| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): I thank my right hon. Friend for doing something about all the years of underfunding in the NHS. My constituents will welcome his statement. They will want to see a shift to primary care, and they will want to know that there will be the necessary training for the extra personnel that we need.
The North Stoke primary care trust in north Staffordshire is £4 million away from its target and there are huge health inequalities. Can my right hon. Friend give us some hope that those health inequalities in north Staffordshire are at last being addressed?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. We have a fairly blunt instrument at the moment for distributing cash to local parts of the NHS--the local health authorities--but, from the points that she has made, she is aware that, within a health authority, there will be pockets of deprivation alongside pockets of prosperity. That is why we will suggest to health authorities that, for the next financial year, they get the appropriate pace of change in place to ensure that the resources are in place at a very localised level, as we have sought to do in distributing cash from national to health authority level.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Is the Secretary of State aware that last week an orthopaedic surgeon at the general hospital in Banbury told me that he does not expect to carry out any elective surgery until February at the earliest because of a shortage of nurses and beds, because surgical beds are being taken up by medical cases, and because beds are being blocked by people who need to move back into the community, but for whom community care is
not available? We will not reduce either waiting times or waiting lists until surgical beds and surgical services are in some way protected.
Mr. Milburn: It is true that the previous Government closed a lot of those beds, but it is also true that the hon. Gentleman has a good point. There are problems in Oxfordshire precisely because of the cost of living difficulties of which he is all too painfully aware, which sometimes make it difficult to recruit staff. That is precisely why, within Oxfordshire's health authority allocation, we have made extra money specifically available for his area to allow it to recruit the nurses and PAMs that are so important in a clinical team working alongside the doctors.
There is another trick that we must perform. The hon. Gentleman is right that, this winter, the national health service will do what it should sensibly do: prioritise emergency cases. Obviously, the emergencies must come first, but that will mean that we will free up some elective capacity, particularly in the form of surgeons--ear, nose and throat surgeons, for example. Frankly, if we can get those people working in private sector hospitals to provide care for free to NHS patients, it would be making the best use of available staff and capacity. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman will see in his area and what we will see in other parts of the country.
Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton): I welcome the statement, particularly the announcement of extra cash and the three-year plan, which will be very important for health authorities to plan properly. My right hon. Friend knows from representations made by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) that the situation in Halton in relation to all types of cancer and coronary disease is the worst in the country. I therefore welcome his announcement that £1.1 million is being earmarked to deal with the special problems in north Cheshire. It is also about time--I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is doing it--to review the NHS funding formula which has discriminated against my constituents, who deserve more resources. I welcome the review, and I hope that it is conducted very quickly.
Mr. Milburn: As I said, extra money is available specifically for tackling the problems in my hon. Friend's own area as part of the fairly large 8.6 per cent. funding increase for the North Cheshire health authority. It is very important that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that it will take time to achieve all the objectives. Although we are dealing with very large numbers--historically, the increases are very large indeed--we are also dealing with some very large problems and a very large inheritance of under-investment and neglect over many decades.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): The Secretary of State has to determine the average funding increase for mental health services arising from the allocations that he has announced today. Does he recall that, two years ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and others came to see him about the case for a single-site hospital in west Kent?
Mr. Milburn: I am very aware of the case for a single-site hospital. As the hon. Gentleman knows,
the hospital and the regional office will be able to submit their proposals again in the third wave of the major hospital building programme that I announced yesterday. I expect to make decisions on that early next year, and to be able to make some announcements on it in the spring.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the statement to continue for more than one hour and 10 minutes, and we must move on. I regret that some hon. Members have not been called, but I shall take a note of their names.
Points of Order
4.42 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I was approached by a constituent who is a prison officer at the local prison in my constituency, who said that he wanted to come to see me to discuss an employment matter, and I gave him a note of my constituency surgeries last weekend. Subsequently, he telephoned me to say that he had been told by the prison authorities that if he got in touch with me it would be a disciplinary matter.
Could you please confirm, Mr. Speaker, that although it may well be wise for people in an organisation such as the Prison Service to seek to resolve matters through internal employment services, that does not excuse anyone threatening a sanction--a disciplinary employment sanction or any other sanction--against a constituent who wishes to approach his or her Member of Parliament? Would not such a threat be a breach of the privileges of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I tell him, however, that no question of the House's privileges arises. Nevertheless, without commenting on the particular case, I am strongly of the view that constituents should not be prevented by their employer from taking matters of concern, whether private or public, to their Member of Parliament. We are all elected to this place to represent the people, and we cannot do that if individuals are prevented from approaching us with their grievances. I would certainly expect employers in the public sector to understand that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the announcement by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the Stephen Downing case to the Court of Appeal, I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Home Secretary that he is to come to the House today to make a statement? Stephen Downing has been in jail for 27 years, but his case has now been referred. It really should be possible for the Home Secretary to use his powers to ensure that Stephen Downing is immediately released while his case is pending appeal.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such notification and therefore it is not a matter for the Chair.
Parliamentary Oath (Amendment)
4.44 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the parliamentary oath; and for connected purposes.
In proposing my previous Bill, I said that
- the taking of an oath and the act of its swearing or affirmation is a matter of great moment in the life of a person or of a nation. No democratic institution would demand that its participants take an oath without reason. No person seeking election to perform a public service would take an oath without understanding the significance of such an act.
- Everyone has the right to take part in the Government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
- We recognise that the law must, without discrimination, respect the rights of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organisations, to ensure that the will of the people serves as the authority for government. We also recognise that parliamentary privilege is not for the benefit of Members, but protects the rights of the electorate, who depend on those whom they have elected to uphold their rights and interests in Parliament.
The taking of an oath is a serious matter. Those who are believers take it before God; others according to their ethical codes. However, it is also a public matter. We take the oath before this House and, because of television, we take it nowadays before the nation and before the world. The oath is not something to be ridiculed or demeaned; taken with crossed fingers, or under protest, or rushed and said as gibberish, or with added qualifications or mental reservations. It should be sacred; it is important.
In speaking against my Bill on that occasion, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) gave me my case. He said:
- If a man or woman seeks to sit in the House, the oath of allegiance is essentially the password to entry.
To me, the oath is more important than a gold key, a password or a means to an end. It is a solemn affirmation, or the swearing or accepting the responsibilities of representing people. For the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, it may be a mere ritual. For me, it is more than that. He went on to say:
- Once the password has been uttered, it does not prevent an hon. Member from seeking to change the arrangements of our constitution.--[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 377-81.]
The present oath of allegiance has no reference whatever to the people who send us here and no reference to our duties and obligations to the majority of people in our constituencies--and indeed to all our constituents whom we represent in this House, whether they voted for us or not. The password, the key to our being here, is the words of the returning officer, not the oath of allegiance that we take.
There is a general spirit of modernisation among Labour Members and throughout the House, not only in terms of the hours that we sit or the powers that we want Select Committees to have but in our general attitude to our relationship with society as a whole. If we are to establish the respect that we are told we are losing in society, we have to be seen to be serious people doing a serious thing--and taking the oath is a very serious thing indeed.
I have not mentioned Northern Ireland, although others will say that that is the secret agenda. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster spoke about the strategic purpose and the tactical purpose of my earlier Bill. I honestly do not know whether the two Sinn Fein Members would take their seats if the Bill were enacted. To me, that is irrelevant. If there were a united Ireland, it would not be a question, but the principle for membership of the House would still be the same.
We should look for inclusivity and ensure that there is no bar to membership of the House for those who want to be elected and are lawfully elected by their constituents. I believe that people can carry out their duties not necessarily by taking or affirming an oath of allegiance but, if they wish, by swearing, in the phraseology suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that they will
- to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |