| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
Today, a member of Her Majesty's Cabinet has talked about a low turnout and, according to that right hon. Member, a low turnout indicates that the majority of people are happy. There is a relatively low turnout in the Chamber at the moment, so I assume that the majority of Members are happy with the Bill and the new clause--but I am not at all happy with new clause 18 and I would not trust the Government an inch.
Mr. Hammond:
Does my hon. Friend agree thatthe other possible interpretation of low turnout is bewilderment and the impenetrability of what one is dealing with? That would apply equally to the European elections and to the Bill.
Mr. Amess:
My hon. Friend is entirely right and what he has said will perhaps seem even more true when I have developed my arguments about border arrangements.
I say to the Minister that accepting the new clause without query is not what the House is about. The Health Bill is on Report, which is an important stage of our consideration, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who taught the House how to be succinct and got a point over so that we understood it extremely well. Of course his constituents are angry about these border
arrangements. I understand, although he will correct me if I am wrong, that the general hospital in his constituency has closed two wards and moved 100 nurses to other--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please return to discussing the border arrangements?
Mr. Amess:
Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on feeling so moved as to talk about the new clause in the way that he did.
Mr. Brady:
Staying entirely in order, I should say that the planned closure of two wards at Altrincham general hospital--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is not in order.
Mr. Amess:
New clause 18 has five subsections, and I want to deal first with subsection (5), which says:
The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords and has been in Committee, but still the Government have not got their act together. I do not know how many health authorities are involved, but would it not have been sensible for the Minister to tell us precisely which ones we are talking about?
Mr. Fabricant:
I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. My hon. Friend might like to know that when I asked the Minister for a definition, he simply referred me to another provision. He could not--perhaps he was unable to--name the health authorities concerned, and I find that shocking.
Mr. Amess:
My hon. Friend is right. I recall forecasting in Committee that the Government would collapse, and I have been proved right--it happened yesterday, when their incompetence was well and truly shown up in those shocking results. I do not know why we are rushing through proceedings--we are here to scrutinise Bills properly--and I challenge the Minister to describe in detail when he responds to this brief debate which health authorities he is talking about.
This is an important matter because my constituents in Southend, West want it to be dealt with properly and want the Government to deal with it evenhandedly. If I knew the details of the individual health authorities, I might be in a strong position to bring out particular points in respect of the border arrangements. I speak only for myself, but I find the whole concept of borders offensive. By using such a style in the Bill and in the new clause, the Government are setting people against people. What is going on is outrageous.
Mr. Bercow:
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to know a number of things from the Minister? First, does
Mr. Amess:
My hon. Friend is on to the precise point, but if he had been privileged to serve on the Standing Committee he would have witnessed at first hand what a shambles the Bill is. Although I hope that I will be corrected, I suspect that we will not find out which health authorities will be affected. That will happen when the Bill goes to the other place, because the Government hope that it will not want to scrutinise the Bill properly; but I know that the other place will certainly scrutinise the Bill properly.
One of the Labour Members who has spoken--I am determined to tease out which constituency he represents--was an outstanding Minister who had the guts to resign over child benefit, I believe, or a similar measure. As he responded to a point made by one of my colleagues, he said that Scotland needs more money to be spent on health care and then talked about areas of deprivation. Since this rotten Government came to office on 1 May 1997, there have been areas of deprivation across the length and breadth of the country. Southend, West is now an area of deprivation.
I am delighted that the Conservatives got half the votes cast in my constituency in the European election.
Mr. Bercow:
I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but I simply cannot abide any longer the House sitting on the border, languishing between knowledge and ignorance. I therefore hope that he is grateful to me for pointing out that, unless I am much mistaken, the hon. Gentleman in question represents Edinburgh, North and Leith. He has been extremely modest in refusing to take a bow, but I do not want him skulking in the shadows unnamed.
Mr. Amess:
My hon. Friend will have helped other people, who report on these matters, and I thank him for his advice.
Mr. Fabricant:
On that point about skulking, has my hon. Friend noticed that only at this late stage has the Scottish Health Minister arrived for the debate? We have been discussing the border areas of Scotland and England; while England has been represented, Scotland, as ever, has been unrepresented.
Mr. Amess:
My hon. Friend is on to an excellent point.
Miss Widdecombe:
Where is the Secretary of State?
Mr. Amess:
Indeed, where is the Secretary of State?
Miss Widdecombe:
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have had a response to that question--the Minister assures me that the Secretary of State has much better things to do with his time.
Mr. Amess:
Well, there we are. Obviously, Her Majesty's Government have learned nothing from what happened on Thursday and the count that took place on Sunday. Their arrogance is beyond belief.
I shall gently chide my right hon. Friend. Earlier, I referred to turnouts. The turnout in the Chamber is beginning to improve, so it seems that more and more hon. Members, certainly on the Conservative Benches, think that the border arrangements in new clause 18 are important.
Miss Widdecombe:
Can my hon. Friend judge the importance attributed to border arrangements in the eyes of the Government by the number of Labour Members who have spoken?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Perhaps we could now turn specifically to the border arrangements.
Mr. Amess:
I was referring to social deprivation. The NHS figures show that in 1998-99, £36,860 million was spent in England compared with £4,642 million in Scotland. For 2001-02, the figures are £45,370 million in England and £5,549 million in Scotland. In 1998-99, the figure per head was £746 in England compared with £907 in Scotland, and for 2001-02 it is £910 in England and £1,087 in Scotland. The Minister owes it to the House to give a thorough answer to the question about the real reason for the disparity in spending.
"'English border area' means the area of any Health Authority adjacent to Scotland,
I apologise if I missed the Minister giving the details of those health authorities in my rush to get to the Chamber from No. 1 Parliament street, but for goodness' sake, the Bill is a shambles. That was what we found all along in Committee and we have been provided with no proper detail.
'Scottish border area' means the area of any Health Board adjacent to England."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |