House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Mar 1990

Column 417

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.-- [Mr. Sackville.]

10.30 am

Mr. Robin Cook : The Treasury Whip has moved a motion of which he owes the House an explanation ; the House cannot accept it without one. You will confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the motion is debatable. I am surprised that the Treasury Whip should choose to move such a motion at this hour ; I could have understood it had he done so last night to save his hon. Friends from a night out of their beds. But now that we have gone throught the night and we are feeling enthusiastic about a day's debate in prime time, an explanation is required. We were just getting into our stride and beginning to enjoy ourselves.

Before the Whip moved the motion, we were about to debate a new clause relating to GPs' lists-- [Interruption.] I think that hon. Members are having difficulty hearing

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have been here a long time but I should still like to be able to hear the debate.

Mr. Cook : As we are debating a procedural motion, it is most important that the occupant of the Chair should be able to hear. We were about to debate the rights of patients who are in danger of being struck off GPs' lists and to propose to confer on them a right of appeal. That is a matter of considerable interest outside the House, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends have come prepared to speak in the debate. It would be for my hon. Friends' convenience if that debate started now rather than at another time. I cannot believe that it would not also be for the convenience of Ministers. We have two Ministers--three if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is willing to stay--ready and willing to respond to the debate. There is nothing to suggest that it would be for the convenience of either Opposition or Ministers if we adjourned the debate. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that new clause 8 deals with junior doctors' hours. It would be instructive for hon. Members to debate that now, having been out of their beds for a full night. In that debate, we shall challenge the Government's policy, on junior doctors' hours. The Government are prepared to accept as a modest minimal target the one-in- three rota. I need hardly explain to Ministers what that means : every third weekend, junior doctors have to work from 9 am on Friday, right through Saturday and Sunday, until 5 pm on Monday. To put that in the context of the hours that we have been sitting--until the Treasury Whip moved his motion--we have reached only Saturday morning. We should have to continue until midnight on Friday to achieve the same number of hours as Ministers expect junior doctors in hospitals to work on the one-in-three rota.

There is an obvious question here for the House. If Ministers expect junior doctors to work from Friday morning until 5 pm on Monday, why does the Treasury Whip--he has not spoken to the motion but I presume that he will reply to the debate--feel that 10.30 am on the second day of debate is satisfactory? We have another

Column 418

three days ahead of us to match the doctors. There would be merit in pressing on with the debate, at least until we reached the new clause dealing with junior doctors' hours, so that the House could address that important and serious issue in the same state of fatigue and sleep deprivation in which junior doctors are asked to carry out operations in our hospitals.

Next, we shall come to the new clause on competitive tendering-- [Interruption.] For a moment I thought that the Government Whip had deserted us. He should pay attention to the views being expressed--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : My hon. Friend may want to comment on another aspect of this motion. The Government were defeated last night, and the public are entitled to ask whether we are being required to truncate debate on the Bill because the Government cannot afford another defeat. If Conservative Members feel after many hours of debate that the Opposition have a case, the Government may think it best to truncate debate as much as possible so as not to allow the opportunity for another defeat. That is a serious proposition.

Mr. Cook : My hon. Friend raises an intriguing matter. Perhaps the Government Whip does not have enough troops to deliver the motion this morning. After all, so far the Government have won only five out of the six votes, and given their majority that is a poor record. It is open to the House, therefore, in the non-partisan spirit in which we debated new clause 1, to examine this motion, which the Government have yet to defend.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) : Perhaps the truncation of business has more to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman spoke for one hour and 48 minutes earlier this morning than with any risk of the Government losing future votes.

Mr. Cook : The hon. Gentleman reminds me of my previous record, which I clearly have to beat on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman fairly states that I spoke for one hour and 48 minutes, and suggests that that is the reason for the remarkably brief speech made now by the Treasury Whip.

The Secretary of State for Health spoke for one hour and 10 minutes. I seek the hon. Gentleman's guidance : where, between one hour and 10 minutes and one hour and 48 minutes, rests the optimum time appropriate to the dignity of a Front-Bench speaker?

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman sympathise with Members who represent Northern Ireland, who do not have the luxury of exploring the changes in our Health Service in the same depth? In the coming months those changes will be foisted on us after only five hours of debate, so we appreciate the depth of investigation that is going on in the House now.

Mr. Cook : I have noted that the Northern Ireland Bench has frequently been full during our debates and I hope that we have given Northern Ireland Members plenty of ammunition.

Mr. Bermingham : Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that, as he spoke for one hour and 48 minutes and the Treasury Whip replied in a moment, if he had spoken for three or four hours, we might not have heard from the Whip at all?

Column 419

Mr. Cook : Eventually, even my own party--

Mr. Hanley : The Secretary of State, with his usual courtesy, spoke for one hour and 10 minutes to answer the thousands of points made by the hon. Gentleman during his filibuster.

10.45 am

Mr. Cook : The hon. Gentleman rather overstates the case : I would not claim to have made thousands of points during my speech, although I am flattered at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I made several dozen points and, patently, since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed me to make them and thought it appropriate for the Secretary of State to respond to them, they must have been in order and relevant to consideration of the Bill. So the hon. Gentleman has condemned himself from his own mouth. I and my hon. Friends want to scrutinise an enormous number of points in the Bill, which is why we were taken aback that the Government Whip thought this an appropriate moment to curtail debate--

Mr. Bill Michie : Are not the Government rubbing salt in the wound? Some of us have been here all night, myself included--apart from two hours that I spent outside the Chamber. Not only was I prevented from making a speech on new clause 4, but the Government are curtailing further discussion of the Bill. That is precisely what the Government have been doing with the Health Service in general. It is the people's service, not the Government's. The Government dictate what will happen to the service, and then consult. The Government are suggesting that we all go home because they have lost the argument.

Mr. Cook : They also lost the vote, as my hon. Friend will recall.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : We are not running away. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make an intervention. I want him to know that I saw the Secretary of State for Health not long ago, and he is in a terrible state. His problem is that he cannot stand the pace. The Government want to shut down debate so that he can go to bed, and he looks as though he needs to. We, however, are fit as fiddles--and I have been here all night, too. I am raring to go.

The Tory Benches are empty ; Conservative Members all want to knock off and get to bed. I recognise that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has been here all night, too. I was a little surprised that he objected to the length of my hon. Friend's speech. It was a brilliant speech. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes had the chance to match it, but he did not. Now he should object to the motion to close the debate, so that he can make that speech. I want to make a speech, too, which is why I object to the motion.

Mr. Cook : I think that I can assist my hon. Friend. If the purpose of the motion is to allow the Secretary of State to go to bed, I immediately offer the Whip an agreement ; it is the only agreement that I shall offer him during these proceedings. I am perfectly content that the Secretary of State should go to bed while the rest of us carry on with the Bill. In the light of experience of his presence, I assure the Government Whip that we shall make more rapid progress in the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If that is the point of the motion, we can accommodate it

Column 420

without sacrifice. It is not we who are running out ; it is the Treasury Whip who wants to run out of the debate and away from the Chamber--

Mrs. Mahon : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cook : I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who has been with me through the dark hours of the night.

Mrs. Mahon : Does my hon. Friend agree that it could be that Conservative Members do not want to debate new clause 9, known as the "Forsyth" clause? Twenty Conservative Members have an interest in private contractors and the debate could be embarrassing to them. As we beat them during the night, perhaps a sense of conscience would break out, they would declare an interest and refuse to vote.

Mr. Cook : That new clause is yet another one which would be postponed as a result of the motion moved by the Treasury Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) puts an angle on new clause 9 that had not occurred to me. It is certainly true that we have drafted that new clause in such a way as to oblige firms that obtain contracts from the Health Service to declare those parliamentary consultancies that they have awarded in the previous six years. Undoubtedly that would result in the name of at least one Health Service Minister appearing on that register as someone who has held such a consultancy in the past six years.

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton) : What about union sponsorship?

Mr. Cook : Our sponsorship is openly recorded and all that we ask is that consultancies held by Conservative Members and Health Ministers are equally openly recorded.

If we did not accept the motion from the Treasury Whip, it would be possible, given the current rate of progress, to reach the debate on new clause 9 before the newspapers for tomorrow have gone to bed. By postponing the debate further, the Government may try to smuggle that debate through at an hour when it would not attract the media attention it otherwise would at prime time.

Mr. Skinner : My hon. Friend is making a good case, but we all know that a guillotine will follow. This is an ill wind that blows no good for anyone. If the Government stop the debate this morning they will finish up with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry having to answer questions on uncomfortable issues such as Harrods, the invisibles being invisible and the rest of it. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the Tory Members who are involved in murky dealings with private companies. Could he spare a moment to read out that list of Tory Members--I believe that about 30 of them have got their fingers in the pie? My hon. Friend has access to that information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. Before the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) responds to that invitation, he should remember that we are dealing with the motion, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. Cook : I respond, of course, to your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The list is here, but we can arrange

Column 421

to deposit it in the Library, provided that the Library does not follow its recent practice of posting the information back to the hon. Members concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised a consideration that crossed my mind during the latter half of the Secretary of State's speech. I wondered whether the concealed purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was to filibuster out Trade and Industry question time under instructions from the Cabinet. What my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said about a guillotine being contemplated is rather sinister. We heard nothing about that from the Treasury Whip. We merely heard an innocent and apparently innocuous notion that would have the simple effect of postponing our debate for five hours.

Mr. Cryer : If a guillotine follows, that will be relevant to the business interests of Tory Members involved in the Health Service. Rumours are flying that a guillotine will follow and it is said that the Government have moved to adjourn progress ready to introduce a guillotine. That will curtail discussion greatly and would be to the advantage of hon. Members who see privatisation as a great opportunity for the enterprise culture, as opposed to Opposition Members who have tabled clauses and amendments to try to retain public ownership of the National Health Service. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the business interests of Tory Members are relevant to the debate.

Mr. Cook : My hon. Friend tempts me, but I shall be guided by your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose

Mr. Cook : I cannot resist giving way to my hon. Friend on this point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : If it is the Government's intention to curtail debate on new clause 9, and our efforts today to draw the public's attention to the relationship between Conservative Members and private contractors are curtailed, we shall bring Parliament to a halt. The public need to know what is going on in that sleazy relationship. If our debate is curtailed in any way we shall bring this place to a halt.

Mr. Cook : I have spent some time out of the Chamber--not much--in the past few hours and, having watched television and heard the radio, I assure my hon. Friend that the world outside now knows of the vigorous opposition being presented to this deeply unpopular Bill. In the current opinion polls the Bill is even more unpopular than the poll tax Bill was at the same stage of its parliamentary proceedings last year.

Mr. Nigel Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me. The question is whether we should proceed with the debate and have further discussion on the substance of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested that there may be less time for such discussion in the near future if a guillotine or timetable motion is moved. We are not sure whether that will happen. If no timetable motion was planned, I would take a different view of the motion before us. Can you tell us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there is any way in which Ministers can inform the House whether a timetable motion is envisaged

Column 422

--I am not asking about its details, but about the principle. Unless we know whether that is likely, we cannot properly debate the merits of the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that that is hypothetical. In any event, it has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Madden : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About 17 hours ago my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours) and I asked Mr. Speaker whether it was proper for Conservative Members with direct pecuniary interests in private contracting companies and other interests directly related to the Bill to vote. Mr. Speaker explained that, as a matter of public policy, such voting was permissible. Is it right for such hon. Members with direct pecuniary interests to vote on procedural motions that would have the effect of gagging the House on new clause 9? That new clause specifically concerns Tory Members with direct pecuniary interests in the NHS, and it is clearly connected with the health trusts that are an integral part of the Bill.

I should be grateful if you reflected on this and gave hon. Members advice on whether it is proper for such Tory Members to vote on procedural motions, because, when such motions are considered, they have no opportunity to declare their interests. It could be held that those hon. Members are putting themselves in considerable difficulty and embarrassment if, subsequently, they are found to have voted on procedural motions that had the effect of gagging the House in relation to their interests.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let me deal with this point. I heard Mr. Speaker's ruling at the beginning of our debates and exactly the same ruling applies to the procedural motions.

Mr. Cryer : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must draw your attention to what happened regarding the private Bill on Lloyd's in 1981, when the position was again slightly obscure. Speaker Thomas simply said that any hon. Member who might have a clash of interests in relation to a private Bill promoted by Lloyd's should refrain from voting. There were 70 members of Lloyd's present during the various stages of that Bill and all except one abstained from voting, on the general guidance of Mr. Speaker.

Some of the Members of Parliament who have a financial interest in the matter receive money from public relations organisations which advise cleaning companies, private medical organisations and so on. Others receive direct payments--for example, from Brent Green Cleaning Services, which is involved in National Health Service contracts. It seems to me that it would be worth while for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer that point to Mr. Speaker, so that he may re-examine the question and determine whether the 1981 example set by the Lloyd's Bill is definitive. If so, Mr. Speaker can then tell right hon. and hon. Members, "If you have any direct pecuniary interest, you know best"--we know that many Conservative Members are not very keen about disclosing their interests--"but I advise you that the best decision would be to abstain."

Column 423

11 am

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Mr. Speaker dealt also with that point at the start of the debate, when he drew a clear distinction between private Bills and public Bills. There is nothing that I can add, or need to add, to Mr. Speaker's ruling. I remind the House that the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has been interrupted, and I am anxious that we should return to it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have dealt with the point that was raised. If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has a different point of order, I shall take it--but I remind him that he will be further delaying the speech of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ruled on the basis of a ruling that was made at the beginning of the debate by Mr. Speaker. I accept that that was the basis of your ruling, but we are now raising a completely different matter. It does not relate to public policy issues, to which Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling related.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have already dealt with that matter, and I have said that the same applies in both cases.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you would care to examine the text of "Erskine May" while I am on my feet. Although your ruling is acceptable in relation to public policy issues, the question now before the House is one of procedure. We are not drawing a distinction between a private Bill and a public Bill but are debating a procedural motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The appropriate reference appears on page 357 of "Erskine May": "Procedural Motions : no interest involved.

As no financial interest is involved in procedural motions such as closures, Members have been allowed to vote for the closure on bills in which they may have a financial interest."

The motion now before the House is a procedural one, and that guidance in "Erskine May" is clear.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that a business statement is to be made later today, at the conclusion of this debate on progress. There is no indication on the annunciator that a business statement is being prepared by the Government. However, I understand that they have woken up the Leader of the House to come here to make a business statement. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ensure that any announcement of a business statement is properly made, well before the statement itself, so that right hon. and hon. Members will know to come to the Chamber to ask questions on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker The matter of business statements is not for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point has been heard on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Robin Cook : Although I do not wish to raise the matter as a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was interested by your last point. If there is to be a business statement, I should have thought that, as a matter of courtesy to Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's Office would by now have been advised of that fact.

Column 424

I now find myself in some difficulty, in that, since I last resumed my seat, the Treasury Whip who moved the motion has departed. The Treasury Whip now present in the Chamber is not the Whip who originally moved the motion, and was not in the Chamber at the time-- Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington) indicated dissent.

Mr. Cook : The hon. Gentleman indicates that he was present. I am perfectly willing for him to intervene if he wishes to clarify the point, because I am interested to know whether he intends to proceed with the motion, given that the Whip who moved it has now departed from the Chamber. When I saw the Whip who moved the motion departing, I had a moment of hope that, having been made aware of the strong views of right hon. and hon. Members an of the Opposition's clearly stated desire to proceed with the debate--for there is no advantage to us in adjourning the House at this stage--he had decided not to pursue the closure.

As to new clause 9 and competitive tendering, one of the points that we wish to examine is the remarkable casualisation of the hours that goes with competitive tendering, and the frequently deeply unsocial hours that are associated with private contractors, who have no regard to retaining-- [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) if he wishes to intervene--but if he does not, I shall be obliged if he will not keep up a constant monologue during my speech.

Mr. Neil Hamilton : It is a bit rich of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to complain about unsocial hours when his filibustering caused us to be here all night.

Mr. Battle : But the hon. Gentleman was paired out.

Mr. Cook : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's clarification. Perhaps someone can produce a Division List to show that the hon. Member for Tatton has shared the unsocial hours that have certainly been shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Leigh : When I was voting at a quarter to five this morning, only about 55 Labour Members were present to vote. Were all the others in bed? What is this talk of Opposition Members staying up all night?

Mr. Cook : With respect, the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Tatton. My right hon. and hon. Friends run a relaxed, liberal and free whipping system. I am bound to say that it seems to be more successful than the whipping system run by Conservative Members. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who had to address their minds to other important matters were given full permission earlier this morning to leave. It is a matter of regret that Conservative Members were obliged to remain when they wished to go home to their beds. We would be willing to support their representations to the Treasury Whip that they should enjoy the same rights and prerogatives granted to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, and should be free to come and go as their stamina allows.

I am somewhat disturbed by the lack of stamina in the new Conservative parliamentary party. When I first entered the House, I was appointed to the Committee considering the Community Land Bill, which undertook five all- night sittings in two weeks. That was due to no filibustering on the part of my hon. Friends or myself but was entirely the result of the length of speeches made by

Column 425

the then Conservative Opposition. One of the older Conservative Members, observing a couple of my hon. Friends asleep at six in the morning, remarked that the trouble with the Labour party was that it was full of people who had wasted their youth receiving an education at grammar school and university, whereas he had spent his youth constructively, spending whole nights at nightclubs--and therefore was better fitted for the rigours of parliamentary life. I am sorry that there seems to be something of a declension in the stamina, fitness, and possibly background of the members of the modern Conservative parliamentary party.

Mr. McCartney : I wish to make a more serious point. Those of us who were involved in the debate on clause 1 on community care and other matters which carried on throughout the night included members of the Select Committee who are most concerned about the curtailment of the debate. The second part of the Bill relates to ring fencing, and we are concerned about the ability of the House to determine the proper and appropriate funding for care in the community. We know that the Government resisted proposals from the Select Committee and from both sides of the House. One of their reasons for wishing to curtail the debate later this afternoon may be to prevent further discussion on ring fencing care in the community. That would be a disaster for the House and for the elderly and for those with physical and mental handicaps who will be left without the resources to implement the proposals of the Griffiths report. I hope, that having had the knockabout, we will get down to the serious business of nailing the Government to the mast about the lack of resources to implement the proposals about care in the community.

Mr. Cook : My hon. Friend justly reproves me. We are considering matters of the greatest gravity and seriousness.

My hon. Friend referred to the clauses on community care. He is absolutely right that those clauses are at the end of the Bill. It has always been my suspicion that they were put at the end of the Bill in the expectation that they would be forgotten. That is why, when my hon. Friend and I met in Committee to discuss our strategy, we decided on a timetable that from the start was deliberately devised not to give the Secretary of State the protection and satisfaction of a guillotine that would rob us of any debate on the clauses at the end of the Bill, but to agree on a pace of proceedings in that Committee that would enable us to ensure that those clauses were adequately examined and scrutinised. I take pride in the fact that my hon. Friends and I were able to devote four full days to examining those important clauses on community care.

Since the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, I must say that he was fully privy to the discussions that resulted in that timetable and those four days being set apart for the clauses. I regard as a breach of faith on his part the way in which, ever since, he has misrepresented that agreement and that strategy as an absence of opposition to his measure and an acceptance of the major proposals in his Bill.

I am happy to share it with the House, as the Secretary of State is now present, that I regard that breach of faith, that

misrepresentation in public of our strategy in Committee and the downright deceitful things that have been said about behaviour in Committee as well beyond the acceptable behaviour between Opposition Front

Column 426

Bench and the Government. As long as the Secretary of State holds offices of the Crown, he will never again get an agreement from me for any legislation that he brings to the House because he is not a man who can be trusted with any agreement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke : I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman can turn from feigned frivolity to feigned pomposity and sensitivity as he appears to be wounded by my description, which remains my candid opinion of his performance in Committee and the quality of the arguments that he produced. I am entitled to that opinion and I shall retain it.

As for the important clauses to which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred, they come quite early in the selection, which I accept is because of the order in which the new clauses were tabled for Report by the hon. Gentleman. But during the past 18 hours or so, we have heard exactly the same arguments as we heard in Committee, but made at three times the length by the hon. Gentlemen who put them in Committee. If we had made the same progress as we made in Committee, we would have had a debate on new clause 36 long before now. Frankly, the larking about of Opposition Members has prevented the hon. Member for Makerfield from having a debate on ringfencing during today's proceedings.

11.15 am

Mr. Flannery : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is abusing the House. Many of us spend a great deal of our lives on Committees and we cannot all be on the same one at the same time. He is saying that those of us who were not on the Committee have no right to debate the subject and that those of us who were on the Committee have debated it too much already and therefore there should not have been any debate at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It would be better if we got on with the debate.

Mr. Cook : I wish to respond to the Secretary of State's intervention. He made an observation that the House might wish to ponder. He said that, if we had made the same progress on Report as we made in Committee, we would have reached new clause 36 by now. Perhaps the Secretary of State should reflect on the fact that, ever since the Committee was reaching a conclusion, he has used the progress made in Committee as evidence in his contention of a lack of opposition to the Bill and an acceptance of its fundamental principles. If he says that about the progress that was achieved in Committee, he should hardly expect that progress to be replicated on Report.

Mr. McCartney : There is a fundamental and important issue at stake here. Since the Committee met, the non-partisan Social Services Select Committee, which has a Conservative majority, has produced two substantive reports, one in particular about ring fencing and appropriate recommendations for the House to consider. The amendments on the Order Paper were tabled not in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, (Mr. Cook) but in the names of hon. Members who prepared that report for the Select Committee.

If, under the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State does not give adequate consideration to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend, he must at least give a

Column 427

commitment to ensure that there will be time to consider the amendments and recommendations proposed by the Select Committee. If he does not do that, there will be no further consideration of resources in the community for those who are most vulnerable. He should give that commitment to the House in a non-parisan way.

Mr. Cook : My hon. Friend perfectly refutes one of the Secretary of State's contentions--that he has merely heard the debate that he heard in Committee.

I invite the Secretary of State and the House to reflect on our debate on new clause 1. Some of the principles of new clause 1 were certainly aired in Committee, but there was much new material, never mind new hon. Members joining in that debate on Report. An important part of that new material was the Select Committee report to which my hon. Friend referred, because it was not available to us when we met in Committee. We have not been provided with that evidence of all-party agreement among hon. Members who considered the matter in depth, examined witnesses, taken evidence and reached the conclusion that matters were insupportable. It may be that that new evidence was part of the reason why, last night, the Government suffered their first defeat since 1987.

My hon. Friend referred to ring fencing. The Secretary of State is entitled to say, and no doubt will say, that we debated ring fencing in Committee. I spoke for half an hour in that debate about ring fencing. Perhaps the Secretary of State should decide whether that constitutes feeble and token opposition or whether it constitutes a filibuster. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tatton and the Secretary of State would like to put their heads together and work out which option to choose on this occasion. It is certainly the case that, in Committee, we did not have the Select Committee report which was published on Monday and which shows the very strong all- party feeling for ring fencing.

My hon. Friend is correct to say that new clauses 36, 37 and 73 and amendments tabled in my name also deal with that issue. They are important matters for the House to debate, partly because they refer to carers who provide care and attention for elderly people who require constant nursing, with minimal domiciliary support and very little opportunity for respite care. The Bill contains no proposals to widen that respite care.

Carers who look after relatives who are in need of constant nursing do not have the option of a Treasury Whip moving that they adjourn their caring until the next day. They must provide constant, 24-hour caring, frequently with interruption of sleep. It would be appropriate, in the interests of those who serve our society selflessly and at great cost to their health, for us to continue with our proceedings until we reach new clause 36.

Mr. McCartney : Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been further developments since the proceedings in Committee? For example, we have had the report of the Select Committee. Further, we have yet to hear more about the Government's funding of the poll tax in England and Wales and the possibility of the Government capping certain authorities. That could have a fundamental effect on the funding of some provisions in the Bill. Does my

Next Section

Home Page