§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 5 May the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that he had reached agreement with the BMA negotiators over the GPs' contract. He said at the time that that was a sign of agreement by the doctors to his proposals for the Health Service.
This morning, the BMA, meeting in full session, rejected the proposed changes to the GPs' contract. In the light of the earlier statement to the House that the Secretary of State had obtained the BMA's agreement, has there been any application made to you, Mr. Speaker, for a statement now that the contract has been rejected by the BMA?
This must be a matter of particular concern to the House, as it is evident to anyone watching the broadcast media that correspondents are being briefed that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Health to impose the GPs' contract. Would it not be a courtesy for the House to hear first whether the Government intend to embark on such a confrontation with the Health Service?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have had no application for a statement from the Government.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have been told that at the beginning of last night's debate on the DNA testing scheme and changes in immigration rules I and other hon. Members raised a number of points of order about leaked documents from the head of the immigration and nationality department at the Home Office and about a letter from the Home Secretary to the Leader of the House saying that last night's debate was deliberately arranged by the Government so as to avoid, in the words of the leaked document,
two separate rows about immigration issues in quick succession".The leaked documents also made it clear that, contrary to last Wednesday's statement by the Home Secretary that no decisions had been reached on the funding of the centrally organised DNA testing scheme, the Government had decided to increase entry clearance fees on 1 November.Lastly, and most importantly, it was made clear in the leaked document and the letter that last night's debate was arranged by the Government deliberately to divert 338 attention—in the document's words—from the absence of any new provisions or promises being made by the Government for and to the people of Hong Kong.
Leaked documents are becoming more and more common, but this latest one is serious because it is clear that the Government intend to deny the House any opportunity of debating in principle or in detail whether charges for DNA testing should be introduced and by how much they should be increased—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate on this matter this evening. What is the point of order for me?
§ Mr. MaddenThe point of order is that the documents make it abundantly clear that, rather than announcing a centrally organised DNA testing scheme in a written reply, last Wednesday the Home Secretary—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should pursue this matter in his Adjournment debate. I was not present when the points of order were raised yesterday, but I have heard about them. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate yesterday arose in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It was not a Government motion.
§ Mr. Maddenrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There is nothing more I can say on this. The hon. Gentleman must pursue the matter in his Adjournment debate tonight.