House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Mar 1990

Previous Section

Home Page

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Column 441

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill to be further considered this day.

Column 442

Business of the House

12.9 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the re- arranged business for this week :

Wednesday 14 March----Timetable motion on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Completion of Report stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Thursday 15 March----Until about seven o'clock, Third Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Coal Industry Bill. Motion to amend schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

At ten o'clock, the Question will be put on all outstanding supplementary estimates and votes.

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) : As, on this occasion, the business statement was made, unusually, by the Patronage Secretary, may I begin by asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he is confident that his Whips Office will deliver a majority for the guillotine motion this afternoon? Is he aware that the deeply unpopular National Health Service and Community Care Bill now threatens to damage democracy as much as it threatens to damage the Health Service?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill, which gives local people no say about whether their hospital opts out of the NHS, is now to be forced through Parliament at a pace that gives Parliament no opportunity for a proper debate? Has the right hon. Gentleman counted the selection that remains before the House? Is he aware that it includes 40 new clauses and 212 amendments, of which 100 are Government amendments? How does he propose that the House should give proper scrutiny to those outstanding 250 items for debate in the timetable that he has stated?

Is the real reason for the timetable motion to curtail the debate, not of the Opposition, but of Conservative Members? As he is Patronage Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the country outside why a Government with a record majority require a record number of guillotines to get their business through the House?

Mr. Renton : If he remembers what it was, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is, "Yes, Sir." In answer to his second point, there is no question of the timetable motion damaging democracy in this House. It is rather that the hon. Gentleman's speeches have damaged the procedures of the House.

The hon. Gentleman gave the game away earlier this morning when we were debating the motion to report progress. He said that he was getting into his stride, because we were in prime time. In the past five hours, the hon. Gentleman has made two speeches, one of one hour and 48 minutes and one of one hour and 11 minutes. He is suffering from what may indelicately be called "televised verbal diarrhoea". The sooner that the House can help the hon. Gentleman to find a cure, the better.

Column 443

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as significant that, for the first time that I can recall, a major health Bill has been subject to a guillotine motion? Can the Patronage Secretary tell the House the last time that we had a guillotine on a major health Bill? The National Health Service Act 1946, which enjoyed a degree of consensus across the House, went through without a guillotine. I repeat : when was the last time that we had such a guillotine?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that each of the 100 Government amendments will potentially have to be put to a vote under the timetable motion? In what way will the timetable motion take account of the amount of time that will be necessary for those Divisions?

Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Scotland, who will be deprived of a huge chunk of Scottish legislation, will wonder why we burden the House with such an amount of business that we cannot discuss it properly, when we could have the viable alternative of a Scottish Parliament that could give proper debate to important matters of Scottish business?

Mr. Renton : I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me his first question. The last time that a health Bill was guillotined was in 1976, when the Labour Government guillotined the Health Services Act 1976 after just 80 hours in Committee. Hon. Members who served on Standing Committee E will know that we have already spent 109 hours in Committee. This Committee stage was not guillotined by the Government, whereas the 1976 Act was guillotined in Committee, and on Report, and on Third Reading, and the timetable motion was introduced by the Labour Government after only 42 hours in Committee. That gives the hon. Gentleman his answer.

On the Scottish dimension to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he knows that Scottish Office and Welsh Office Ministers have been represented during our debates and there has been an ample separate Scottish debate for the many areas in which the legislation is separate. The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise points about the details of the timetable motion later this afternoon, when the timetable motion is debated.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : The Patronage Secretary has claimed that his proposals do not represent an intrinsic affront to democracy. Will he now tell the House the period in which he expects to be able to settle the timetable motion tomorrow? Will it run over the possible 18 hours that we could have, from about 6 pm this evening until midday tomorrow--through the night?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the remaining new clauses and amendments relate to many important things that affect every citizen of this land, including dispensing from doctors, appointments to health authorities, carers, disabled people and every aspect of our National Health Service? Will he tell the House the timetable that he envisages?

Mr. Renton : The hon. Gentleman is a well-known expert on the procedures of the House and he knows as well as I do that the timetable motion will appear on Wednesday's Order Paper. The House is currently enjoying Tuesday ; I am simply trying to give the House a Wednesday in which the timetable motion can be debated,

Column 444

along with the Bill's remaining stages. The House will have an opportunity to debate the details of the timetable motion later.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the public who are watching the proceedings of the Opposition will wonder what they have been up to? Those of us who served on the Standing Committee know that we had a sensible Committee stage in which the Opposition debated the clauses, new clauses and amendments at some length, but not at the length at which they debated the Report stage during the night. We have discussed only four clauses since yesterday afternoon. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, like his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke for half an hour in the middle of the night, moving a new clause which merely--

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : No. What the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has said has been perfectly in order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to intervene to protect Back-Bench rights? My hon. Friends have identified many new clauses and amendments that have to be spoken to

Mr. Speaker : Order. If I call the hon. Gentleman to put a question to the Patronage Secretary, he can ask it. At the moment, I am hearing the hon. Member for Pembroke.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Patronage Secretary has not told the House the time that is to be available. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Bennett : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke for half an hour in the early hours of this morning? He moved a new clause, the only effect of which was to make the community health district council boundaries the same as the local authority boundaries. It took him half an hour to move the new clause and we had an hour's debate on it. Is it not time that the House got on with debating the Bill, which many of our constituents want to see on the statute book, so that we can bring in the reforms?

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) did not take account of the nature of the debate that takes place in the House after Committee stage. There is a wider grouping of people in the House on Report than in Committee. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that that wider grouping should not discuss at any length the matters that have been discussed in Committee.

Mr. Speaker : I am not responsible for what the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) seems to believe. Questions to the Patronage Secretary must be limited to

Column 445

the business statement that he has just made. They must not raise arguments that should properly be raised when we come to discuss the guillotine motion.

Mr. Renton : I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). The Committee stage was dominated by sensible and reasonably brief discussions. The Committee stage was completed in 109 hours. Up to the business motion, we spent 18 hours discussing a mere five new clauses.

There was clear agreement through the usual channels that two and a half days was sufficient for the whole debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House announced that in business questions last week. There was no comment on it from Opposition Members, except from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) who congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend on making as much as two and a half days available.

The Opposition have simply failed to deliver the agreement. We have discussed only five new clauses on the first day. If the business is to be concluded in two and a half days, there is a clear need to structure discussions more sensibly from now on.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : Does the Patronage Secretary realise that, if the guillotine motion is passed, the important debate on disablement will almost certainly be lost? Is that not completely unacceptable? In view of the statement that he has just made on the general business, will he tell the House whether the Government will make a statement today or tomorrow on the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Wales? The appointment has been announced on the tapes but not to the House.

The present Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is carrying on as Secretary of State in Committee. His future position is uncertain. We do not know how long he will remain in office. In the meantime we have been landed with another governor-general, not elected by or answerable to the people of Wales, to do the Government's dirty work.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not certain that this has much relevance to the guillotine motion.

Mr. Renton : As the hon. Gentleman knows, Welsh Ministers have been represented on both Front Benches during the debate. There have been several separate debates on Wales, too.

On the appointment in due course of the new Secretary of State for Wales, I am sure that all my hon. Friends wish the new Secretary of State for Wales every success. [ Hon. Members :-- "Who is it?"] I am simply answering the hon. Gentleman's point. He can raise the other point of detail either on the timetable motion this afternoon or in business questions tomorrow.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Patronage Secretary congratulated an individual on an appointment which has not been announced to the House. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Patronage Secretary come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House the name or the constituency of the individual whom he has just congratulated?

Column 446

Mr. Speaker : I am not aware that it has ever been the practice that ministerial changes are announced in the House. I call Mr. Bill Walker.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it to do with this statement?

Mr. Powell : My point of order is directed to you. I remind you of a point of order that I raised on a similar issue and the points of order that were raised on three occasions last week and in Business Questions on Thursday. It arises from whether we should have a statement about the successor to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who is now Secretary of State for Wales. We have had no statement from the Government. We ask the question yet again because the press and the media have been given the statement. It is an abuse for the Government to overlook the fact that hon. Members who represent Wales would like to be informed publicly and in the House who will be the successor to the person who has resigned.

Mr. Speaker : Order. Again, I cannot recollect that ministerial changes have to be announced in the House. That is a new doctrine altogether.

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

Mr. Speaker : It is nothing to do with this statement.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course it is not the practice that resignations are announced to the House. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) sought to make was that the Secretary of State for Wales is betwixt and between. He was in what must be a wholly impossible situation this morning. He appeared as the first Government speaker in the Welsh Grand Committee, after it had been announced on the tapes that he had been succeeded by his hon. Friend the Member for the poll tax, the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). Clearly, the Secretary of State for Wales is in an impossible position. No one knew whether he was speaking with the authority of the Government or not.

Mr. Speaker : I understand that argument, but it has nothing to do with the statement or with me.

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

Mr. Speaker : I shall take the hon. Member, as long as he is to the point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I raised an issue earlier. I put it to you that you are now-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to be barracked from his own side.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I do not need comments like that. You are now in conflict with Ministers. You have selected amendments and new clauses on the basis that sufficient time would be given for their debate. Ministers are curtailing the rights of hon. Members to debate these matters by introducing the guillotine motion. The conflict is not between us and Ministers ; it is between you, as

Column 447

selector of the amendments and the new clauses, and Ministers. You should advise Ministers what time should be given for further debate on the Bill. It is a serious--

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is another new doctrine. I have not heard it enunciated before. The Speaker's duty is to select the amendments.

Mr. Ray Powell rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am dealing with one question at a time. Of course I selected the amendments. I did so very generously. I do not bring in guillotine motions ; that is a matter for the Government. That motion will be debated this afternoon.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Let us have the hon. Member's question. I called him to put his question to the Minister.

Mr. Walker : When I take the opportunity to put my question, may I draw it to your attention that I, too, represent a minority in Parliament? Minorities look to you in the Chair and whoever sits in the Chair in Committee to ensure that their rights are not abused. One of the reasons why the Order is important to us as minorities--my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I certainly give the hon. Gentleman my protection but I would prefer that he put his question to the Patronage Secretary rather than to me. I cannot answer what he seeks to enunciate.

Mr. Walker : I understand that. I was on the point of addressing my question to my right hon. Friend. My point of order is important because of what I am about to say to him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reason why the motion is so important to the interests of minorities is that, throughout the Committee stage, and, indeed, today, we have been exposed to bogus points of order, many of them from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? He has taken up a great deal of time and the Chair has always replied "That is not a point of order for me." He has taken up more time than any contribution made by any Member on any specific narrow topic that we have debated.

That is why my right hon. Friend is right to introduce the motion. Those of us who have been present on Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage and through the night believe that minority interests, for which I speak in Scotland, must be heard in this Chamber. That is why we must deal with the offenders.

Mr. Renton : I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I agree with him that, over the past 18 hours, we have listened to the same speches as those made in Committee, but by and large in Committee they were made briefly, whereas over the past 18 hours they have been made at inordinate length.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I hope that I am not doing hon. Gentlemen a disservice, but if I may anticipate them, I am

Column 448

not prepared to take any more points of order on the appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales of which I have no knowledge. I call Mr. Ashton.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : Is the Patronage Secretary aware that, when Bassetlaw health authority announced that it would opt out, it caused tremendous controversy and that the Secretary of State for Health had to smuggle himself past protest meetings into the local hospital in a small car? He gave an assurance that the matter would be debated in Parliament, there would be full consultation and nothing would pass without extensive consultations. Now we find that the Bill will go through on the nod this afternoon. How does he expect my constituents' protests to be made and democracy to work?

Mr. Renton : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is not normally considered capable of being smuggled quietly anywhere. That is not in his nature. The business motion deals only with the business before the House for the next two days. The hon. Gentleman will be able to ask the Secretary of State the point of substance and detail that he has made, during the debate on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : As, last night, the Opposition lost every last vestige of credibility--

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I called Mr. Gale.

Mr. Gale : As last night the Opposition lost every vestige of credibility that they might have had in the public eye by failing to be present in the Chamber to take part in a Division which they at least considered important, does my right hon. Friend think that on this occasion their anger might be just a little synthetic?

Mr. Renton : It is not only synthetic, but it shows, in the long- winded speeches with no content, the Opposition's lack of interest in series proposals for improving the NHS.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : Does the Patronage Secretary realise that, because of this announcement, he can be accused of mismanaging the business and procedures of the House? As there has already been some discussion with him through questions on what the nation will think about this, does he realise that he is giving food to the thought that this motion is not just about gagging Members of this House, but about gagging Members in his party because the Government suffered a bad defeat last night?

As this is a major piece of Government legislation and some of us were not privileged to serve on the Committee, how can we as Back Benchers have the opportunity to debate the many significant new clauses and amendments to the Bill which affect our constituents? Finally, as his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) confessed that the Conservative party was a minority party in Scotland, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this motion will ensure that it remains a minority party in Scotland for a long time?

Mr. Renton : The hon. Gentleman is a senior and experienced Member of this House, and I am sure that he is trying to be helpful, but when he makes accusations of mismanagement, he should direct them at his own Front Bench. There was agreement between the usual channels that Report and Third Reading would take two and a half

Column 449

days. In business questions last week, the only comment on that suggestion came from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who expressed thanks for finding so much time. Between 5 am and 11.30 am, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, took three hours and occupied nearly half the time available. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is serious discussion on the Bill, the hon. Member for Livingston, who is not even in his place, should be replaced by someone more serious.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : Anybody who attended the 100-hour-long Committee, as I did, would have to accept that our debates were infinitely superior in terms of point and conciseness than the farce of the past 12 years-- [Laughter.] --or rather, 12 hours. It felt like 12 years. Is it not partly due to the wounded pride of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), because of the temerity of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in announcing publicly that the Committee had had a smooth ride and debated the issues sensibly? Given that the Opposition gave an undertaking to get the Bill through in two and a half days on Report, can we ever believe anything that they say again? Does this not underline the need for early guillotines in future?

Mr. Renton : I thank my hon. Friend for his sensible and brief comments. It was a Freudian slip that led him to refer to 12 years rather than to 12 hours, but many of us on both sides may agree that it felt like that. One must ask where the hon. Member for Livingston is. I suspect that he has left the House to give another television interview.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : Is the Patronage Secretary aware that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) expressed thanks for small mercies, the Unionist party is not in favour of guillotine motions, and we shall vote against this one as usual? May I put it to him that we are extremely disappointed that, when the opportunity occurred to rejig the rest of this week's business, the chance was not seized to discuss the decision of the Dublin Supreme Court and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which vindicated the stance taken by the Unionist party, or to discuss the judgment handed down on extradition in the courts in Dublin yesterday, which can simply be translated as a licence to murder in Ulster?

Mr. Renton : I remind the hon. Gentleman of the precise words of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) :

"I welcome the fact that there is to be a two-and-a-half-day debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill."--[ Official Report, Thursday 8 March ; Vol. 168 c. 1014.]

The debate has not proceeded with due dispatch, simply because of the inordinately long speeches made, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, rehashing comments that they had already made in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman is well versed in the procedures of the House. The question of the Irish judgment does not arise from the business statement. The question of a debate on that and, indeed, on other subjects, is best left for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : Does the Patronage Secretary realise that, because of the Government's action, we shall not have an opportunity to debate new clause 8 on the limitation of junior doctors'

Column 450

hours in self-governing hospitals? Because of that, patients' lives could be put at risk if junior doctors must endure the long arduous hours that they are enduring now in many hospitals.

Mr. Renton : The hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks to his Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. If they curtail their speeches this afternoon and tomorrow, perhaps we will reach new clause 8.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Why has not the Patronage Secretary given details of the timetable? As he has not given details, perhaps he will tell me whether there will be any time for me to raise the allegation that the Scottish Office is bribing consultants in South Ayrshire by saying that phase 2 of the new South Ayrshire hospital will go ahead faster if there is agreement to opt out of the National Health Service. Does he agree that we ought to have time to discuss that kind of disgraceful allegation? It reeks of corruption in the highest places in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Renton : I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in making his point during the course of these questions on a business motion. He is an ingenious Member, who usually finds an opportunity to make any point that he wants to make. He knows the procedures of the House very well. As to the timetable motion, I repeat that it will appear on Wednesday's Order Paper, and during the debate on it these matters of detail may be raised with Ministers.

Next Section

Home Page