National Health Service Trusts (Hansard, 11 December 1990)

§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)
On a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. A week ago today the Secretary of State for Health announced his intentions to make 56 hospitals into self-governing trusts. In response to my supplementary question, he referred to The instruments to set up the trusts, which we shall lay today and tomorrow". It is now clear that that statement was wrong in two respects.
First, a week after the statement none of the orders has yet been published. Secondly, I am informed by the Secretary of State's office that it is not his intention to lay the orders before Parliament. They are executive orders and it is not required that they be laid before Parliament. However, if he wished, the Secretary of State could lay the orders before Parliament by Royal Command to allow them to be debated.
I submit that two points of order arise from those errors of fact. First, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to correct last week's record in Hansard and to advise us when he expects to publish the orders and whether he intends to lay them before Parliament. Secondly, if the Secretary of State does not intend to lay the orders before Parliament, it is essential that he advises the House about how the Government propose to permit the House to debate them. They raise matters of principle of considerable importance. They raise matters of particular controversy in the constituencies of many hon. Members. It would be an outrage if the orders were not submitted to any form of parliamentary approval. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I invite the Secretary of State to tell us when the orders will be published and whether Parliament will be allowed to debate them.

§ The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave)
With respect, that was one of the most footling points of order that I have ever heard. It has been explained ——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I called the Secretary of State so that he could give an explanation; the point of order was for me.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
As has been explained three times to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), by a slip of the tongue, It used the word "laid" instead of the word "made". The hon. Gentleman, having had the benefit of being on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, will know that, owing to the exercising of powers conferred by section 5(1) and paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6(2)(d) of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, these are statutory instruments. The hon. Gentleman knows that at least as well as I do, and probably better.
The Opposition will have plenty of time to debate these matters. The statutory instruments are now being printed, and will of course be published before they come into force, in an entirely normal way.

§ Mr. Cook
I regret the tone in which the Secretary of State has responded to the raising of what many hon. Members will recognise as a serious issue.
Closing the discussion on last week's statement, you Mr. Speaker, said: 820 I am sure that there will be future occasions on this important matter."—[Official Report, 4 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 175 and 181.] I think that the whole House would agree—certainly the Opposition would—that there should be future occasions for us to debate the matter. [AN HON. MEMBER: "There will."] I hear someone say, "There will." If the Secretary of State does not intend to lay the orders before the House —as he could, if he chose, by Royal Command—what arrangements will he and the Government make to enable the House to debate this important matter? Or do they really intend to hand over 56 hospitals to self-governing trusts while giving constituency Members no opportunity to comment?

§ Mr. Waldegrave
These are matters for the Leader of the House. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman seems to be scraping the barrel. He is trying to make a point out of a slip of the tongue which has already been explained to him. I know that he can do better and I hope that he will when we debate the matter in the months ahead.

§ Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)
On a point of order on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Some colleagues and I spent all of the Saturday morning following last week's announcement collecting signatures from people protesting against what is happening in my constituency and in St. Helens. What parliamentary occasion will I have on which to present those signatures—1,000 of them—to the Secretary of State for Health? It does not look as though I shall have any opportunity to do so.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must not advise the hon. Gentleman on tactics, but, if I may make a suggestion, the Christmas Adjournment motion would provide one such opportun-ity. There are, of course, other opportunities for hon. Members to present petitions.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday I asked the Leader of the House exactly the same question, and received what can only be described as a difficult if courteous reply, suggesting that there would be no such debate. Now the Secretary of State comes before the House, having misled us—I put it as bluntly as that—on the last occasion, when I was here but did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. His answer today suggests that he could not care less about the rights of my constituents.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will call the hon. Gentleman, as he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.

§ Mr. Cryer
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is not an inconsequential matter. It was agreed at the conference of Commonwealth countries on delegated legislation that it was outrageous for the House to introduce primary legislation enabling Ministers simply to produce instru-ments without being required to lay them before the House. Surely it would help—although I know that it is not your direct responsibility—if you drew the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee. With the present Government producing more than 2,500 statutory instruments a year—more than any other Government —it is time that we stopped this loophole for arrogant and arbitrary government.

§ Mr. Speaker
Let me deal with one matter at a time. I remember very well the conference of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished chairman and I recollect the discussion as well. I think that it is for him to draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

§ Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are to have an important debate this afternoon. May I suggest that we draw to a close this idiotic example of a leadership bid by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and get on with that business?

§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the opting-out proposals are to be contained in statutory instruments, may I ask for your guidance? Statutory instruments are usually debated after 10 pm and the debate lasts for one and a half hours. Will the statutory instrument be a collective measure covering all 57 hospitals affected by the proposal? If so, do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be desirable to have a full day's debate on it?

§ Mr. Speaker
Such matters are best raised with the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday.

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your advice that this is an issue for the Leader of the House, but I must say, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that people will think it extraordinary that, when the wishes of local people about the opting out of hospitals have been ignored, it is apparently also the Government's intention to prevent a debate on the matter in the House. The Secretary of State shakes his head in disagreement. I hope that he will ensure that we have a debate in Government time. I place on record the Opposition's determination to press the Government for a debate in Government time on these important proposals.