| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness): With respect, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has quite answered the questions from two of my hon. Friends. They asked whether fundholding doctors would still be able to send their patients to the consultant of their choice. The Secretary of State referred to the hospital of their choice. There is a distinction. Will he make it plain that, if his proposals are accepted, fundholding doctors will not be able to send their patients to the consultant of their choice?
Mr. Dobson: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, has missed the point. Fundholding doctors can keep sending their patients to the hospital of their choice and to the consultant of their choice, but neither the hospital nor the consultant can promise to treat them more quickly than another patient equally deserving of treatment.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central): I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, especially, as two years ago, the Sheffield hospitals trust refused all clinical admissions other than those of patients of GP fundholders. Is he aware that a GP fundholding practice in my constituency, which has made underspends of £300,000 over the past few years, has spent that money on buildings which now belong to that practice? Figures for the latest financial year show that practice with an overspend of
£80,000, which now falls to be met by the district health authority. Will my right hon. Friend put an end to such malpractice?
Mr. Dobson: As I understand it, any overspending this year will be taken from the practice's future budget, so things should even out. We want a system in which all practices get a fair share of the national health service resources. The measures that we announced about three weeks ago are intended to deal fairly in financial terms with non-fundholding and fundholding practices. That is what the representatives of the non-fundholders say they want, and so do the representatives of the fundholders.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): I, too, welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. From talking to former colleagues at the BMA this morning, I can confirm that they also welcome the abolition of that two-tier system. Is the Secretary of State aware that doctors are concerned about another two-tier system? Those people on long waiting lists who can afford to go privately can jump the queue, leaving those without means to wait even longer. Does he have any proposals to prevent waiting lists this year getting longer and longer for my constituents in Oxford and those of other hon. Members?
I remind the Secretary of State of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Can he say when waiting lists will come down by the 100,000 that he promised in the Labour manifesto?
Mr. Dobson:
I am not making any wild promises about when waiting lists are coming down. I have been looking at the facts. At present, waiting lists are the highest that they have ever been in the history of the national health service. When we took over, they were rising faster than they have ever risen, and there is still a great deal of momentum behind that rise, so we cannot promise any short-term reductions.
If there is a harsh winter, I have said--and I take responsibility for it--that the first priority for the hospital service must be to deal with emergencies. If that means that the waiting lists must rise in order for the emergency demands to be met, I will take responsibility for it. That is what one must do when one is in government.
3.47 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning the status of the Finance Bill and whether it represents the will of the House at Second Reading. On Friday before last, the Paymaster General implied in the House that the Government were having second thoughts about the treatment of foreign income dividends. He said that he was
- "looking sympathetically at the position of UK-based groups with a substantial amount of foreign income."--[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 586.]
The following week, at Question Time, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that no changes were envisaged. However, confusion was created the same day by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the position of the Government was "absolutely clear". He added:
My point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is that you have always been vigilant to ensure that the House is the first to know of any change in the treatment of legislation. Further than that, although the Bill has received a Second
Reading, we now learn that it does not represent the intentions of the Government. The House has voted on a false prospectus.
Furthermore, the Bill is now in its Committee stage, yet the matter is not only unresolved but has been the subject of contradictory statements by Ministers. I know that you, Madam Speaker, cannot force Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and explain themselves, but, as the matter affects legislation now before the House--indeed, later today we are to debate the very clause affecting foreign income dividends--will you agree to a postponement of those proceedings until the matter has been resolved and clarified by those on the Treasury Bench?
Madam Speaker:
No, I cannot agree to postponing the legislation. As far as the Chair is concerned, it is perfectly in order for us to continue with our proceedings in Committee as arranged. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that there is a Report stage to come, and we ought to be a little cautious about such points of order at this stage in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman has other matters to raise, no doubt those on the Treasury Bench will be able to respond to the political arguments that he puts. Our procedures are perfectly in order at this time.
Mr. Paul Burstow, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Peter Bottomley, presented a Bill to make provision for blind and partially sighted people to vote unaided in person at elections through the use of braille template and large print; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 13 February 1998, and to be printed [Bill 50].
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
I beg to move,
Quarantine has played little or no part in reducing the incidence of rabies worldwide. That has come about through the use of vaccine, and there is now a sophisticated and far superior method of controlling the spread of rabies, as well as controlling other diseases coming in from other countries.
Most countries, especially the Scandinavian countries, have abandoned quarantine as archaic, inefficient and even dangerous. It is dangerous, because people seeking to evade the six-month quarantine period smuggle animals in. We know that 374 dogs and 234 cats were smuggled in the past six years--and those represent the cases that were detected. There will almost certainly be many thousands more coming in, and we do not know whether they have been vaccinated, or from what countries they come. They may come from countries where rabies is endemic.
The superior system should be used in this country, and I believe that the Government will have the courage to challenge the general public's prejudiced and ill-informed view of the dangers of rabies. Sadly, past Governments have played on people's emotions and vastly exaggerated the threat.
It is extraordinary how futile the process has been: 200,000 animals have been held in quarantine since 1970, and there has not been a single proven case of rabies among them. The last two cases of rabies that we had were in the 1960s, and both the animals had been held in quarantine.
It is extraordinarily unfair that, with certain precautions, we allow bred animals, such as racehorses and cattle, to enter in great numbers. More cattle come into this country from France alone than do dogs from all the rest of the world, yet every warm-blooded mammal can contract and pass on rabies. It is sobering to realise that more people than dogs--13 people since 1974--have entered the country suffering from rabies.
We put our citizens, and especially service men and others who serve this country abroad, at a great disadvantage, and we do not help the disabled: a concession was refused for dogs for the blind, which seems very mean to me. The fact that concessions are allowed exposes the futility of the present laws.
I know that the Government are considering major reforms and that the robust campaign being conducted by Passports for Pets and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will bear fruit. The purpose of my Bill is to correct a major defect in the law
that prevents welfare facilities from being guaranteed for animals in quarantine. The Government currently have no power to enforce animal welfare standards in kennels and the RSPCA cannot insist on inspection of quarantine areas.
Many quarantine kennels are run well by people who are doing their best, but it is impossible to overcome the trauma for domestic pets who are parted from their owners and suffer terribly because of their incarceration. Even worse are those rogue kennels that treat animals in an abominable way. Sadly, there is a great deal of evidence of that.
I have testimony of 100 cases of bad treatment by kennels, and I shall refer to one or two. I will not mention the names of the kennels on this occasion, but I may well do so another time. A lady told of how her dog had gone into kennels and she recognised that he had something wrong with his eyes. She tried to get him to a specialist, although the kennel owner was against it.
The dog was eventually taken to a specialist, who went mad and asked why the manager of the kennels had not brought the dog to her earlier. The lady got no support from the kennels and was sworn at by the owners. The kennels were filthy, and there was no effective heating, no exercise and a bad food supply. The animal went blind.
Another lady talks of her three cats in kennels. One died after a couple of months from flu-like symptoms, and another died some time later from an infection, picked up in the kennels, that travelled to the animal's brain.
Another lady talks of her dog who went into kennels that were permanently running with water. She had to ask the managers to clean the dog, because he was in such a state and his feet were sore. She got no co-operation, the animal's bedding was not raised from the ground, he developed trench foot and finally had to have his toes amputated.
Sadly, there is an endless catalogue of cases in which there has been no access to the kennels for those who should be helping out and should be able to inspect them. There is a misapprehension that, because inspections are carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the kennels and other quarantine areas are approved. The Ministry has only to inspect the security of the site and ensure that the animals will not escape. There is no guarantee of the welfare standard.
We must look forward to the major reform of quarantine, but this modest Bill can and will become law--people are usually cynical about ten-minute Bills and suggest that they have no chance of becoming law, but 59 have. I hope that the Government will co-operate on the Bill. I know that the Ministers are sympathetic to its aim and I hope that they will ensure it a swift passage so that we correct this defect, which was an error or an oversight in the Animal Health Act 1981.
In the House, we all recognise our duty to protect defenceless animals from unnecessary and avoidable suffering. The appalling conditions in some of our kennels besmirch our reputation as a nation of pet lovers. The Bill will bring force to bear to protect those defenceless animals and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
"The situation is widely understood, particularly by those affected".--[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 1068.]
Since then, it has become clear that the position is far from widely understood, and emergency consultations are taking place between the Treasury and a number of United Kingdom financial groups, as has been widely reported in the press.
4.1 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the welfare of animals in quarantine; and for connected purposes.
Our quarantine laws are cruel to animals and distressing to their owners. Those laws are entirely irrational, unnecessary and inefficient. They cost the taxpayer £1 million a year, and animal owners £5 million a year. They survive only because of the previous Government's reluctance act in the face of all the objective opinion, including the unanimous decision of the Agriculture Select Committee, that there was no need for the present system to continue for animals coming from rabies-free countries, especially in Europe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |