---

Mr. Tom Clarke: Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: It is not nonsense and it is where the Labour party falls profoundly short.

Mr. Gunnell: I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman, who should think about what he has said. First, he criticised

24 Feb 1997 : Column 55

the motion for being too broad in its scope. Then he suggested that it does not refer to a Bill of Rights, but it refers to

"civil rights for disabled people"

which seems to press the point as far as it should in a motion. I understand his point that the needs of disabled people go beyond health, but I do not understand his objection to the wording of the motion.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be overly distracted, but I must repeat Labour policy. The hon. Gentleman can disown it later if he likes. When asked by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People:

"How do you plan to monitor the effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act? Will you appoint a disabilities commission to cover all parts of the Act?",

Labour answered:

"We plan to set up a Disability Rights Commission which would take over the duties of the National Disability Council and represent the interests of disabled people and other interested parties. We expect it to come forward with recommendations on how to achieve comprehensive and enforceable civil rights."

A commission will be given the job. As yet--

Mr. Tom Clarke: That is important.

Mr. Hughes: Of course, it is. But the commitment to the legislation should be there now.

Mr. Clarke: It is.

Mr. Hughes: It is not. If we get an advance on Labour policy later, I will welcome it. We look forward to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West.

Mr. Ainger rose--

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way again at the moment. We are clear about the need for a Bill of Rights, which needs to come first. With such a Bill, people with disabilities would have, for example, the sort of access to buildings that they have in the United States. It would also give the same access to television by means of signing services. The matter goes well beyond issues of health, social security and community care.

Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not for the moment.

A small section of the motion deals with community care. I agree with it but it is a statement of the obvious:

"under this Government community care has become a discredited term associated with inadequate care for those in need and inadequate protection for the general public".

However, not a word follows about what Labour would do about community care.

An article in Community Care magazine on 20 February stated:

"National standards and a national inspectorate to safeguard the equity of services for elderly people evidently command even less support in political circles than they do among those working in community care. Of the three main parties, only the Liberal Democrats have come close to taking these ideas on board."

24 Feb 1997 : Column 56

The article sets out criteria for inspection and monitoring.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: In a second.

The article concludes:

"So far, only the Liberal Democrats have made a serious attempt to address this agenda."

I regret that in a cobble-all-together motion that covers three subjects rather than one, there is not one policy commitment from the Labour party, either on health or community care.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I fear that he is still upset because my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not give way. The hon. Gentleman says that the motion makes no suggestions about community care, but is not our call for the appointment of a royal commission very important?

Mr. Hughes: A disability rights commission would certainly be better than nothing. We believe strongly that we need one human rights commission to look after everyone's civil rights. We should not segregate racial, gender and disability equality into separate commissions. The Labour party would be better advised to have one general commission. It would be a mistake to have segregated groups of rights upheld by different institutions.

The larger part of the motion deals with the national health service. I welcome this debate, but I share the Secretary of State's surprise that the Labour party still goes on tabling motions on the national health service because, yet again, its motion makes no commitments. That is because, I am sad to say, when it comes to the crucial question of how much more it would put into the NHS, the Labour party is desperately, pathetically wanting. It is committing no new money. It pledges to find £100 million out of existing money for one year only. As the Labour shadow Secretary of State for Health confirmed yesterday on television, he will fight his corner in the second year to see if he can get a bigger share but only of the same cake. Let us not be under any illusions.

Today's Evening Standard puts the picture clearly and I commend the editorial, headed "Debating the NHS", which states:

"A month before the 1992 election, the campaign was already in full swing: and it concerned the NHS, the NHS and the NHS. Today, at a similar stage in the electoral cycle, there is a strange absence of debate. If the election were decided on health policy alone,"--

I do not concede this--

"labour would be a racing certainty. For Labour is trusted on health, the Tories not. And it barely matters what either party says or does . . . By committing a future Conservative government to a funding increase in real terms, he"--

the Secretary of State--

"has embarrassed his opposite number Chris Smith, who has been unable make so detailed a pledge."

The editorial poses a set of questions to Labour and concludes:

"And since the public is always bound to be dissatisfied with a service where demand is greater than supply, Labour believes that the political benefits of simply attacking the Government are too

24 Feb 1997 : Column 57

great to give up. But today the issue revolves not around the Conservatives' plans for the NHS but Labour's--and that is a marked change."

That is where we are. It is extraordinary that in today's politics, John Maples's memorandum has proved to be wrong and that it is Labour, of all the parties, which is on the back foot on health service policy.

Mr. Tom Clarke: That is a contradiction.

Mr. Hughes: It is not a contradiction at all. The party that legislated to create the NHS now has the least to say about funding it and is therefore least likely to change it. That is why we tabled an amendment. Sadly, Madam Speaker did not select it, as is the convention in such debates. I tabled it before the Tory amendment but it was not selected because of some Standing Order. Our amendment set out policy commitments. Whatever criticisms people make, I hope that they will notice that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a Standing Order that prevented a Liberal amendment from being selected. The Chair is not aware of such a Standing Order.

Mr. Hughes: I checked with the Table Office and there is a Standing Order that says that a Government amendment takes precedence over other amendments. I beg to contradict the Chair on that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not contradicting the Chair. He is getting himself out of a difficult situation.

Mr. Hughes: I had better not dare to continue this debate. Our amendment is on the Order Paper. It is a wonderful amendment and it has policy in it, unlike Labour's motion.

We believe that the NHS should be secure, strong, efficient and there when people need it. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Wealden on that. There are several immediate issues. First, there should be a commitment to honour pay increases in full, as recommended by the public sector pay review bodies. We suggested that and have budgeted for them to be paid. Labour and the Tories refused to agree to that. They have the same policy and think that the increases should be phased in.

Secondly, we have set out our stall clearly that we want a halt to finance-driven closures and reductions of service as of the beginning of the year. Labour is committed to some halt in London but not anywhere else and the Tories, by definition, are not committed to halting anything and think it should steam ahead because it is all wonderful.

Thirdly, we are committed to £200 million extra a year for staff recruitment, to be funded through taxation. Labour is not committed to that, nor are the Tories. It is evident to everyone that the NHS will need more staff.

Fourthly, we are committed to putting significant money into the reduction of waiting lists. To use a phrase of the Prime Minister's that has been repeated so often that Ministers probably parrot it in their sleep, we are committed to putting £150 million a year, year on year on year on year on year, for five years specifically into the

24 Feb 1997 : Column 58

reduction of waiting lists. With such additional money from taxes, we could reduce waiting lists to six months maximum across the board in one Parliament.

We have other important health policy proposals such as the abolition of eye and dental charges. I know that some Conservative Members are sympathetic to that. We believe that there should be a freeze on, and then a review of, prescription charges. We want a ban on all tobacco advertising, save at the point of sale, and on the promotion of sports events by tobacco companies. Those three policies would help our good health promotion policies, as would an independent and effective health education authority.

---