| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government talk about being transparent. My goodness, they were found to be transparent on Thursday and when the votes were counted on Sunday.
Let me inform my hon. Friend that there is a row going on between the Scottish Parliament and the Government about which health authorities should get preferential
treatment. I suspect that the Lib-Lab alliance running the Scottish Parliament is falling out with the Government. If there were nothing underhand--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be addressing the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); he should be addressing the Chair.
Mr. Amess:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
6.45 pm
There is something underhand going on. The Minister must surely realise that the listing of the health authorities is crucial to our accepting the new clause; we could not countenance accepting it otherwise.
All Members of Parliament and of the Scottish Parliament are batting for resources for their own areas, so they all want favourable treatment for their health authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said that perhaps the word "authority" was no longer appropriate. He could be right. If the legislation had not been introduced in so shambolic a fashion, we would know what responsibility Health Ministers in the Scottish Parliament have for health authorities and the relationship between that responsibility and legislation going through our Parliament.
The second part of subsection (5) is of equal importance and is perhaps a point on which all Scottish Members should seek to speak. If they do not speak, their constituents will want to know about it.
Mr. Brady:
Is not that especially true given that this is one of the few areas of debate in which Scottish Members can rightly participate?
Mr. Amess:
My hon. Friend has grasped the precise point. Here is an opportunity for the 72 Scottish Members--
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify that it is in order for all Members of Parliament to speak on any matter that the House is discussing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Every hon. Member would know that. Hon. Members are making a debating point.
Mr. Amess:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could comment on that point of order, but I had better not.
Every Scottish Member should note the second part of subsection (5). Sadly, we have no Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland at the moment. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends remind me that we have two Members of the European Parliament there; or perhaps more. We have Scottish Euro-Members but no Scottish Members of Parliament. Labour, Liberal and Scottish National Members should surely to goodness want to know about the health boards adjacent to England.
If the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith about areas of social deprivation is valid, surely many Scottish Members should want the Minister to tell us which health boards are affected.
Mr. Chisholm:
I want to put it on the record that I never mentioned areas of deprivation, but I have been
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is not time wasting. I would not allow that. However, he has made his case about the cross-border authorities, and must move on.
Mr. Amess:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not allowing me to respond to the point. In fact, I had not realised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith was also in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Bercow:
I do not want to tempt my hon. Friend away from his normal path of rectitude, as he always adheres to the traditions of the House. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is the only Scottish Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber. Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister, when he winds up, says whether those hon. Members affected by the new clause have been briefed in advance? Are Labour Members absent because, as the relevant information has been vouchsafed to them already, they think that they need not contribute, or because they are incompetent and have simply forgotten that the Bill has come back on Report today?
Mr. Amess:
The reason is arrogance: Labour Members think it a bore to scrutinise legislation. They accept without question everything that the Government propose. That is outrageous. This is the mother of Parliaments, and hon. Members should understand that they are not irrelevant to the scrutiny of legislation. I would not have spoken if the Minister had intervened to list the authorities and health boards affected, but he has not done so.
It is frustrating that Opposition Members get no answers to their questions. I find that I am able to challenge the Executive only in Select Committee. New clause 18 deals with important matters. It is all about money spent in the health service, but the disparity that it introduces is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable--and arrogant--of the Government to table a new clause and expect no one to question the detail. The National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 matter.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
My hon. Friend makes a profound point, but this is not the first example of such behaviour by the Government. Introducing new clauses in this way has become the hallmark of this Administration. It is impossible to examine important measures in sufficient detail, and I am surprised that Labour Back Benchers--who are also entitled to hold the Executive to account--do not feel the same way. Although my hon. Friend is too generous and liberal with the Government, I support him and hope Labour Back Benchers will do the same.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I have no argument with the point being made by the hon. Member for Southend,
Mr. Amess:
The Minister owes it to the House to convince us that the new clause is in the best interests of all United Kingdom citizens. For myself, I found it profoundly unsatisfactory that the Minister moved the new clause without giving any detail of its affect on the rest of our constituents. The detailed arguments about people moving house and changing doctors are relevant, because the Government's health strategy reveals a profound misunderstanding of how health care should be delivered.
This is bad legislation. As I said earlier, I am suspicious of the Government's motives with the new clause, which will affect health care delivery in every part of the country.
Mr. Swayne:
On the national question, I refer my hon. Friend to the brief intervention from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). My hon. Friend was very courteous in giving way, so short was the hon. Gentleman's appearance in the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend agree that some legislation, such as that covering human fertilisation, remains the prerogative of this House, but that determination of the provision in Scotland of treatment under that legislation is the sole preserve of the Scottish Parliament? That may place a differential burden on health authorities--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I invite the hon. Gentleman not to get into such matters.
Mr. Amess:
I shall say to my hon. Friend only that it is a discourtesy when an hon. Member intervenes in a debate and then scuttles out of the Chamber.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon):
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) made a point of order, not an intervention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am not concerned about who enters and leaves the Chamber, as that has nothing to do with new clause 18. I am concerned with the debate, which is about the amendments before us.
Mr. Amess:
I am worried that new clause 18 will have an adverse effect on health care throughout the country. It will be discriminatory, and will introduce a great disparity in health care provision between areas. People will find it very confusing.
I think that the Minister's heart has never been in the Bill. I do not doubt that he is doing his duty for the Government, but I doubt that he would table new clause 18 were he in overall charge of the Bill. I think that he agrees that it will cause great dissatisfaction among our constituents, and believe that he will regret the day that he came to be associated with the Bill and the new clause.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |