House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Mar 1990

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) : Did my hon. Friend really believe that the agreement that had been reached through the usual channels would be honoured by the Opposition?

Mr. Renton : My hon. Friend and I might have a quiet discussion about that later, outside the Chamber.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Did the Patronage Secretary's business statement take fully into account the 100 Government amendments outstanding? I am sure that he is aware that, regardless of his power to restrict debate, he cannot restrict votes on those amendments. There is potential for 24 hours of voting. Would it not be better to devote that time to debate? Will he, rather than whining about the usual channels and about agreements made or not made, acknowledge that many Members and many parties in this House are not covered by the usual channels? How does his announcement today defend the rights of those Members who have been waiting to contribute to the debate?

Mr. Renton : The hon. Member, if he has studied the amendment paper carefully, will realise that the 83 Government amendments deal with drafting and technical matters. They are the ones about which there did not seem to be any dispute. There should be no need for substantive debate on them. However, as I have said, there will be plenty of time at the sittings on Wednesday and Thursday to consider these matters in detail.

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : Will the Patronage Secretary acknowledge that the longest debate on this Bill so far was the one on new clause 1, which dealt with income support shortfall for people in residential homes? During that debate, Government Members took up more

Column 451

time than Opposition Members. Can the Patronage Secretary guarantee that new clause 12 will be debated at length?

When the Secretary of State had replied last night, there was unfinished business on that clause. He promised that the House would return to it. This is obviously a matter of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, and it ought to be debated fully.

Mr. Renton : The hon. Gentleman is getting extremely indignant. I can only say to him what I have said to other hon. Members on both sides : the timetable motion will appear on Wednesday's Order Paper, and the House will have an opportunity, in the debate on that motion later today, to deal with this matter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the two longest speeches in Tuesday's debate were the one by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), which lasted one hour and 48 minutes, and one that lasted one hour 11 minutes. If the hon. Member thinks that that is orderly progress in this House, I have to tell him that it is not my understanding of those words.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : I imagine that it is with some sorrow that the Patronage Secretary is proposing a guillotine motion. Guillotines thwart the very purpose of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has based his proposal on the suggestion that the debates on this Bill have been over-long. I am sure that he was present last night when, within 10 minutes of the end of a fairly lengthy debate on new clause 1, it was necessary for one of his hon. Friends below the Gangway to get to his feet to ask for clarification of the awful things that the Government are proposing.

If ever there was an illustration of the fact that the debates have not been over-long--that the debates that we have had have been extremely necessary to bring to the attention of Government Members exactly what is happening--that was it. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman, having received a reply indicating that his thoughts were absolutely correct, did not carry his objection into the Lobby.

Mr. Renton : Perhaps it is no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that I disagree with his interpretation of the events of the last 18 hours. Progress last night and this morning clearly showed that the Opposition are seeking to delay this Bill rather than to engage in sensible debate. It is always with regret that a Patronage Secretary as democratic as I am introduces a timetable motion, but, for the reason that I have just given, the motion is necessary. The House must be enabled to continue to make progress on this very important matter.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Does the Patronage Secretary agree that the first affront to the House was to put Health Service legislation and community care legislation together? Can he confirm that very many people expected last year that there would be two separate Bills and two separate opportunities for debate? The second affront is the Government's introduction of a guillotine motion without telling us how much time will be allowed. Does not the Patronage Secretary realise that hon. Members and very many people outside who try hard to lobby their Members of

Column 452

Parliament in respect of particular amendments are being denied the opportunity to allocate the remaining time rationally?

Mr. Renton : No one can make a souffle rise twice. The hon. Gentleman really should not rehash the argument about putting two Bills together. This matter was well ventilated, for example on Second Reading, for which we allowed two days--in itself, an unusually generous provision. As to the hon. Gentleman's other point, I repeat that he will be able to make it in detail when the timetable motion is debated and in further proceedings on Report. When business motions of this sort are tabled, it is not customary to give precise details of the timetable. Those appear on the Order Paper, as will happen on this occasion.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : The Patronage Secretary must be aware that many clauses and amendments that concern patient care will now not be debated fully. Many hon. Members hoped to raise the question of the deficits that their district health authorities are facing. In the case of the authority in my area, the figure is £1.2 million. That will lead to a massive loss in patient care, to ward closures and to many other difficulties that will cause suffering and inconvenience to the people of Halifax would have been grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had he talked from now until next week, if that had given us a chance to bring to the attention of the House the great suffering that these cuts will inflict on them? The hon. Gentleman's trivialisation of the debates that have taken place does neither him nor his party any good.

Mr. Renton : Obviously, the hon. Lady ought to direct her remarks to the hon. Member for Livingston. She says that she would have been content had he spoken from now until next week. Clearly, in those circumstances it would have been impossible to restrict the debate to the two and a half days that were agreed and accepted by the House during business questions last week.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As those on the Opposition Front Bench had been attacked several times by the Chief Whip, it ought to be made quite clear that there never was an agreement on two and a half days. The Government did not give us two and a half days. The Government lost again last night, and today they have run away with the ball.

Mr. Speaker : I have no knowledge of what goes on in the usual channels.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : This is my first chance to say anything during the entire proceedings on the Bill. I believed that I would have an opportunity later to get involved in the debate. Why is it that, presumably, I will not be allowed to speak during the course of the proceedings on the 108 amendments that could still be taken? And if I am not allowed to speak, why will I not be allowed to vote?

I was voted into this House by people in my constituency, and they expect me to be able to vote on their behalf on these important matters. Will we be given a chance to go through the amendments, so that we may at least have an opportunity to exercise our right to go through the Division Lobbies?

Column 453

Mr. Renton : I note the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm. He has had a number of occasions on which to vote during the past 20 hours and I am sure that he will have other occasions on which to vote in the hours ahead.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : I am sure that the Patronage Secretary is aware, because this point has been made during the debate, that there are 11 district health authorities in the south-west, of which eight in their entirety are to be removed as trusts in the first wave. As a member of a district health authority, I know that the care services for the mentally ill and the physically disabled and the priorities for community care have not yet been dealt with. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that we shall have adequate time to discuss the items raised under community care? In that way, some guidance can be given to the district health authorities which are opting out and at present making no provision.

Mr. Renton : As the hon. Lady well realises, it is not in my power to give the guarantee that she seeks. Whether there is an opportunity to raise those detailed points about the south-west depends very much on the length of the speeches made in the debate on the timetable motion and during the remainder of the Report stage.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : At the beginning of the debate on the timetable motion, will the right hon. Gentleman include a section for what might be called sleaze time? This information was not discussed overnight, although it was circulated. It concerns the four companies--P and O, British and Commonwealth, Trusthouse Forte and BET--which, since 1983, have given more than £1 million to the Conservative party. We could also discuss the 22 Conservative Members who have shares in those various companies. There has been some dispute--which we should clear up-- as to whether those Members should be allowed to vote. They certainly would not be allowed to vote in local authorities, so why should they be allowed to vote here?

Mr. Renton : The hon. Gentleman has a natural aptitude for raising matters concerned with sleaze. Whether there is time to debate those points on Wednesday or Thursday obviously depends on the length of speeches made by him and others of his hon. Friends during the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is not the real reason why the Patronage Secretary has come to the House today the fact that the Government are crumbling at the edges, as witnessed by their defeat last night and the absconding of the Secretary of State for Wales? Where is the Leader of the House? Has he done a bunk as well? The Government are rotting at the centre. They do not want to debate these issues because they do not want those 22 Tory Members to be named in the debate. What is wrong with debating between now and Sunday night? If hospital doctors have to work for 80-odd hours on their own, why cannot Members of Parliament work? Stop the cover-up.

Mr. Renton : The hon. Gentleman has a marvellous capacity for fantasy, which never ceases to amuse and delight both sides of the House, although I sometimes wonder how much his constituents like it. We will have business questions tomorrow, and perhaps the hon.

Column 454

Gentleman will then tell us when we shall have an opportunity to debate the conduct of the 32 Labour Members who are leading a campaign not to pay the poll tax, and when the leader of the Labour party is going to put the boot where his mouth is and remove the Labour whip from those Members.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his normal good humour is wearing a bit thin, and he is certainly looking the worse for wear? Is he aware that, if all these rumours about the new Secretary of State for Wales are true, we in Scotland will be bitterly disappointed? We had hoped to get rid of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and thought that he had a chance of getting that job.

On the business statement, why did not the Patronage Secretary take the opportunity to correct the history knowledge of the hon. Member for Rockburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who said that the National Health Service Act 1946 was an agreed measure? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman tell him that the Tory Opposition voted against its Second Reading and fought it line by line? Is not the guillotine which has been announced evidence that the Health Service is not safe in the hands of the Conservative party and that, in fact, a guillotine looms over it?

Mr. Renton : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy. On listening to him, my good humour returned. I should like to point out, however, that he has a selective memory. As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Health Services Act 1976--a Labour Act--spent only 80 hours in Committee. The debate in Committee was then guillotined, as were the Report stage and Third Reading, and the timetable motion was introduced after only 42 hours. If the hon. Gentleman compares that disgraceful Labour record with ours, I am sure that he will join me in thanking Conservative Ministers for the democracy that they are showing and for their care for the procedures of the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : So that the public clearly understand what is happening in the House of Commons, will the Patronage Secretary confirm that we are now required to debate more than 108 amendments and new clauses in five and a half hours, whereas last night the Government were prepared to give six hours to one clause? Cannot the public rightfully ask why the Government are willing to give six hours to one new clause but only five and a half hours to a further 108 measures?

Could it be that one of those measures would give us the opportunity to discuss the sleaze factor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred--that is, give us the opportunity to expose the relationship between Conservative Members and private contractors who hope to act as parasites living on the back of the NHS following this legislation?

Mr. Renton : As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the hon. Gentleman has a natural attraction to sleaze. If he wishes to discuss that matter during the Bill's later stages and the Opposition make short speeches, he will have an opportunity to do so. I agree that progress during the night was too slow. We shall introduce a timetable motion so that reasonable progress can be made.

Column 455

Points of Order

12.57 pm

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order, which I tried to raise earlier, is relevant, because it deals with the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. One of the Bill's sponsors is none other than the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). We now know from the tape and from the Patronage Secretary that the right hon. Gentleman's successor has been appointed. Would it not therefore be in order for the Bill to be withdrawn because one of its sponsors has resigned? I understand that he has resigned, without making a statement to the House, in order to become chairman of PowerGen.

As I said earlier, I raised this matter on points of order on three previous occasions and during business questions on Thursday in the hope that a statement would be made so that we in Wales could ask the Secretary of State for Wales why he was resigning. We had a six-hour Welsh debate, yet the right hon. Gentleman did not declare his intention of resigning to take up the job as chairman of PowerGen. I think that it comes within your ambit, Mr. Speaker, for you to ask Ministers and the Patronage Secretary why appointed Ministers should not declare to the House their reason for resigning.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was the Secretary of State for Wales when the Bill was printed and, as far as I am aware, he is still the Secretary of State for Wales. I have no knowledge of any other job that he may or may not have been offered, so as far as I am concerned that point does not arise.

Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your assistance and guidance concerning the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Wales. In the Welsh Grand Committee, which sat this morning, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) gave us no details of the situation whatever so we are not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is still the Secretary of State for Wales. That is why we seek your help, Sir. Can you bring the Patronage Secretary to the Dispatch Box to make a statement giving us all the details, to enable us to establish whether it is true that the Minister for the poll tax has been selected to take the place of the right hon. Member for Worcester?

Mr. Speaker : I have absolutely no knowledge of these matters, and they are not matters for me.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I, too, was present at this morning's sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee, when the Secretary of State for Wales--until now--said that he knew nothing of a statement having been made concerning the appointment of his successor. Yet a few moments ago, the Patronage Secretary not only referred to the new Secretary of State for Wales but commended him to the House, so he at least must know who it is to be.

We do not know whether we have no Secretary of State for Wales, one or other, or two at the same time. That is a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs, given that that matter is vital to us in Wales.

Column 456

Mr. Speaker : That is not a matter that can be raised on a point of order in the Chamber. I have absolutely no knowledge of these matters.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I asked the Patronage Secretary to give us more details of the time that would be allowed if the timetable motion were carried. I pointed out that it would be possible for that timetable motion to give us a further 18 hours of debate on the 30 remaining new clauses and matters related to them, which affect everyone in the country. When I went to the Table Office immediately afterwards, I found deposited there the timetable motion whose details the Patronage Secretary had uncharacteristically declined to reveal to the House. It was public knowledge to hon. Members in the Table Office, but not in the Chamber.

If the timetable motion is carried, we shall have until midnight tonight-- Wednesday--to debate these matters. That gives us a maximum of six hours. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for the Patronage Secretary to discharge his duties to democracy and to the House and follow the precept that he mentioned in his reply to me? Could he, during the Adjournment debate, table a different timetable motion giving us three times as long--until midday on Thursday--to debate these very important new clauses?

Mr. Speaker : It would be in order for the Patronage Secretary to do that if he so wished, provided that the motion appeared on the Order Paper before we began Wednesday's proceedings.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I will now take Mr. Alton's petition.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : What can the point of order possibly be after all that?

Mr. Wallace : You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, about a quarter of an hour ago, the Patronage Secretary said that, tomorrow, we should debate a motion to amend schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Was the hon. Gentleman not here during questions to the Patronage Secretary? Surely he could have asked his question of the right hon. Gentleman then.

Mr. Wallace : It is your guidance that I seek, Mr. Speaker. During the points of order that followed the business statement, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was about to take up a position as the chairman of PowerGen. Suppose that that is established before tomorrow evening. From 31 March, PowerGen shares will be held by the Government. Does that mean that the chairmanship will become an office of appointment under the Crown, and will it be relevant to debate that tomorrow evening?

Mr. Speaker : That is a very interesting point, I am sure. Several Hon. Members rose --

Column 457

Mr. Speaker : Let us have the petition now.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The guillotine arrangements that we shall be following later today and tomorrow, will not be in the Vote Office before the House adjourns. In view of that very short notice, will you be accepting manuscript amendments, as that would be most helpful?

Mr. Speaker : I shall certainly consider them most carefully. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : I will take one more point of order, from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : On a quick point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was very perplexed by something that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said. He said that he had attended a sitting--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The fact that an hon. Member is perplexed by what another hon. Member has said is not a point of order. I am constantly perplexed.

Mr. Home Robertson : I seek clarification from you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ogmore said that he was present at a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee this morning. Surely that is impossible. He must have been there tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker : I think that I can indeed clarify that matter-- Mr. Wigley rose--

Mr. Speaker : No, let me have the first go. It is Wednesday upstairs in Committee, but it may be Tuesday down here.

Mr. Wigley : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the question of the appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales, I realise that you have very little power in this matter, but the Government have been unforthcoming and have made no statement. The circumstances are completely different from those that usually pertain. Usually when a Secretary of State resigns, the job becomes empty and we have an announcement from Downing street. In this case, an announcement has been made while there is an incumbent in the job. Once again, we have strangers in Wales taking over the jobs. In those circumstances, as I have in the past, I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw. Notice being taken that strangers were present. Mr. Speaker,-- pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw :-- The House proceeded to a Division--

1.21 pm

Mr. Speaker : I direct the Serjeant at Arms to inquire why there is a delay in the Division Lobbies.

The House having divided : Ayes 2, Noes 190.

Division No. 122] [1.06 pm

AYES

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Alex Salmond and

Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

NOES

Column 458

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Alton, David

Amess, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Ashton, Joe

Atkins, Robert

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Beggs, Roy

Beith, A. J.

Bellingham, Henry

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bermingham, Gerald

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Buck, Sir Antony

Butcher, John

Butler, Chris

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Churchill, Mr

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Colvin, Michael

Conway, Derek

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Corbett, Robin

Cryer, Bob

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Curry, David

Dalyell, Tam

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Dewar, Donald

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dixon, Don

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas, Dick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Duffy, A. E. P.

Dunn, Bob

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Eadie, Alexander

Eastham, Ken

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Fallon, Michael

Favell, Tony

Fearn, Ronald

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Flynn, Paul

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Foster, Derek

Foulkes, George

Franks, Cecil

Freeman, Roger

Gale, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grist, Ian

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Harris, David

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Haynes, Frank

Hind, Kenneth

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Hordern, Sir Peter

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Geraint

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Irvine, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Key, Robert

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkwood, Archy

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Knox, David

Lamond, James

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Lee, John (Pendle)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Loyden, Eddie

McCartney, Ian

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

McKelvey, William

Maclean, David

Mans, Keith

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Meale, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Moate, Roger

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Murphy, Paul

Neubert, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

O'Brien, William

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Pike, Peter L.

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Raffan, Keith

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Rowe, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Sackville, Hon Tom

Next Section

Home Page