction This briefing is part of DeHavilland EU’s Foresight Report series on the 2014 European elections and provides a preliminary overview of the candidates standing in the UK for election to the European Parliament in 2014. In the United Kingdom, the election for the country’s 73 Members of the European Parliament will be held on Thursday 22 May 2014. The elections come at a crucial junction for UK-EU relations, and are likely to have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe: a surge in support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) could lead to a Britain that is increasingly dis-engaged from the EU policy-making process. In parallel, the current UK Government is also conducting a review of the EU’s powers and Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly pushed for a ‘repatriation’ of powers from the European to the national level. These long-term political developments aside, the elections will also have more direct and tangible consequences.
  • Conservative Party

    Conservative Party

    Royaume-Uni 73 élus Parti pour Démocrates libéraux Une indépendance de Parti conservateur ECR Parti travailliste PSE l’indépendance du Les Verts PVE ALDE l'Europe NI Royaume-Uni MELD 1. Vicky Ford MEP 1. Richard Howitt MEP 1. Andrew Duff MEP 1. Patrick O’Flynn 1. Paul Wiffen 1. Rupert Read 2. Geoffrey Van Orden 2. Alex Mayer 2. Josephine Hayes 2. Stuart Agnew MEP 2. Karl Davies 2. Mark Ereira-Guyer MEP 3. Sandy Martin 3. Belinda Brooks-Gordon 3. Tim Aker 3. Raymond Spalding 3. Jill Mills 3. David Campbell 4. Bhavna Joshi 4. Stephen Robinson 4. Michael Heaver 4. Edmond Rosenthal 4. Ash Haynes East of England Bannerman MEP 5. Paul Bishop 5. Michael Green 5. Andrew Smith 5. Rupert Smith 5. Marc Scheimann 4. John Flack 6. Naseem Ayub 6. Linda Jack 6. Mick McGough 6. Dennis Wiffen 6. Robert Lindsay 5. Tom Hunt 7. Chris Ostrowski 7. Hugh Annand 7. Andy Monk 7. Betty Wiffen 7. Fiona Radic 6. Margaret Simons 7. Jonathan Collett 1. Ashley Fox MEP 1. Clare Moody 1. Sir Graham Watson 1. William Dartmouth 1. David Smith 1. Molly Scott Cato 2. Julie Girling MEP 2. Glyn Ford MEP MEP 2. Helen Webster 2. Emily McIvor 3. James Cracknell 3. Ann Reeder 2. Kay Barnard 2. Julia Reid 3. Mike Camp 3. Ricky Knight 4. Georgina Butler 4. Hadleigh Roberts 3. Brian Mathew 3. Gawain Towler 4. Andrew Edwards 4. Audaye Elesady South West 5. Sophia Swire 5. Jude Robinson 4. Andrew Wigley 4. Tony McIntyre 5. Phil Dunn 5.
  • European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009

    European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009

    European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009 Elections to the European Parliament were held across the 27 states of the European Union between 4 and 7 June 2009. The UK elections were held concurrently with the county council elections in England on 4 June. The UK now has 72 MEPs, down from 78 at the last election, distributed between 12 regions. The Conservatives won 25 seats, both UKIP and Labour 13 and the Liberal Democrats 11. The Green Party held their two seats, while the BNP won their first two seats in the European parliament. Labour lost five seats compared with the comparative pre-election position. The Conservatives won the popular vote overall, and every region in Great Britain except the North East, where Labour won, and Scotland, where the SNP won. UKIP won more votes than Labour. UK turnout was 34.5%. Across Europe, centre-right parties, whether in power or opposition, tended to perform better than those on the centre-left. The exact political balance of the new Parliament depends on the formation of Groups. The UK was not alone in seeing gains for far-right and nationalistic parties. Turnout across the EU was 43%. It was particularly low in some of the newer Member States. Part 1 of this paper presents the full results of the UK elections, including regional analysis and local-level data. Part 2 presents summary results of the results across the EU, together with country-level summaries based on data from official national sources. Adam Mellows-Facer Richard Cracknell Sean Lightbown Recent Research
  • Women in Power A-Z of Female Members of the European Parliament

    Women in Power A-Z of Female Members of the European Parliament

    Women in Power A-Z of Female Members of the European Parliament A Alfano, Sonia Andersdotter, Amelia Anderson, Martina Andreasen, Marta Andrés Barea, Josefa Andrikiené, Laima Liucija Angelilli, Roberta Antonescu, Elena Oana Auconie, Sophie Auken, Margrete Ayala Sender, Inés Ayuso, Pilar B Badía i Cutchet, Maria Balzani, Francesca Băsescu, Elena Bastos, Regina Bauer, Edit Bearder, Catherine Benarab-Attou, Malika Bélier, Sandrine Berès, Pervenche Berra, Nora Bilbao Barandica, Izaskun Bizzotto, Mara Blinkevičiūtė, Vilija Borsellino, Rita Bowles, Sharon Bozkurt, Emine Brantner, Franziska Katharina Brepoels, Frieda Brzobohatá, Zuzana C Carvalho, Maria da Graça Castex, Françoise Češková, Andrea Childers, Nessa Cliveti, Minodora Collin-Langen, Birgit Comi, Lara Corazza Bildt, Anna Maria Correa Zamora, Maria Auxiliadora Costello, Emer Cornelissen, Marije Costa, Silvia Creţu, Corina Cronberg, Tarja D Dăncilă, Vasilica Viorica Dati, Rachida De Brún, Bairbre De Keyser, Véronique De Lange, Esther Del Castillo Vera, Pilar Delli, Karima Delvaux, Anne De Sarnez, Marielle De Veyrac, Christine Dodds, Diane Durant, Isabelle E Ernst, Cornelia Essayah, Sari Estaràs Ferragut, Rosa Estrela, Edite Evans, Jill F Fajon, Tanja Ferreira, Elisa Figueiredo, Ilda Flašíková Beňová, Monika Flautre, Hélène Ford, Vicky Foster, Jacqueline Fraga Estévez, Carmen G Gabriel, Mariya Gál, Kinga Gáll-Pelcz, Ildikó Gallo, Marielle García-Hierro Caraballo, Dolores García Pérez, Iratxe Gardiazábal Rubial, Eider Gardini, Elisabetta Gebhardt, Evelyne Geringer de Oedenberg, Lidia Joanna
  • WHISTLEBLOWING in ACTION in the EU INSTITUTIONS Prepared

    WHISTLEBLOWING in ACTION in the EU INSTITUTIONS Prepared

    WHISTLEBLOWING IN ACTION IN THE EU INSTITUTIONS Prepared for ADIE by RBEUC, Tallinn / Brussels, end 2008 Prelude 1 One of the Grimm brothers’ fairytales basically evolves around three characters: a twisted king with a demand nigh to impossible: to turn hay into gold; a miller’s daughter in serious trouble; and a little man who up to three times helps out the troubled girl miraculously. Facing certain death, the girl even promises the little man her first-born child. Later, when she is a queen and a mother and kept to her promise, it is thanks to the open ears of a loyal royal messenger that she narrowly escapes from this ordeal. Sent out to discover the little man’s secret name, this messenger was at the right place at the right time when he overheard him singing his secret name ( Rumplestiltskin ) in a merry song. Doing what he had been asked to do, the messenger chose sides against the one who had become the enemy of his master. Of his fate we learn nothing: not if he was rewarded by the queen for saving her child, perhaps by marrying the young princess; not if the little man who must have felt that he was ratted out took revenge on the whistleblower; if he lived happily ever after or not was irrelevant. He played his role, and now is no more than a nameless footnote in fairytale history. PRELUDE 2 A whistleblower: “A whistleblower is anyone who discloses or helps to disclose fraud, irregularities and similar problems.” An MEP, in 2002: “If you have the courage to criticise your superiors, you run the risk of being kicked out of your job.
  • Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals

    Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals

    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 50th Report of Session 2005–06 Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals Volume II: Evidence Ordered to be printed 7 November 2006 and published 13 November 2006 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 270-II CONTENTS Page Oral Evidence Mr Ivan Lewis MP, Economic Secretary to HM Treasury, Mr Chris Austin, Head of EU Finance and Mr Chris Butler, Head of Assurance, HM Treasury Written evidence 1 Oral evidence, 2 May 2006 4 Supplementary written evidence 15 Letter from Ed Balls MP, Economic Secretary 17 Mr Hubert Weber, President, Mr Vitor Manuel da Silva Caldeira, Member, Mr David Bostock, Member and Mr Josef Bonnici, Member, European Court of Auditors Oral evidence, 16 May 2006 18 Commissioner Kallas, Commissioner for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud, Mr Kristian Schmidt, Mr Brian Gray and Mr Reijo Kemppinen, European Commission Written evidence 34 Oral evidence, 6 June 2006 38 Supplementary written evidence 45 Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General, Ms Caroline Mawhood and Mr Frank Grogan, National Audit Office Written evidence 45 Oral evidence, 6 June 2006 48 Supplementary written evidence 53 Mr Ashley Mote MEP, European Parliament and Mr Christopher Arkell Written evidence 56 Oral evidence, 13 June 2006 61 Mr Terry Wynn MEP, European Parliament Written evidence 70 Oral evidence, 27 June 2006 73 Mr Brian Gray, Accounting Officer, European Commission Written evidence
  • Act Before July 5 to Ban Illegal Timber in the UK and Europe

    Act Before July 5 to Ban Illegal Timber in the UK and Europe

    “It is very important that people in other countries help us to preserve our forests by not using illegal wood. I would like voters in Europe to support this ban on importing illegal wood as it will serve our children – they will inherit the results.” Alberto Granados, Olancho, Honduras Act before July 5 to ban illegal timber in the UK and Europe: www.progressio.org.ukAct before July 5 to ban illegal timber from the UK and Europe Thank you for downloading this PROactive campaign action sheet and for supporting Progressio’s illegal logging action. The vote is on July 5, so there’s not much time to get our voices heard. While there is some hope in the European Parliament for the legislation which has been agreed, we still need to make sure our politicians know that there is public support to ban illegal timber. This is our chance and it is vital that we take it. Included on this sheet is everything you’ll need to tell our politicians we don’t want illegal timber in the UK or Europe: A short text for your church bulletin or to email around A general intercession for Sunday Mass on June 27 and July 4 A suggested text to write a letter to MEPs A list of MEPs by region A poster to print and display in a prominent place is included on the front of this pack Short text: You can use the following text in your church bulletin or personal emails to spread the word: Illegal logging is a disaster for poor communities.
  • Women Candidates and Party Practice in the UK: Evidence from the 2009 European Elections

    Women Candidates and Party Practice in the UK: Evidence from the 2009 European Elections

    Women candidates and party practice in the UK: evidence from the 2009 European Elections Abstract Existing comparative research suggests that women candidates have better opportunities for electoral success when standing in (i) second order elections and (ii) PR elections - the 2009 European Elections provide an example of both criteria. This paper examines the 2009 results to build upon earlier work on the 1999 and 2004 elections by considering (i) regional patterns across parties, with reference to any strategies to improve women‟s representation (ii) incumbency effects (iii) effects of changes in seat shares across parties. --------- EXISTING research on previous European elections demonstrated that the willingness of political parties to place women in the top places on party lists varied, equity in terms of candidate numbers did not result in equity in representation if women languished at the lower end of party lists. Furthermore, virtually all parties failed to take advantage of their own retiring MEPs to promote women1. In the 2005 European Election it was clear that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats had taken the most „positive action‟, whilst Conservative equality rhetoric had failed to materialise into notable female candidate selection, and the electoral success of UKIP served as a hindrance to female representation in general. The number of UK MEPs in total declined from 78 (three in Northern Ireland) in 2004 to 72 in 2009 (69 in Great Britain). Women constitute just under 32% of MEPs, compared to 24% as a result of the 2004 elections. The mainstream political parties in the UK foster different attitudes towards equality promotion and equality guarantees.
  • P Re S S Re Le A

    P Re S S Re Le A

    UK MEPs: Chairs of committee, EP Vice-Presidents, Chairs of political groups and Quaestors Sharon BOWLES (Lib Dem), Malcolm HARBOUR (Conservative), and Brian SIMPSON (Labour) and have been elected Chairs of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Com- mittee, Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee and the Transport Com- mittee respectively. Diana WALLIS (Lib Dem) and Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT (Conser- vative, whip withdrawn) are EP Vice-Presidents. Nigel FARAGE (UKIP) is the co-leader of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. Bill NEWTON-DUNN (Lib Dem) was elected as an EP Quaestor. UK MEPs Office holders: EP Vice-Presidents, Chairs of political groups, Chairs and Vice-Chairs of committees and Quaestors European Parlia- Leaders of EP po- Chairs of EP commit- Vice-Chairs of EP Quaestors ment Vice-Presi- litical groups tees Committees dents Diana Wallis (Liber- Nigel Farage Co- Sharon Bowles (Liberal Struan Stevenson Bill New- al Democrat, ALDE, leader of 32 MEP Democrat, ALDE, South (Conservative, ECR, ton-Dunn Yorkshire and the Europe of Freedom East) Chair of the Eco- Scotland) - First Vice- (Liberal Press release Humber) and Democracy nomic and Monetary Af- Chair of the Fisheries Democrat, group (UKIP, EFD, fairs Committee Committee ALDE, East South East) Midlands) Edward McMil- Malcolm Harbour (Con- Elizabeth Lynne (Liberal lan-Scott (Con- servative, ECR, West Democrat, ALDE, West servative - whip Midlands) Chair of In- Midlands), First Vice- withdrawn, non-at- ternal Market and Con- Chair of the Employment tached, Yorkshire sumer
  • The European Union in the Interests of the United States?

    The European Union in the Interests of the United States?

    Heritage Special Report SR-10 Published by The Heritage Foundation September 12, 2006 Is the European Union in the Interests of the United States? A CONFERENCE HELD JUNE 28, 2005 GLOBAL BRITAIN Is the European Union in the Interests of the United States? June 28, 2005 Contributors Listed in order of appearance: John Hilboldt Director, Lectures and Seminars, The Heritage Foundation Becky Norton Dunlop Vice-President for External Relations, The Heritage Foundation Senator Gordon Smith United States Senator for Oregon Lord Pearson of Rannoch House of Lords Christopher Booker Journalist and Editor The Rt. Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory MP House of Commons Daniel Hannan, MEP Member of the European Parliament Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute Yossef Bodansky Former Director, Congressional Task Force against Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare John C. Hulsman, Ph.D. Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Ruth Lea Director, Centre for Policy Studies Diana Furchtgott-Roth Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Ian Milne Director, Global Britain Mark Ryland Vice President, Discovery Institute Marek Jan Chodakiewicz Research Professor of History, Institute of World Politics Kenneth R. Weinstein, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer, Hudson Institute Judge Robert H. Bork Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. Vice President, Davis Institute for International Studies, The Heritage Foundation Edwin Meese III Chairman, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Questions from Audience Listed in order of appearance: Paul Rubig Member of the European Parliament Ana Gomes Member of the European Parliament Sarah Ludford Member of the European Parliament Michael Cashman Member of the European Parliament Tom Ford United States Department of Defense Bill McFadden Unknown Helle Dale Heritage Foundation © 2006 by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002–4999 (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org Contents Welcome and Keynote Address .
  • Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action

    Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action

    Ranking European Parliamentarians on Climate Action EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTENTS With the European elections approaching, CAN The scores were based on the votes of all MEPs on Austria 2 Europe wanted to provide people with some these ten issues. For each vote, MEPs were either Belgium 3 background information on how Members of the given a point for voting positively (i.e. either ‘for’ Bulgaria 4 European Parliament (MEPs) and political parties or ‘against’, depending on if the text furthered or Cyprus 5 represented in the European Parliament – both hindered the development of climate and energy Czech Republic 6 national and Europe-wide – have supported or re- policies) or no points for any of the other voting Denmark 7 jected climate and energy policy development in behaviours (i.e. ‘against’, ‘abstain’, ‘absent’, ‘didn’t Estonia 8 the last five years. With this information in hand, vote’). Overall scores were assigned to each MEP Finland 9 European citizens now have the opportunity to act by averaging out their points. The same was done France 10 on their desire for increased climate action in the for the European Parliament’s political groups and Germany 12 upcoming election by voting for MEPs who sup- all national political parties represented at the Greece 14 ported stronger climate policies and are running European Parliament, based on the points of their Hungary 15 for re-election or by casting their votes for the respective MEPs. Finally, scores were grouped into Ireland 16 most supportive parties. CAN Europe’s European four bands that we named for ease of use: very Italy 17 Parliament scorecards provide a ranking of both good (75-100%), good (50-74%), bad (25-49%) Latvia 19 political parties and individual MEPs based on ten and very bad (0-24%).
  • 1 Interpreting Toxic Masculinity in Political Parties

    1 Interpreting Toxic Masculinity in Political Parties

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository@Nottingham Interpreting Toxic Masculinity in Political Parties: A Framework for Analysis Oliver Daddow and Isabelle Hertner Abstract The term ‘toxic masculinity’ was coined in the 1990s by sociologists and psychologists. It has since been appropriated by scholars and commentators interested in gendered behaviours and outcomes in politics. However, despite the attention belatedly being paid to masculinities as part of that research, our appreciation of, specifically, toxic masculinity’s part in shaping political practices remains underdeveloped. This article proposes a move in this direction by designing a conceptual framework for exploring toxic masculinity inside political parties. We adapt findings from the original toxic masculinity literature to generate a series of indicators of toxic masculinity spanning the policy and discursive aspects of party political action. We then test the framework using a paired comparison of two parties of the populist right where we might expect to see relatively high levels of toxic masculinity: the Alternative for Germany and the UK Independence Party. Our empirical findings give us confidence that drawing on the concept of toxic masculinity can provide us with novel insights into the interplay between masculinity and political party cultures. We also hope that it will inspire a significant body of new research into toxic masculinity in political parties from across the party spectrum as well as globally. Keywords toxic masculinity; gender; AfD; Ukip; Nigel Farage 1 Interpreting Toxic Masculinity in Political Parties: A Framework for Analysis 1. Introduction In politics as in society, toxic masculinity – known in Mandarin as ‘straight male cancer’ (Kesvani, 2018) – has become an important focus for public discussion around, as well as the theoretical and applied research into, gender-based violence, misogyny and the mistreatment of women in public life.