House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jan 1991

Mr. MacGregor : I obviously cannot bind all future Governments and Leaders of the House, but my right hon. Friend has made a good point from a position of great responsibility in relation to Select Committees. He also

Column 126

makes a good point about the delay that has occurred, not only from his point of view, but from that of the Procedure Committee. The amendment to Standing Orders to establish the two new Committees was approved a week before publication of the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system. It is important to note that the Committee endorsed the idea, as my right hon. Friend has, of having two Committees to reflect the departmental structures. That is the germane point that we are debating tonight. It is an important point in relation to those two Departments, which account for such a large part of public expenditure.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Surely one is interested in the whole proceedings of the House. However, may I remind hon. Members what the Procedure Committee recommended? It stated that there should be no break in continuity of the Select Committee system as a result of the decision. Accordingly, we recommended that the necessary motion should be framed in such a way that the nomination of the two Committees immediately follows the abolition of the Social Services Committee. We recommended that that should be done in time for the two Committees to be in place and functioning at the start of the Session. Whatever may be said about a Scottish Grand Committee and a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, two wrongs will not make a right.

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend has made--

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. MacGregor : It is right that I should respond to my hon. Friend in his capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to which I have just referred. My hon. Friend has raised that point before, and I have told him that I agree with him. I am sure that it was raised in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). I said then that, if the formation of the two Committees continued to be frustrated in such a way, I would provide time for a debate at the earliest opportunity. That is what I have done. That is why we are here tonight. I am fulfilling the commitment that I gave then. I am responding to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I should have thought that the whole House would expect to have Select Committees to examine two such major aspects of public expenditure. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will also support that view ; it will be interesting if they do not support the formation of two such important Committees.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing : The Leader of the House quite rightly referred to accountability for public expenditure. Does he therefore accept that health and social security are two major aspects of expenditure within Scotland, and that we too should have the right to scrutinise that aspect of the functions of the Scottish Office? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned drawing up Standing Orders to ensure that Select Committees on health and social services are established, but how can he reconcile that with Standing Order No. 130, which committed the House to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Column 127

Mr. MacGregor : Let me deal with some of those points. They enable me almost to say all that I wanted to say, as I promised to make a brief intervention. First, as the hon. Lady knows, social security is a United Kingdom matter. In fact, the Select Committee on Social Security will examine the position in Scotland as well. We are seeing, in effect, the deprivation of these matters being considered by a Select Committee in relation to Scotland as well as elsewhere. Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. MacGregor : May I finish my reply to the hon. Lady? Secondly, we are debating the two other matters, not a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) : We should be.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) says that we should be. The motion is about the setting up of the two Select Committees. It is misguided--

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. MacGregor : May I finish my sentence? It is misguided and irrelevant to attack the setting up of these two Committees on the basis of the difficulties of setting up another Select Committee.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce : It is exactly on the point of the composition of the Committee and the specific motion that the debate is moving into a matter of specific concern. It is ironic that the Health Committee, which deals exclusively with England and Wales, has one Scottish Member, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). The Social Security Committee, which deals with the United Kingdom, has no Scottish Member. If there is so much concern about Scottish issues, how could the Committee of Selection put forward names that included not one Scottish hon. Member? That means that the motion is wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. MacGregor : That is hardly a matter for me. I think it would be regarded as rather strange if the Leader of the House were to dominate the way in which the membership of Select Committees was decided. However, it is a matter for me to ensure that we move ahead with the formation of these two committees. It seems to me that the approach of hon. Members who are objecting to this is that, if one issue which is full of difficulties cannot be resolved, then another issue--namely, the two Committees that we are trying to set up tonight--which is wholly unconnected and involves no difficulties, cannot be resolved either. I think that is misguided, irrlevant and rather petty-minded. It is neither liberal or democratic. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have been raising this matter, but I do not think it is either a liberal or democratic way to approach it. I do not want to be drawn into the issues about the Scottish Select Committee tonight, because it is irrelevant to the debate, and the amendment has not been chosen. Therefore, it is out of order.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Will the Minister give way?

Column 128

Mr. MacGregor : No, I will not give way now, because I think it is time that we came to a conclusion on this matter. It really does not make sense, nor is it in the interests of this House to prevent the setting up of two select committees covering so much of public expenditure because of difficulties with another committee. I would point out to the House that other departmental Select Committees that have been set up can take and have taken evidence from Scottish Departments on Scottish matters as part of inquiries relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1989, the Scottish Office provided evidence in 11 different Select Committee inquiries, and in 1988 it provided evidence in 13 out of 23 Select Committee inquiries. If the amendment were allowed to be voted on and were carried, the House would be effectively deprived of the opportunity to have Select Committees on this major area of public expenditure--not least, in Scotland itself. These two Committees should be formed as soon as possible, so that they can begin their work in these very important areas.

I note that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he would not continue his opposition for much longer. I hope that he will not carry it beyond tonight, and that the House will vote in favour of setting up the membership of these Committees.

11.13 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : I begin with what has been agreed. At least the history of this matter is agreed. The old Department of Health and Social Security was divided in 1988. On 19 October 1990, the House approved without a Division a motion that, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 130 should be amended in order to establish separate Select Committees for the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Today we are considering the motions from the Committee of Selection to establish the membership of the two Committees. At least that much is agreed. All this has been agreed without any major differences of opinion across the Floor of the House.

At the outset, I point out that the Opposition have no objection in principle to the Committees being established. We support the proposals. I hesitate to intrude in Scottish affairs, not least because my hon. Friends from north of the border are well capable of looking after themselves.

As we are discussing the matter, and debating with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection the establishment of Select Committees, the House has a rare opportunity to look at the way in which that Committee, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) as its Chairman, discharge their duties.

The House has a duty to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That is not an option or something that the House can take or leave. That duty remains unfulfilled and the Leader of the House, like his predecessor, and the Chairman are in clear and continued breach of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in failing to complete the procedures for the establishment of such a Committee.

Mr. Higgins : The hon. Gentleman has said that he accepts the motions. Will he make it clear that he also accepts the principle underlying them, which is that, if a departmental structure changes, the Select Committee

Column 129

should change correspondingly? This is an all-party matter and it is important that, on such points of principle, we have agreement across the Floor of the House.

Dr. Cunningham : I am sorry to have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that we accepted the principle and we support the proposals.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : As the Labour party has accepted the principle that there should be Select Committees, will the hon. Gentleman recall that, although expenditure in Scotland has not been properly scrutinised for four years, expenditure in Northern Ireland has not been properly scrutinised for just short of 19 years? Is not that a scandal?

Dr. Cunningham : If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the House has a duty to establish a Select Committee to consider that subject, in which he has a natural interest, that is an important point. We are well past the midpoint of this Parliament, and the situation remains unsatisfactory. There is no precedent, under any Government of any party, for the Committee of Selection and the Leader of the House failing to establish a Select Committee in such circumstances. The matter has been pressed again and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), other Scottish colleagues and hon. Members in other political parties.

I was rather amused to hear the Chairman of the Procedure Committee make a plea for no break in continuity in the scrutiny of the Departments of Health and of Social Security. It is a bit of a joke for him to say that, when he has been silent about the three-year break in continuity in the scrutiny of public expenditure in Scotland. The Leader of the House has said, and I agree, that the principal object of the establishment of Select Committees is to scrutinise public expenditure, but what about Scotland? What about the £10 billion annual expenditure by the Scottish Office? Why is that not being scrutinised?

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He said that the Procedure Committee recommended that two Committees should be established when the Select Committee on Health and Social Services was done away with, but has made no recommendation about Scotland. As he knows, that is untrue. Paragraphs 270 and 271 of that report stress the need for there to be reconsideration of the appointment of a Scottish Grand Committee. Let us get the balance right.

Dr. Cunningham : The hon. Gentleman is getting confused between Grand Committees and Select Committees, and about what I said. I did not accuse the Committee of not making that recommendation. I drew attention to its stressing of the importance of continuity in the work of Select Committees. If that is a valid argument in respect of the Departments of Health and of Social Security, it is an equally valid argument in respect of Scottish affairs.

It is very difficult to find the culprit when discussing all this and seeking advice with the Clerks. Reading the Standing Orders of the House, it seems that one is passed around in a circle between the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip and, to a much lesser extent, the Chairman of

Column 130

the Procedure Committee. They all have one thing in common : they are all members of the governing Tory party. What we have here, and continue to see, is the continual passing of the buck from the Front Bench to the Back Benches to the Government Whips Office--and round and round it goes.

The reality is that this Government, for political reasons and for no other purpose, are failing in their duty to the House. If the hon. Member for Shipley really thought a lot about his own position and his duty to the House, he would resign. I do not say this in any personal sense. I have a certain fondness for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, in personal terms, but he and his Committee have failed totally to carry out their duties under the Standing Orders of the House. That is what they are appointed to do and have failed lamentably to do for almost four years.

I said that I hesitated to get involved in these affairs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) fondly refers to Geordies as Scots with their brains bashed out. My response was that in some cases it would not be a very long job.

Sir Marcus Fox : As the hon. Member suggests I might resign--and quotes Standing Order 130 as his justification--could I refer him to column 339 of Hansard of 20 December 1988, in which the previous Leader of the House gives the exact ruling as to why there is no compulsion on my Committee to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? There are ways in which that Standing Order can be dealt with, and the explanation is to be found there.

Dr. Cunningham : That illustrates my point. The hon. Gentleman says it is not the responsibility of his Committee ; the Leader of the House says it is not his responsibility. What is the purpose of the House having a Standing Order which no one will accept the responsibility for implementing? That is the reality. Although we have no opposition to the proposals that are before the House from the Committee of Selection, we take the gravest exception to the failure of the Government, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and the governing party to match up to their duty under the Standing Orders of the House.

11.23 pm

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : We should be clear as to the terms we use in this debate. I get slightly concerned when the Chairman of the Committee of Procedure appears to be unable to differentiate between the Scottish Grand Committee, which exists, and the Scottish Select Committee, which has a totally different role. I understand that it is very easy to make slips of the tongue, and so long as it is a slip I shall accept it. But it is clear that what we are discussing is Select Committees on departmental issues. Such committees have the responsibility not just of examining public expenditure, not just of interrogating, investigating or questioning Ministers, but of overseeing many subsidiary agencies, and indeed they are entitled to discuss any issues on the subject matter before them.

What is before us, strictly, is the naming of Members to serve on the two Select Committees. We are entitled to question the priority of the motions before us, especially since a great deal of heat has been generated about this

Column 131

subject. When an hon. Member complained about the delay in setting up these two Committees, the Leader of the House became extremely agitated. I have not seen him so acerbic in his role as Leader of the House since he reached that office. I have never seen him so excited. But he was excited over what? It was over the fact that since October last year we have been waiting for the establishment of these two Committees.

What does the right hon. Gentleman think Opposition Members feel about the Scottish Select Committee? Three years have passed, and nothing has been done. The Leader of the House has said, "It is difficult ; it is hard to know what to do." Different methods have been adopted and all sorts of excuses have been trotted out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the matter has been referred to the Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Selection Committee, the Government Chief Whip and back again to the Leader of the House. We know, of course, that these individuals and Committees are faced with tremendous responsibilities.

Paragraph 271 of the report of the Procedure Committee puts the matter in a nutshell. It states :

"Moreover, the absence of a Scottish Affairs Committee leaves a major Government Department unscrutinised and thus constitutes a deficiency (some would consider a serious deficiency) in the departmentally-related Committee system."

In the face of that, it is no use anyone on either side of the House arguing that the affairs of the Scottish Office or Scottish departmentally related divisions can be adequately covered by other Committees. If that were not so, the Procedure Committee would not have made its tremendously strong recommendation. Nor would it have gone on to ascribe blame. It makes it clear that an insufficient number of Conservative Members who represent Scottish constituencies are willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It agrees with the Chairman of the Liaison Committee that the cause of the problem is political and so must be its solution. It adds : "The House is entitled to look to the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution, which may require compromise on all sides."

We have sought in many ways to achieve a compromise. I understand those who say, "Let us get on with what already exists. Let us get on with major issues of health and social security." There are health issues in Scotland which have been dealt with in a way that beggars the imagination. For example, it has not been possible to examine Grampian health board's decision to hand over the running of a hospital for geriatric patients--it was built by the board and paid for by the Scottish Office--to a private medical company. Whether that was the right decision--I happen to think it was not--it has been taken. It has been mirrored by decisions of the other boards, and such decisions need to be examined.

Trust status is being considered for some major hospitals in the national health service. Arguments in favour of that status are being advanced in a way that has led to a fog of confusion. Decisions on whether to apply for trust status are being made on inadequate information about finance. The chairman of the unit medical committee of the Foresterhill site he said that, if it is decided to remain within a direct management unit service, an essential £11.7 million will not be made available. If it is decided to opt for trust status, however, a magic formula

Column 132

will be implemented and the money will become available. It seems that it will be possible to borrow the money. It must be important that those who make the decisions know precisely what is involved. If the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigated these matters, decisions would be made on the basis of what is best for the patient. It is that which we are being denied. It is no good the Leader of the House and Conservative Back-Bench Members becoming agitated when decisions on the health service in England and Wales, and partially in Scotland, are being delayed. I accept that some issues may have to be looked into, but must we meekly accept the situation?

I have only one quarrel with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who opened for the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman says that he has no desire to thwart the setting up of these Committees. I do not want to do that either. However, if there is no other way to make Government Members aware of the serious deficiencies that we have tolerated for the past three and a half years, we shall thwart them to the very last moment.

11.31 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : I shall be very brief. Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I must appeal to the House not to make three errors instead of one. There cannot be any hon. Member who does not accept that there is a need for a Select Committee to look after the affairs of the Department of Health.

Mr. Robert Hughes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is a director of a company called Care Services Group. If my recollection is faulty, I shall certainly apologise, but I understand that that company has taken over the contract to provide geriatric services in Aberdeen. Is that so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman's membership will be recorded in the Register of Interests. Hon. Members might take this issue up during the debate, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Peter Emery : There cannot be any hon. Member who does not believe that there ought to be a Select Committee to deal with health matters, and one to deal with matters relating to social security. However, we should be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if, because there is not a Scottish Grand Committee-- [Interruption.] It would be odd if, because there is not a Scottish Social Services Committee--[H on. Members :-- "A Scottish Select Committee."] It would be odd if, because there is not a Scottish Select Committee, we should decide not to appoint Select Committees to deal with health matters and matters relating to social security. The Procedure Committee tried hard to ensure that this error would not occur. To that end, it recommended dovetailing in order that work might continue without interruption.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has made it absolutely clear that nobody could accuse the Procedure Committee of not taking extremely seriously the question of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. We have made it quite clear that this is a gap in the system of Department-related Select Committees. I should like to refer to the recommendations that the Procedure

Column 133

Committee made. We stated quite clearly that, in respect of this matter, the power of initiation must lie with the Government. Hon. Members are entitled to look to the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution.

Some of the problems that existed when we were taking evidence for our report have been overcome or simply no longer exist. I think that I should be going a very long way towards having the wishes of the House fulfilled if I could persuade the Leader of the House to say yet again that he will look into the matter and discuss it with the parties to see whether a solution might be found.

The arguments against the appointment of the two Committees are based upon a desire to have a Scottish Grand Committee--[ Hon. Members-- : "Select Committee."]--yes, I am sorry but that desire is not part of today's debate.

If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could assure the House that he will reconsider the matter, that would go a long way towards getting something done.

11.34 pm

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South) : I speak as the last Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs--the way things are going, I shall make the "Guinness Book of Records" as just that. I am glad to see the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) present tonight. They are previous members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and I trained them to speak up for Scotland. I have a great respect for the Leader of the House, because he comes from the small mining village of Shotts. On this occasion, I am afraid that he is not speaking up for that village : he is speaking for the Tory Government, who have power only in England, not in Scotland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he belongs to the small village of Shotts in Lanarkshire. He should speak up for Scotland and set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

All Select Committees monitor the work of Ministers and Departments. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs monitored the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. As Chairman of that Committee, I can confirm that we worked closely with the previous Secretary--

Mr. David Marshall : My hon. Friend worked hand in hand with him.

Mr. Lambie : I am afraid that I must agree with my hon. Friend. The Committee worked hand in hand with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I saw that right hon. Gentleman earlier behind the Chair, but when he saw what was happening, he beat a hasty retreat.

The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs worked well, because it not only monitored the work of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, but gave the Secretary of State the ammunition and evidence he needed to produce before Cabinet Sub-Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. All this is a long way from the motion before the House.

Mr. Lambie : I am trying to show the importance of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Surely that is relevant to the debate.

Column 134

Mr. Robert Hughes : I was the Chairman of that Select Committee before my hon. Friend. Does he agree that every recommendation it made was accepted by the Government?

Mr. Lambie : I agree. I followed in the tradition of my hon. Friend. I was there to co-operate. Although we had a majority of Labour Members of Parliament representing and a Conservative Secretary of State. We had to co -operate with him to get the best possible deal for Scotland, and we did just that. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ayr for working with us, sometimes against his friends in the Conservative party who served on that Select Committee. We worked on the basis that what was good for Scotland was good for the Select Committee.

This is where what I am saying becomes relevant, because we are talking about an existing Select Committee being divided into two Select Committees. When we discussed the future of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I suggested to the Government, as I suggest to the Leader of the House tonight, that, with 13 Members, it was too big. During a public sitting, every Member of Parliament wanted to speak because the press were present. [Interruption.] A Minister who came before the Select Committee got off easily, because--

Mr. David Marshall : My hon. Friend protected him.

Mr. Lambie : I might have protected the Secretary of State for Scotland because, like me, he was speaking for the future of Scotland and Scottish interests. Sometimes, Tory Secretaries of State for Scotland are the best supporters of Labour party policy that we can get in the House. [Laughter.]

I used to point out to the Select Committee that, if all 13 Members wanted to question and argue with a Minister who was to appear before us, and that Minister had ability, as the right hon. Member for Ayr had, it was like coming to a holiday camp. It was no problem and there was no investigation. Whenever we had difficulty forming a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I recommended, against the advice of my Front Bench, that instead of 13 Members, the Select Committee should be composed of five--three Conservative and two Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Question before the House concerns the composition and appointment of Members to two Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman is a long way from that.

Mr. Lambie : I am drawing on my experience to show the two new Select Committees that are about to be set up that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was too big. I am suggesting that they too may be too big. With five Members, as I recommended, we could have had discussions, and the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) could have joined the Committee and spoken up for Scotland. I again suggest to the Leader of the House that, if we cannot form a Committee of 13, we should form a Committee of five. I am willing, again, to act as its Chairman.

Column 135

11.43 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : I appreciate being called, especially in the light of the previous contribution. I remind the House that there are parties other than the Conservative and Labour parties. It may be that they could work out a cosy club.

I speak in favour of the motions before the House. The Committees have been far too long in being set up. I represent part of the kingdom which has a different health service and I realise that we have our difficulties. In a few weeks' time, a health order will come before the House which will not be properly scrutinised. There is no way presently in which a Select Committee in Northern Ireland can do the work of this House.

I have every sympathy with my Scottish colleagues. That will come as no surprise : Scotland is the land of the Scoti--the Irish, and I speak as an Ulster Scot. I feel, however, that a little local difficulty has got out of proportion. Two large Committees covering two responsible areas of government should have been in operation two months ago ; moreover, four years have gone by with no Scottish Select Committee. I trust that the complaints about that will reach you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you represent the interests of Back Benchers, and that the Leader of the House--who is concerned with the conduct of the House's business--will bear in mind the fact that a large Government Department has not been scrutinised for 19 years. The time is long past when Departments were scrutinised by Select Committees.

I have no intention of delaying the House. I simply support the motions and plead with the House, as a democratic forum, to abide by its conscience and give the people of Northern Ireland their proper rights.

11.45 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Earlier, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Amery), Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, said that the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs constituted a noticeable gap. It is not only a noticeable gap, but an unacceptable and very undemocratic one. We have experienced nearly four years of camouflage, obfuscation and different arguments from the Government about why they cannot set up the Scottish Select Committee, which is essential if we are to scrutinise what happens in our nation.

The purpose of the motions is to establish two Select Committees. I strongly support the presence of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the Select Committee for Health--not least because of his inestimable work on behalf of the disabled, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom--but I am sure that he will agree that more Scottish Members should serve on the Committee. Moreover, no Scottish Member has been appointed to the Select Committee on Social Security.

Conservative Members have made it plain that they consider the arrangements appropriate ; Opposition Members greet that view in a spirit of argumentative disagreement. You may have been surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the vehemence of the Opposition's arguments. They reflect our strong sense of indignity, following the denial of Scotland's right to take her proper part in the scrutiny of legislation.

It has been pointed out that Select Committees will take evidence from Scottish Office Ministers. The Government

Column 136

recognise that we can offer a certain expertise in health and social security matters, and also that our administrative set-up is very different. Let me tell them that we find it extremely insulting when people pose as one-day experts on the problems that we face in Scotland. Geographical differences exist in regard to health : in the highlands and islands, for instance, the distances involved in ensuring that our constituents have access to good health facilities mean extra expenditure.

Many English Members of Parliament say that too much money is spent on Scotland's health service. They ought instead to work for an improvement in the facilities offered by the national health service to all people in the United Kingdom. Moreover, they take no account of the fact that Scottish universities make an important contribution to the NHS by training doctors who practise not only in Scottish hospitals but in hospitals throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the world. That, however, is treated as purely Scottish expenditure.

No account is taken of Scotland's contribution to health service research. Reference was made earlier to the work that has been done in Scotland to help AIDS sufferers. I think in particular of the work done by Professor Jarrett at Glasgow university. Unfortunately, Edinburgh has become the AIDS capital of Europe. We need to do more research into AIDS, but the money for it has not been provided. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the privatisation of the national health service, not least within the area of the Grampian health board.

No real attention has been paid to the need for extra heating payments to be made during severe weather conditions to people in the north and north- east of Scotland. Our climate and weather should lead to higher automatic payments being made. Scotland also suffers from higher levels of unemployment than England. That deserves scrutiny, too. The failure to appoint Scottish Members to serve on the social security Select Committee is very aggravating to the people of Scotland. I hope, therefore, that the House will reconsider that point.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 January], to put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to Health.

The House divided : Ayes 159, Noes 33.

Division No. 41] [11.51 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Beggs, Roy

Benton, Joseph

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Bright, Graham

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

Browne, John (Winchester)

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Chris

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chope, Christopher

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Cunningham, Dr John

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

Dixon, Don

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Emery, Sir Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Evennett, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

Favell, Tony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Flynn, Paul

Next Section

Home Page