§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the appointment of a pay board to supervise a pay mechanism for annual increases in ambulance staff pay; and for connected purposes.
This afternoon, if it chooses, the House can divide on the Bill, but the public have already given their verdict on who has won the debate on the ambulance dispute. Across Britain—in opinion polls, in petitions, in donations and in today's rallies—the public have demonstrated how they wish the House to vote. If only the majority party would listen to the public. If those taking part in today's rallies had been in eastern Europe, Conservative Members would regard them as heroes for expressing their views.
The members of the public who attended those rallies were prompted by two motives. The first was to show support for the ambulance crews on whose skills in saving lives they depend in an emergency—skills that we all saw in action only last week, when crews who had not been paid since before Christmas turned out to tend the casualties of the gale-force storms. Let me warn Conservative Members, however, that a second motive also drove so many members of the public to take part in the demonstrations: impatience with a Government who had begun the dispute too afraid to go to arbitration, and who are now too stubborn to sit around the table and negotiate with staff unless those staff surrender first.
That impatience is now mixed with incomprehension at the fact that, throughout the five months of the dispute, the Secretary of State has not once sat down with the staff side in an effort to find a solution. Today's demonstration will have been worth while if it persuades him to take 15 minutes out of his time to do that now.
The dispute is now in its 20th week. There are different ways of measuring the cost of such a prolonged dispute. There is, for instance, the cost of human suffering—the suffering of accident victims who have been left longer in pain and distress before being attended to by staff without adequate training; the suffering of elderly and infirm patients who have been denied treatment at the day care centres that they have been unable to reach since September. It does not help those people for us to argue about who is to blame for the dispute. The only question that will help them is: who will solve the dispute?
There are, of course, other ways of measuring the cost. There is the price that has been paid in the morale of ambulance staff, who have seen their work devalued and their commitment exploited. Among the casualties of the dispute are the ambulance staff who have left the service and will not return when it is over. Among them is Malcolm Woollard, who last year received the "Ambulance Person of the Year" award.
Mr. Woollard is known to Conservative Members, because six years ago he worked for 17 hours on the shift that was called to the Grand hotel in Brighton. At the time he did not feel that his work was properly valued, because he had had the opportunity of an exchange of views with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has just addressed the Chamber at such length. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke more crisply, saying to Mr. Woollard:
At least it makes a change from standing around at the county show.174 In the second month of the dispute, Mr. Woollard left the ambulance service for a job that pays him 50 per cent. more for working fewer hours. The longer that the dispute is allowed to continue, the greater will be the loss of skilled staff, and the lower will be the morale of those who remain.It is also possible, however, to put a cash figure on the cost of the dispute. When we debated it three weeks ago, I put the total bill for police and Army cover at£10 million. It is now clear that my estimate was too cautious. It is evident from figures that I have since obtained that the cost of cover by the police alone now exceeds£13 million, while the bill for Army cover must now be well over£5 million. The Health Service is now paying the police and the Army£2 million a week to do a job that ambulance staff can do better. There is a cruel irony in that figure:£2 million is exactly 1 per cent. of the total ambulance pay bill.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Nothing out of order has occurred.
§ Mr. KingA speech on a ten-minute Bill is supposed to describe the workings of the Bill, not a lot of emotion.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in order.
§ Mr. CookAs I was saying,£2 million is exactly 1 per cent. of the total pay bill. In other words, in the time since the House last debated the dispute—three weeks ago—the Government have spent on makeshift cover as much as it would take to improve the offer by the amount that might bring back full cover. If the money to settle the dispute is there, why is it not used to settle it rather than to prolong it?
The object of the Bill is to extend to ambulance staff the same pay mechanism as is currently enjoyed by people in the other emergency services. The Secretary of State has been unable to sell to the constituents of any hon. Member the notion that ambulance staff are not entitled to the same treatment as people in the other emergency services because only one in 10 of their calls is an emergency. In the recent debate the Secretary of State, to confirm that claim, referred me to figures collected in York. I have taken his advice: I have looked up the York figures. Having done so, I have to tell the Secretary of State that those figures do not support his claim that only one in 10 of ambulance calls is an emergency. On the contrary, the figures show emergency patients, on the basis of the Secretary of State's own estimate, as representing one in five of all patients collected by the ambulance service, and, in terms of all mileage covered by the ambulance service, emergency calls take up not one in 10, or one in five, but more than one in four of all ambulance miles.
It is now clear that people in the ambulance service spend an even higher proportion of their time on emergencies than people in the other two emergency services. Therefore, there can be no reasonable grounds for denying them the same pay mechanism as is available to the people in the other two services. As someone once said,
All three deserve to have their pay negotiations put outside the arena of industrial dispute by being given firm and automatic linkage to national price or wage rises.That someone was, of course, the Prime Minister, on whose behalf a letter in those terms was sent to two 175 ambulance men who had written to her. She was right then to recognise the logic of their case; she is wrong today in refusing to admit that the same logic still stands.The Bill would give effect to that commitment by the Prime Minister. It would provide the pay mechanism that we know is supported by 40 out of 45 chief ambulance officers—the same local management to which the Secretary of State keeps promising local flexibility. It would give ambulance staff a guarantee that they would receive a fair award. More important, it would give public and patients a guarantee that this vital emergency service need never again be disrupted by dispute.
Today, the voice of the ambulance staff has been heard in rallies in every major town. That voice cannot be heard in this Chamber, so I shall let it speak for itself in the words of an ambulance man from Cheshire who wrote to me to describe the emergency work that deserves this pay mechanism. He said:
I have been assaulted, more than once, but once sufficiently to be paid a sum of Criminal Injuries Compensation; I have disarmed a youth of a razor blade with which he had slashed himself and his girl-friend; I have made my way across roofs in pouring rain to reach an injured person; … I watched a baby burn to death in a motorway crash and still had to go on functioning to tend the other injured, including the mother.I don't care whether you think my job is dangerous. I only think it is important and valuable to the community, and I will go on doing it whether they give me 11.4 per cent. or 6-5 per cent. or nothing at all.That ambulance man does not deserve nothing at all; that ambulance man deserves a just settlement and a fair pay mechanism. On this day when the public have demonstrated their support for the ambulance men's claim, I challenge Conservative Members if they dare to mark it by voting down a Bill that would provide a just settlement.
§ Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)rose——
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
§ Sir George YoungMr. Speaker——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was heard in silence.
§ Sir George YoungAll Members of the House will want this industrial dispute brought to an early close. All Members have elderly or ill constituents who have been affected by the disruption over the past 20 weeks. Many of us are worried about the impact of the dispute on the volunteers who are trying to keep the service going and we are worried about the impact of the dispute on the families of the ambulance staff.
There is another matter on which I hope that we are all agreed. I should like to place on record my appreciation for the skills, courage and commitment of the ambulance men. That is not in dispute this afternoon. What is in dispute is the best way of recognising those qualities, which are shared by others in the NHS who work shoulder to shoulder with the ambulance men and who also display skills, courage and commitment. The solutions that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has put forward 176 to the House will not heal the divisions in the NHS as he suggests that they would. They will simply sow new divisions in the NHS to replace any that he may have resolved.
The Opposition have repeatedly maintained that industrial disputes are best settled by employers and unions sitting around a table. They have often maintained that Parliament has no useful role to play by passing legislation. Today they have stood on their head—they now think that legislation will resolve the industrial dispute. It is wrong to raise the hopes of the ambulance men and their families, the ill and the general public by implying that the Bill holds the key to peace in the NHS.
Let me explain why. Pay review boards, as proposed by the hon. Member for Livingston, have been set up to settle the pay and conditions of professional staff who, first and foremost, have pledged renunciation of industrial action. That is why the Government gave the nurses a pay review board—something denied to them by the Labour party. In the dispute, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees —the unions representing the staff—have never suggested that they are prepared to forgo industrial action. They have not put that on the table because they cannot deliver it. Given the history of industrial disputes in which those two unions have been involved—in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1988 and the current year—it would be naive to believe that those two unions would ever forgo the strike weapon. Therefore, the first condition for a pay review board is not met. There is no equity in offering 22,000 people who have chosen to take industrial action arrangements that are confined to groups that do not strike.
The message that the House should send out today is that those who are involved in the dispute should return to the negotiating table. As we heard during Question Time, 84 per cent. of NHS staff settled their pay last year without recourse to industrial action—840,000 workers settled at less than 7 per cent. and 500,000 nurses received a 6.8 per cent. increase. Against that background, how does one begin to justify substantially higher pay rises for another group in the NHS? The offer on the table already gives salary increases of between 9 and 16 per cent. over the next 18 months, depending on location and on the extent of paramedical training. By the end of last month, the back pay available to those in dispute already totalled between£680 and£1,450. In London, the new rates offer between 10.9 and 16.3 per cent. and increases of 22 per cent. in overtime rates. In addition to those increases, there are, on the table, flexible local arrangements to help recruitment and to reward local productivity and other service improvements as well as a joint review of the 1986 salaries structure and a national framework for staff with intermediate medical skills.
With that on the table, and against the background of the settlements that I listed, I see nothing dishonourable in the unions saying, "Yes, we would like to return to the negotiating table. We would like to talk in particular about local bargaining"—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask hon. Members to stop the running commentary.
§ Sir George YoungI see nothing dishonourable in the unions saying that, and that they are interested especially in talking about local bargaining, which gives the 177 opportunity for yet higher offers. That is the way forward, unlike this exercise in political opportunism, which seeks to raise the temperature when it should be lowered.
The Labour party never offered arbitration to NHS workers in dispute. It never offered a pay mechanism for ambulance staff. It did not even pay the ambulance staff as well as they are paid now, even before the present offer. For those reasons, I urge the House to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 268.
180| Division No. 55] | [4.39 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Fisher, Mark |
| Allen, Graham | Flannery, Martin |
| Alton, David | Flynn, Paul |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Foster, Derek |
| Ashton, Joe | Foulkes, George |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Fraser, John |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Fyfe, Maria |
| Barron, Kevin | Garrett, John (Norwich South) |
| Beggs, Roy | George, Bruce |
| Beith, A. J. | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Bell, Stuart | Gould, Bryan |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Graham, Thomas |
| Blair, Tony | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Blunkett, David | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Boateng, Paul | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Boyes, Roland | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Bradley, Keith | Haynes, Frank |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Henderson, Doug |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) |
| Buchan, Norman | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Caborn, Richard | Home Robertson, John |
| Callaghan, Jim | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Howells, Geraint |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Hoyle, Doug |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Cartwright, John | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Hume, John |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Illsley, Eric |
| Clay, Bob | Ingram, Adam |
| Clelland, David | Janner, Greville |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Cohen, Harry | Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn) |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) |
| Corbett, Robin | Kennedy, Charles |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Kilfedder, James |
| Cousins, Jim | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Crowther, Stan | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Cryer, Bob | Lamond, James |
| Cummings, John | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Litherland, Robert |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Darling, Alistair | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I) | McCartney,Ian |
| Dewar, Donald | McFall, John |
| Dixon, Don | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Dobson, Frank | McLeish, Henry |
| Doran, Frank | Maclennan, Robert |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | McNamara, Kevin |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | McWilliam, John |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Madden, Max |
| Eastham, Ken | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Marek, Dr John |
| Fatchett, Derek | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Fearn, Ronald | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Maxton, John | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Meacher, Michael | Short, Clare |
| Meale, Alan | Sillars, Jim |
| Michael, Alun | Skinner, Dennis |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| Morley, Elliot | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Snape, Peter |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Soley, Clive |
| Mudd, David | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| Mullin, Chris | Stott, Roger |
| Murphy, Paul | Strang, Gavin |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Straw, Jack |
| O'Brien, William | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| O'Neill, Martin | Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford) |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Owen, Rt Hon Dr David | Turner, Dennis |
| Patchett, Terry | Vaz, Keith |
| Pendry, Tom | Wallace, James |
| Pike, Peter L. | Walley, Joan |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Prescott, John | Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Randall, Stuart | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn | Wilson, Brian |
| Richardson, Jo | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Rogers, Allan | Worthington, Tony |
| Rooker, Jeff | |
| Ruddock, Joan | |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Sheerman, Barry | Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Mr. David Winnick. |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Alexander, Richard | Carrington, Matthew |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Chapman, Sydney |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Chope, Christopher |
| Amess, David | Churchill, Mr |
| Amos, Alan | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Colvin, Michael |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Conway, Derek |
| Atkins, Robert | Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Couchman, James |
| Baldry, Tony | Cran, James |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Critchley, Julian |
| Batiste, Spencer | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Curry, David |
| Bellingham, Henry | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Benyon, W. | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Day, Stephen |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Dicks, Terry |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Body, Sir Richard | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Dunn, Bob |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Durant, Tony |
| Boswell, Tim | Eggar, Tim |
| Bottomley, Peter | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Evans, David (Welwyn hatf'd) |
| Bowis, John | Evennett, David |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Fallon, Michael |
| Bright, Graham | Fishburn, John Dudley |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Fookes, Dame Janet |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Forman, Nigel |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Forth, Eric |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Burns, Simon | Franks, Cecil |
| Burt, Alistair | Freeman, Roger |
| Butcher, John | French, Douglas |
| Butler, Chris | Gale, Roger |
| Butterfill, John | Gardiner, George |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Gill, Christopher | Mills, Iain |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Gow, Ian | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester) |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Gregory, Conal | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Grist, Ian | Neubert, Michael |
| Ground, Patrick | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Grylls, Michael | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Hague, William | Norris, Steve |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Page, Richard |
| Hannam, John | Paice, James |
| Harris, David | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Patnick, Irvine |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) |
| Hayward, Robert | Patten, Rt Hon John |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Pawsey, James |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Portillo, Michael |
| Holt, Richard | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Redwood, John |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Riddick, Graham |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Hunter, Andrew | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Irvine, Michael | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Irving, Sir Charles | Rost, Peter |
| Jack, Michael | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Jackson, Robert | Ryder, Richard |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Key, Robert | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Knapman, Roger | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Knox, David | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Shersby, Michael |
| Latham, Michael | Sims, Roger |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Lightbown, David | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Lilley, Peter | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Squire, Robin |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Luce, Rt Hon Richard | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Macfarlane, Sir Neil | Stern, Michael |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Stevens, Lewis |
| MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Maclean, David | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N) |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Sumberg, David |
| Madel, David | Summerson, Hugo |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Malins, Humfrey | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Mans, Keith | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Marland, Paul | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Marlow, Tony | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Thorne, Neil |
| Mates, Michael | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Thurnham, Peter |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Tracey, Richard |
| Mellor, David | Tredinnick, David |
| Miller, Sir Hal | Trippier, David |
| Trotter, Neville | Wells, Bowen |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Viggers, Peter | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Waddington, Rt Hon David | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Wakeham, Rt Hon John | Wilshire, David |
| Waldegrave, Rt Hon William | Wood, Timothy |
| Walker, Bill (T'side North) | Yeo, Tim |
| Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Waller, Gary | |
| Walters, Sir Dennis | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) | Mr.Nicholas Bennett and |
| Watts, John | Mr. Tim Devlin. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Against the background of which you are aware, may I ask whether there has been any request from the Department of Energy to explain the eyebrow-raising matter of the sponsorship of a senior civil servant, Mr. Bernard Ingham, in very extraordinary circumstances by British Nuclear Fuels, in the light of the answer that was given yesterday?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman raised that matter yesterday and I did look into it. I understand that he has received a letter from the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the title of today's ten-minute Bill. You will note that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked leave to bring in a Bill specifically
for the appointment of a pay board to supervise a pay mechanism for annual increases in ambulance staff pay".I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, first, to "Erskine May", page 464—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is this not a re-run of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has already said? I have ruled about that.
§ Mr. BrownMy point of order has nothing whatever to do with that raised by my hon. Friend. My point of order relates to something that occurred during the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston, which happens, by coincidence, to appear on the same page, page 464.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that "Erskine May" states, in the third paragraph on that page,
After a brief explanatory statement of the objects of the bill"—and then there is a footnote, No. 5, which reads:The mover should explain what the bill will do".There is then a further reference to a House of Commons debate in 1987. You gave the following ruling after the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) had presented the National Health Service (Provision of Services) Bill:
in making an application to bring in a Bill, it is necessary to describe what the Bill contains."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1112.]1 draw your attention again, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there were no details in the hon. Gentleman's application as to how the pay board was to be constituted, how it was to be supervised, who was to appoint it and to whom it should be accountable. I submit that that was a gross abuse of the procedure for presenting a ten-minute Bill.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I listened with care to what the hon. Member said and I gave a considered ruling, as I had had notice of his hon. Friend's point of order. I have 181 nothing further to add to that. In any event, the matter is now irrelevant, because leave has not been given to bring in the Bill.
§ Mr. Graham Riddick. (Colne Valley)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you assure me that if I queue up for hours and hours to get the right to present a ten-minute Bill, it will not then be hijacked by a Cabinet Minister and presented by that Minister?
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope that it will not be. I shall be on the hon. Gentleman's side.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to look at what happened during the ten-minute Bill, particularly the raising of a point of order in the middle of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? It is a new development, as far as I am aware, for points of order to be allowed in the middle of a speech on a ten-minute Bill. It was not a genuine point of order; it was done because the points being made by my hon. Friend were effective and not liked by Conservative Members.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This takes time out of the Opposition's debate.
When a point of order is raised, it is necessary that the Chair hears what it is. If it needs immediate attention, the occupant of the Chair must deal with it. That was not so today and I ruled it out of order.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)On a mercifully brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that there is something undignified about somebody with the awesome responsibilities of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) having to spend the night tossing and turning in the Public Bill Office. My point, which you may want to discuss through the usual channels, is that Standing Order No. 19 says that you have the power to permit, if you think fit, a brief explanatory statement from an hon. Member who makes an application to bring in a ten-minute Bill. May I put it to you, as the Back Benchers' tribune and on behalf of all Back Benchers, that in future you use your discretion only when it is a Back Bencher, and not a Front Bencher, who is trying to use this great privilege of the House?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe limit for a ten-minute Bill is 10 minutes.