| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 295
Maddock, DianaMaitland, Lady Olga
Malone, Gerald
Mans, Keith
Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Merchant, Piers
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Monro, Sir Hector
Nelson, Anthony
Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Norris, Steve
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Oppenheim, Phillip
Page, Richard
Paice, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John
Rendel, David
Richards, Rod
Riddick, Graham
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Rooney, Terry
Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Sackville, Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Spink, Dr Robert
Spring, Richard
Sproat, Iain
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Stephen, Michael
Stewart, Allan
Streeter, Gary
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Thurnham, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tredinnick, David
Trend, Michael
Trimble, David
Trotter, Neville
Wallace, James
Ward, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Waterson, Nigel
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray
Whittingdale, John
Widdecombe, Ann
Willetts, David
Wilshire, David
Wolfson, Mark
Wood, Timothy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Bowen Wells and Dr. Liam Fox.
Column 295
Question accordingly negatived.Mr. Sedgemore: Well, there you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If anyone was in any doubt as to whether the Government had taken over this private Bill in a scurrilous fashion, we have just discovered the proof of that. I am sure that it will lead my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), when he replies to the debate, to decide not to support the Bill.
Column 296
I was quoting from a letter from Professor David Tomlinson--Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friend recalls, when "I spy Strangers" was called I was in the process of reminding my hon. Friend that I am one of the signatories to the blocking motion. As a result, I have been inundated with letters from people asking why. I have a good answer. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said today. I have had a similar letter today from Arnold Wesker, whom I assume is the playwright, who lives at Hay-on-Wye. He says that he has been made an honorary fellow of Queen Mary and Westfield college. He says:
"I write about the . . . Bill which is to be debated on . . . Wednesday April 19th. I understand that you and other MPs seek to block the Bill. Permit me to ask why and to briefly argue in its favour."
He goes on to say that there is no connection between the college and the hospital.
That fellow has been made an honorary fellow. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend seems to know that there is a direct link, an umbilical cord, between the hospital and the college. This man--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be reasonably short. He has been speaking for more than a minute on this intervention, having started it previously. I should be grateful if he would wind up and, if he then wishes to catch my eye, he may do so.
Mr. Skinner: I intend to, but I need to tell my hon. Friend, because he has not had a letter from Arnold Wesker, whom I assume is the playwright.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have.
Mr. Skinner: Arnold Wesker says that he cannot understand why we should seek to block a merger that appears to offer high standards in medical education and research.
It seems odd to me that that bloke has been put on this body as an honorary fellow, yet he cannot see the direct connection between the college and the hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) should use this opportunity to provide an adequate answer to Mr. Arnold Wesker.
Mr. Sedgemore rose --
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Before he does that, will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the same issue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I too had one of those letters written in exactly the same terms as that written to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I replied to the letter because it suggests that we do not have the right to debate the matter on Second Reading. Mr. Wesker does not seem to realise that the only way in which we could secure a debate at this stage was by laying down an objection. Had he realised that, he might have understood that this is a procedural mechanism by which
Column 297
Members of Parliament hold the Executive accountable. It gives us our only opportunity to ask Ministers questions on the implementation of legislation of this nature. Unless we choose to debate these matters, clearly the public will not know what is happening in a particular case.Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend has partly answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right, however. He saw me becoming angry and upset a moment ago about the claim that none of us knew the difference between a hospital and a medical college. I explained, in fairly strong terms, that it was not possible to close the world's greatest hospital, cutting off patient care, teaching and research--those three services being linked-- without having a severely damaging effect on its medical college.
I do not want to attack Mr. Arnold Wesker. He is a playwright; I am an author. The old idea of medical institutions, and even the Labour party, having "luvvies" on their boards does not help the argument. With due respect, it is clear that Mr. Wesker has no idea what he is talking about. He may have had dinner with Professor Zellick and got hold of some rather tatty and tawdry argument--but I do not think that I should repeat what I said earlier. Although you were not present then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to try to deceive you about what has been happening.
In his letter to the Barts Journal , Professor David Tomlinson gives direct quotations from what Professor Zellick has said. Apparently, he does not care whether the Bill is passed tonight--or at some other time--because he will proceed with the merger regardless. He does not care about Parliament. It has all gone on for too long; he is fed up with politicians, and does not respect the democratic processes.
The letter says:
"Whether we experience a brief delay of two or three months or even if the Bill is more seriously obstructed and we are unable to secure its passage in this session of Parliament, we shall nevertheless be able to bring about the unified School of Medicine and Dentistry as an integral part of QMW and we shall do that by the beginning of the 1995/96 session whatever the fate of the Bill." It goes on to say that arrangements have been made between the Privy Council and the Higher Education Funding Council to use the royal prerogative to frustrate the will of Parliament if need be. That takes the biscuit.
The letter continues:
"it is now too late to pull back or delay. I am therefore pleased to report the unanimous view of the Merger Implementation Committee that nothing must be allowed to impede progress".
That apparently includes the will of Parliament.
Hon. Members must take into account the good faith of the Bill's promoters. We are entitled to ask what kind of medical college will be created by the merger, and who will lead it. If the person who is to lead it has been selected before the Bill has been given a Second Reading, and shows himself to be wholly hostile to parliamentary democracy, I should have thought that, by definition, he is not fit to run a major academic institution. Surely the House should not merely delay the Bill, but throw it out. It is appalling that a professor should arrogate the rights of Parliament, and say that our work does not matter.
I think that, when people have had a chance to study this astonishing outburst, Parliament will want to set up an inquiry into its proceedings on this and future Bills.
Column 298
The Secretary of State for Health should make a statement from the Dispatch Box about this approach to private Bills concerning the national health service. It is not Professor Zellick's health service; it is Parliament's and the public's health service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney should, in all decency, be prepared to withdraw the motion.Should the Bill receive a Second Reading, which I hope that it will not, I believe--Madam Deputy Speaker dealt with this point during earlier points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you took the Chair--that the Committee that eventually considers it will want to see Professor Zellick and the Privy Councillors involved, or members of the Privy Council staff, and members of the Higher Education Funding Council. It will want to find out how it is possible to override the will of Parliament through the exercise of the royal prerogative in regard to a Bill such as this.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I find great difficulty in understanding why the students changed their minds and why they withdrew their petition. Could it be that some sort of educational pressure was exerted on them? Is there any evidence to support that? Or could it be that the students were told that whatever happened in Parliament was irrelevant and that the college, by pursuing the use of the royal prerogative, could secure its objective anyway? Perhaps that is what convinced the students to change their minds. I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back to that point, but it is important.
Mr. Sedgemore: In truth, I cannot push the matter much further, although I can help my hon. Friend a little. The students would have seen the letter and the speech, because they were published in the Bart's medical college journal--and the leader of the student group at St. Bartholomew's, Marcus Beadle, writes a regular column for the journal. I assume that he reads the rest of it, so that may have subconsciously affected his decision.
As I have said, Professor Zellick told me at a meeting, which my hon. Friend attended, and also in a letter, that he has put no pressure on the students. Perhaps he has not done so, but senior clinicians at Bart's medical college have simply said to me, "Of course pressure was put on; you are a politician so you know the way these things work. The pressure is never direct, it is indirect." I am afraid that our trade is a little dirty --although not in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker--and the academic world can probably be as dirty, backstabbing, malicious and vicious as some politicians--not me--can be. I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. Until now, I have been dealing with the preliminary arguments. My central argument is that Bart's medical college is a jewel of medical colleges and a centre of medical excellence unrivalled throughout the world. It can stand on its own. Whatever the sociological arguments produced by civil servants, by the Todd report in 1968, the Flowers report in 1980 and the Tomlinson report in 1992, the truth is that a pre-clinical confederation already exists between Bart's medical college and the Royal London medical college. That confederation works perfectly well. It has not brought together the administrative structures or the finances, but it allows for flexibility and for evolution in the development of medical education.
Column 299
I want to refer to the Bart's site; the Royal London can speak for itself, as I am not an expert on that matter. There is an extraordinary centre of medical excellence on the Bart's site. There is also an extraordinary centre of patient care, but that is being abolished. However, we are not talking about that today. The preamble to the Bill suggests that one reason for the proposed merger between Queen Mary and Westfield college and the Royal London and Bart's medical colleges is that that would produce an institution that would be nationally and internationally renowned. That was a central feature of the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney when he introduced the Bill. I intend to argue that we already have at the medical college of St. Bartholomew's a centre of national and international renown. I defy him in his reply to the debate to argue against that when he has heard my arguments. I intend to go into detail to prove that and challenge my right hon. Friend or anyone else who is in favour of the Bill to say that I am wrong.Mr. Shore rose --
Mr. Sedgemore: I know that my right hon. Friend is going to say that he agrees, but that is not good enough. If we already have the centre, he must say that he can improve it. I do not believe that he can and that is my point. I will give him every opportunity to go into the detail, not the sociological soundbite.
Professor Zellick, one of the promoters, came to a Room in the House of Commons and said to me, "I want to produce a world-class institution." He said it as though, if we said, "Yes, go ahead," we would get a world-class institution. That is the way sociology works. The civil servants who thought about the proposal back in 1968 wanted to produce a world-class institution. They thought that, simply by repeating the words, it would happen. I say that we have a world-class institution and we could destroy it.
How do I prove that St. Bartholomew's hospital is a world-class institution that can stand on its own without the need for the merger?
| Next Section
| Home Page |