Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 175: debated on Tuesday 3 July 1990

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday 3 July 1990

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business


(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 July.

Oral Answers To Questions


Nhs Inflation


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate for national health service inflation for the remainder of the current financial year.

The Government do not make estimates of inflation in the national health service before the end of the financial year concerned.

Is not the underfunding of the national health service for inflation one reason why the service is starved of cash? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the financial crisis in the North East Thames region that has led to the postponement of phase 3 of Newham general hospital? It was promised in 1984, but has now been scrapped, and that has led to a sense of betrayal in Newham.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the growing and projected population moving into London's docklands and the need for health facilities for them, which have been mentioned by the district health authority and London Docklands development corporation in representations to his Department and the Department of Environment? Nothing has been done. Why? Will he do something about that? Will he review the position of health services in the London borough of Newham?

The health service is not underfunded. Indeed, the resources available to it have grown so fast that we are now spending almost half as much again, over and above inflation, as the previous Labour Government were spending when they left office. This year, health authorities have at least an additional 4 per cent., ahead of inflation, in their coffers compared with last year.

I am aware of the postponement of the hospital in Newham. It is an unfortunate result of the fact that the North East Thames capital programme was racing ahead, partly on the basis of land sales in a booming property market. Those land sales have now slowed and the region has had to review its programme. I agree that it is a serious problem and, together with the regional health authorities, I shall continue to review the capital programmes, and especially that of the North East Thames region.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a point recently announced in the press—that some districts will not be required to achieve a level playing field by the beginning of the next financial year? If that is the case, why should others suffer?

No one is suffering, because it has always been a requirement that all parts of the national health service should live within the growing amount of resources available to it. All districts have always been expected to keep within those resources, and they are being urged to do so now.

I accept that one or two district health authorities may not manage to do that this year, but we will accept that only on the basis that they are well on course to eliminating the deficits as quickly as possible thereafter.

Will the Secretary of State make good the underfunding of Camberwell district health authority? Is he aware that tomorrow night that health authority will consider proposals to cut 106 beds and begin the reduction of its junior medical staff by up to 40 doctors? Does not he think that people in south London and throughout the country will be disgusted by the fact that, with hospitals in south London facing £3 million of cuts this year, he is prepared to spend £3 million of taxpayers' money on propaganda leaflets?

The system of cash limits in the national health service was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It was a wise move, and I am sure that no future Government will remove cash limits from the national health service.

The cash limits for Camberwell or, indeed, anywhere else vastly exceed the levels expected when Labour was last in power. It remains a fact that all parts of the national health service are expected to deliver their services within the growing resources allocated to them. Sometimes they can cut beds and facilities and switch the money saved to more important parts of the service or use it to maintain the number of patient treatments at reduced cost. That is part of managing the health service and Camberwell, like every other district, sometimes has to face difficult decisions about how best to maintain high-quality services within the resources available.

I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer questions Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 15 together at 3.30 pm.

Hospital Doctors (Pay)


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the pay of hospital doctors in the national health service since 1979.

Since 1979, the pay of hospital doctors has increased in real terms by 33 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that encouraging answer provides clear evidence of the Government's commitment to the national health service? What is more, does not it provide clear evidence of their readiness and ability to back their commitment with hard cash?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If she has them, will my hon. Friend give the comparative figures for the period 1974 to 1979, when Labour was in office?

By chance, I am able to give that information for the period between 1974 and 1979—[Interruption.]

Order. In fairness to everyone, the Minister should answer one question.

I shall answer only one question, and provide the information that my hon. Friend wants. Between 1974 and 1979, the pay of hospital doctors fell by 6.4 per cent., which contrasts with a 33 per cent. increase over the years that the present Government have been in power. That is a strong indication of our belief in the professionals who work in the health service as well as of our commitment to the patients whom we are all there to serve.

Why does not the Minister tell the House about another 33 per cent. increase for last year only? I refer to the increase gained by company chairmen following a 28 per cent. increase the previous year. If it is good enough for company chairmen, bosses, and friends of the Tory party, why cannot hospital doctors, nurses and others who work in the health service receive the same kind of increase?

It is exactly that type of contribution from the hon. Gentleman that makes all those who work in the health service fear the day that Labour ever achieves power. It is precisely that type of political mischief-making that so enormously depresses the 1 million people who work in the health service. The hon. Gentleman mentioned nurses. Their pay has risen by 43 per cent. while the present Government have been in power, which contrasts with a fall of 21 per cent. when a Labour Government were responsible for the service.

Speech Therapists


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has set for the level of provision for speech therapists per 100,000 population.

We have not set any national targets. It is for individual health authorities to assess the numbers of speech therapists they require.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a national shortage of speech therapists, and that in the North East Thames region the shortfall is estimated at 35 per cent? The figure for my district is similar. Will my hon. Friend give his full commitment to increasing the supply of qualified speech therapists and to reducing the number of children who sometimes have to wait more than one year for an initial assessment?

We recognise the need to increase the number of speech therapists in the future. Perhaps the best earnest of our intention to do that is the 80 per cent. increase in the number of speech therapists in post since 1979. An important way of improving the flow of people into the profession is to ensure that pay and conditions are made properly flexible. That issue will be addressed as part of the review promised for this autumn.

What does the Minister mean by his remark that pay and conditions should be made properly flexible?

It means ensuring that the pay and conditions offered secure an adequate flow of people into the profession.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of speech therapists, who do an exceptionally good job, often in difficult circumstances, for people who desperately need help?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Speech therapy offers an important release for people who would be unable to get as much out of life as they can with the help of a properly qualified speech therapist. As my hon. Friend will know, the Education Act 1981 was instrumental in identifying the major opportunities for improvement in individual circumstances that is offered by speech therapists.

Is the Minister aware just how seriously the current shortage of speech therapists is being felt by disabled children and their parents? In particular, is he aware that there are schools for such children, many with severe speech impairments, that now have no speech therapy at all and that this will involve lifelong consequences for the children affected? What action will he take to help them?

I have already said that I recognise the need for further improvement in the number of speech therapists. I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the increase of 80 per cent. in the total number of speech therapists in post since he left office as Minister for the Disabled.

Doctors' Surgeries (Rents)


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the operation of the cost rent scheme for doctors' surgeries.

We have received one formal representation about the operation of the cost rent scheme.

Will my hon. Friend issue guidelines to family practitioner committees to avoid the difficulty under the cost rent scheme when permission for a new doctor's surgery is first given and later withdrawn?

My hon. Friend has a constituency case on which he has made diligent and persistent representations. I assure him that in his FPC area 63 schemes out of 86 practices have been approved. A letter was sent to FPCs six months before the new system started, and in the current statement of fees and allowances clear guidance is again given. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to my hon. Friend on his constituency case in the near future.

Mental Handicap Services


To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce a specific grant earmarked for mental handicap services.

No, Sir. Local authorities already accord these services a high priority.

Does the Minister understand the surprise that will be felt in the House on hearing that statement? One of the great fears of parents of mentally handicapped offspring is that when they die their children will have nowhere to go. Is he aware that there is wild fluctuation in the priority accorded to mental handicap services by different authorities? What is he doing to stop his right hon. Friends from exerting unreasonable pressure for cuts in local government spending which will certainly be felt in mental handicap services?

It is a funny way to cut services for the mentally handicapped. Since 1979 places in local authority homes and hostels for the mentally handicapped have increased by 57 per cent., places in adult training centres and day centres have increased by 30 per cent., and the number of local authority staff employed in residential homes and hostels has increased by 109 per cent. The facts simply do not accord with the hon. Lady's prejudices.

Life in the community for the mentally handicapped is one of the most important but least applauded reforms made by the Government. When I meet mentally handicapped people who have moved into the community I ask whether they would prefer to go back where they came from. I have never yet found one who would prefer to be back in hospital or in a home rather than in the community. It is a wonderful reform and it is about time the Opposition recognised it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks with some authority. I happen to know that he is the president of Stockport Mencap. The line that he takes is supported by patients and the professionals who look after the patients and it should be supported by the House.

Is the Minister aware of Mencap's concern about the absence of services for mentally handicapped adults? Does he accept that his figures confirm that there is a shortfall of 22,000 places—25 per cent.—in adult training centres? How did he respond to Sir Brian Rix's letter to Members of Parliament which said that if that shortfall continues there will be a lottery leading to empty hours, empty days and empty years for some of society's most vulnerable people?

What the facts confirm, to pick up the hon. Gentleman's phrase, is that there has been a 69 per cent. increase in real expenditure on facilities for the mentally handicapped in the community since 1979. That hardly makes out the case for additional protection for expenditure by local authorities on the mentally handicapped.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that specific grants would go against all the traditions of local government finance? Does he suspect that the Opposition's enthusiasm for such grants illustrates their lack of confidence in Labour-controlled councils' spending priorities?

It also squares ill with the repeated allegations of the Opposition that the Conservative party wants to centralise power that properly belongs to local government. It is a proper exercise of local discretion.

Community Care


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received from local authorities regarding the costs of implementing the Government's proposals on community care.

We are having discussions with local authority associations in the usual way. The local authorities have produced an estimate of those costs which they believe will be necessary in the implementation of care in the community.

Does the Minister agree that the Government appear to be having extreme difficulty understanding the argument? It is not a question of centralising power; it is one of a shortfall in finances. Does the Minister agree that by 1994 social services depts will be facing a shortfall of £500 million? The projections are that the fall in Government funding and increasing costs will mean that the social services departments will have the greatest difficulty implementing the Children Act 1989 and care in the community. What do the Government propose to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman is right that local authority social services departments are already implementing the Children Act as well as carrying forward plans for care in the community. Social services departments have seen an increase in their spending of about 37 per cent. over the past 10 years. Of course, they will have to seek good value for money and meet the most important priorities in carrying forward their plans. We have always made it clear that adequate resources will be made available for implementing care in the community.

How can my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be adequate funds for community care after April 1991, bearing in mind the fact that it is almost inevitable—I have it from the highest level of government—that there will be additional capping next year? How can my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the most vulnerable groups of people—the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly and the disabled—will get the sums of money that are allocated to them under the present system when capping will take a major part of next year's local government financial allocation?

There were those who believed that local authorities should not be entrusted with the important task of care in the community. I am not one of those people. Had the health service undertaken that responsibility, it would have become a directly managed service. Local authority responsibility involves local accountability. Where a particular need has to be addressed, a limited specific grant is appropriate, and for that reason last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State introduced the popular ring-fenced grant for drug and alcohol-related difficulties. We have made it clear throughout that adequate resources will be made available for the implementation of care in the community.

Does not the Minister appreciate that in addition to the problems faced by local authorities, as outlined by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the health authorities are offloading people into the community far more rapidly than was ever envisaged when care in the community gained all-party support? They are forced by the squeeze on their budgets to release property on to the open market or to release patients back into the community without adequate back-up care. When will the Minister make sure that one arm of government is working in conjunction and harmony with other arms of government so that people do not fall through the net? That is precisely what is happening at the moment.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of implementing care in the community. It will take 10 years to achieve the care for the frail and vulnerable that many of us hope to see. One such difficulty is not the narrow question of resources that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned. The key is persuading the different groups to collaborate and to plan together to ensure that those who require the help receive it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke of the increase in resources to the health service. I have made it clear that there has been a substantial increase in funding to local authority social services departments, quite apart from the vast resources that are given through social security. The key is to make those substantial resources work effectively in the best interests of the frail and vulnerable.

When my hon. Friend responds to representations from local authorities, will she resist the pressures to support ring fencing of budgets? Does she agree that hon. Members who support wholesale ring fencing of local government budgets are in favour of destroying local government as we know it?

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point. Ring fencing of substantial sums of money undermines local accountability. Those who believe in local government should welcome local accountability. Plans will have to be made for community care. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have powers of direction and there will be appropriate safeguards.

What advice on the cost of community care did the Minister and her colleagues give the Secretary of State for the Environment before he capped 19 social services authorities? Is she aware that in the past month, as a result of that capping, North Tyneside has had to cut its social services budget by a tenth, Derbyshire by £2.5 million, and Fulham by £1.5 million and that Barnsley is having to shut old folks' homes and introduce charges for home helps of £5 a week? Is not she concerned about the effect of those sharp cuts and savage rises on elderly and disabled people in our community? What is the point of her lecturing local authorities to provide more community care when her colleagues in the Government penalise the local authorities that provide the most?

The hon. Gentleman constantly identifies with the producer interest rather than with those who must pay the community charge. I am well aware that elderly and disabled people and others must pay the community charge. They welcome the fact that they have been protected from the excessive spending of their local authorities by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is right for local authorities to make proper plans, but that does not involve spending £1 million on a publicity department for Derbyshire county council.

Junior Doctors


To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.

I shall next meet the representatives formally later this summer to discuss the first report of the working group that we have set up with the key parties involved to discuss the problem of junior hospital doctors' hours.

I am disappointed by that reply. I should have thought that the Minister would seek an immediate meeting with the junior doctors. Is she aware that the British Medical Association is carrying out a survey of junior hospital doctors on industrial action over hours of work? The junior doctors want only a reduction in their hours of work to a maximum of 72 hours a week instead of the 92 hours that they are working at present, with no more than 36 hours of continuous work. In the best interests of patients and the national health service, will the Minister grant those fair demands?

I have had a series of formal and informal meetings with junior doctors, and I hope shortly to meet the new chairman of the hospital junior staff committee. For the first time, we have called together all the key players who affect junior hospital doctors' hours—the royal colleges, consultants, junior hospital doctors and management. We are determined to have further action and will take all possible steps to achieve it, but it is very much for the profession to demonstrate commitment and to make the necessary changes with us to ensure that we put an end to unreasonably long hours for junior hospital doctors.

Is not the Minister's answer a little unconvincing when we recall that her Department has found time wholly to reorganise the health service, to disrupt the relationship between the general practitioner and his patients and to pull the rug from under the national health service hospitals, while this simple problem, which has been known about for years, has still to be tackled? Junior doctors, who are an essential link in the health service, are expected to work, on average, more than 90 hours a week.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct in his facts. The junior doctors worked more than 90 hours a week—91 hours a week—when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. However, under this Government, their working hours are down to 83 hours a week, with about 58 hours when they are actually working. It is a complex issue because there is a difference between being on call and working. We are determined to see further progress and I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that, by the summer, only around one in eight junior hospital doctors will be working more than one in three onerous rotas. That is substantial progress over two years and we are determined, with those directly involved, to see further progress.

Will my hon. Friend continue to emphasise the difference between being on duty and being on call? Does she accept that, before any radical change is made, all junior doctors—not necessarily just their representatives—should be consulted, because any shortening of the number of hours would have implications for the length of time that doctors must serve before registration?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a large distinction between being on call and working, which is why legislation is an irrelevance in the context. My hon. Friend also identifies another important point, which is the role of the royal colleges in approving the training places. We are at an opportune moment when, for the first time, the royal colleges, the consultants themselves—and there are, of course, 21 per cent. more consultants than there were 10 years ago—and the juniors are prepared to work with the NHS management to ensure that our junior hospital doctors can be alert as well as awake when on duty.

I welcome the obvious progress toward shorter hours for junior hospital doctors, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of us share a deep concern about the problem, especially when we read stories of such doctors falling asleep on duty? Where does the real difficulty lie? Can my hon. Friend tell the House about the obstacles?

I share my hon. Friend's deep concern. He is addressing the point about continuous hours of duty. There is a difference between the cumulative hours worked in a week and having long, continuous hours on duty. In many cases, the juniors themselves prefer to have continuous hours on duty so that they can have long weekends off duty. It is for them to sort out with the consultants in their particular locations the best way of organising the work rotas. In many cases, a move towards a team approach rather than an individual firm approach makes a difference. In other cases, other members of the health care profession, such as nurses, can substitute for doctors. It is a complex and subtle matter on which all parties are determined to make progress. Progress is in the interests not only of the junior hospital doctors, but of the patients, who are entitled to be treated in hospital by doctors who have had a good night's sleep.

Does the Minister agree that any progress made so far has been modest and slow and that the average hours worked by junior hospital doctors are still 87 a week? Any improvements have been achieved simply by shifting work from one group of overworked junior doctors to another group of overworked junior doctors. Is not the solution, as the Minister in part suggested, to look at ways of shifting work, such as giving responsibility for intravenous injections and phlebotomies to nurses and, most of all, to increase manpower, especially consultant manpower, so that they can take over some of the duties?

As I was able to inform the House a moment ago, the number of consultants has increased by 21 per cent. It is important that some of the new consultants should be prepared to cover. If the new consultants refuse to cover for the juniors, the difficulty of the juniors' hours will persist. The working practices of juniors, consultants and management alike are involved. But there has been much more substantial progress than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The number of junior doctors working such hours has fallen from one in four to one in eight over two years, and regions that have shown real determination have cut by a half the number working onerous rotas. I would mention in particular South West Thames regional health authority, Northern regional health authority and South Western regional health authority.

Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I have recently been on the receiving end of the valuable services of junior hospital doctors. Will my hon. Friend take on board the suggestion that one way of relieving to some extent the burden to which junior hospital doctors are subjected would be to try to give them some clerical and secretarial assistance? In my recent experience, junior hospital doctors spend a great deal of their time engaging in such activities, which, arguably, could be dealt with by somebody else.

The discussion will soon be taken up by the working party that I have established, on precisely this subject. As my hon. Friend said, clerical skills may well play an important part. The work requirements of the consultants are important and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) said, the training requirements of the royal colleges are also involved. In many cases, a shift system could be introduced and in others juniors could be used to cover for other specialties in which they have had appropriate experience. In addition, in certain cases units can be amalgamated so that the junior can cover. What is clear is that all those involved are determined to take the necessary constructive action to bring an end to what I regard as an unacceptable problem.

Speech Therapy


To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have requested speech therapy treatment from Liverpool area health authority but remain without care.

I understand that on 20 March there were 1,300 people receiving speech therapy in Liverpool district and a further 1,775 people registered as requiring the service.

Is the Minister aware that of the nearly 2,000 people in Liverpool requiring speech therapy but currently denied it, 800 are children with special needs—partially hearing or disabled children? There are hospitals completely without speech therapy cover and there is no speech therapist to deal with the special needs of the deaf. Does the Minister agree with the view of the local area health authority chairman that the profession needs to be restructured and that improved resources and regrading are required? Does he further agree that the starting salary of £8,000 for a graduate is one reason why it is impossible to retain speech therapists within the service?

I agree that regrading would be desirable and we are committed to doing that in the autumn. I also agree with the conclusions of the Davies and Enderby study that, although pay and conditions are part of the problem, we must also look at patterns of work within the speech therapy profession to ensure that we make the best possible use of the skilled manpower available.

Does not the Minister realise that the Government are regarding the problem with great complacency? A child of four in my constituency has been told that when his fifth birthday comes he will be able to obtain the speech therapy treatment that he requires only by going to a school in Warrington or Southport. Is not that disgraceful, and is not it about time that the Government gave real priority to the management of the speech therapy service so that conditions of service are such that speech therapists are retained in the service rather than being forced into other occupations?

I challenge the hon. Gentleman to find any part of the health service in which there was an increase of 120 per cent. in real expenditure during the Labour Government's four years in power. We have increased real expenditure on speech therapists by 120 per cent. and we have increased the number of therapists in post by 80 per cent. That is not complacency.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, in places such as Liverpool, where the problem is acute, as it is in my constituency, there will always be a temptation for employers to look for people calling themselves speech therapists—which anyone can do—without guaranteeing the quality that qualification as a speech therapist ensures? Will he give the assurance that, in his tremendous efforts to solve those difficulties, he will not look for a cut in the quality of the service that is offered?

My hon. Friend is right to the extent that we must ensure that the people who offer those services are properly qualified to give them. Equally, we must not allow ourselves to regard the services as a mediaeval mystery. We must ensure that speech therapists are adequately qualified but not overqualified.

Eye Tests


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further evidence has been made available to his Department regarding the effects of the introduction of charges on the numbers of eyesight checks undertaken.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further evidence has been made available to his Department regarding the effects of the introduction of charges on the numbers of eyesight checks undertaken.

We have received no new independent evidence on sight test demand since the publication of the independent national opinion poll report last month, which showed that the number of sight tests being undertaken is fully in line with past trends.

I am shocked that the Secretary of State did not see the Which? report—he is not doing his job properly if he did not. That report showed that there has been a serious drop of 2.5 million in the number of eye tests. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, one in 20 people are referred for serious sight and other health problems, which means that about 125,000 seriously ill people are being missed. Will he now admit that that is a disastrous move for people's health, apologise for misleading the House and the country, and scrap the eye test charge, because people's health is too valuable for them to miss eye tests?

There has been no reduction in the number of eye tests as a result of the introduction of charges. All the evidence—not only our survey of 10,000 people but the MORI survey that was carried out for the Association of Optometrists, and even the telephone ring-round by the Royal National Institute for the Blind—shows that there has been no reduction in the number of eye tests compared with the tend that was established before the charging system was changed in 1987.

The Consumers Association, in its Which? magazine, has not explained the methodology that produced its rather startling conclusion. Most of the contrary claims are based on leading questions about whether people think that charges might deter them. All sensible surveys show that there has been no evidence of deterrence. The Labour party's only spending promise to spend £90 million to go back to the previous system is based on a mistaken assessment of the facts.

Community Care


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the policy of care in the community.

We receive many representations in correspondence and at regular meetings with organisations concerned with our plans for community care.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government believe that voluntary organisations have a major role to play in delivering policies on care in the community? Is she aware of the warm welcome that has been given to the policy of giving grants to voluntary organisations to deal with specific problems of drugs and alcohol?

I thank my hon. Friend. I am fully aware of the importance of encouraging voluntary organisations. We want a mixed economy of care for the frail and the vulnerable. I know of my hon. Friend's distinguished service in one such organisation. I can confirm that there has been a wide welcome for the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last week that voluntary bodies concerned with drug and alcohol-related difficulties will receive special funding.

Does the Minister care to deny that every voluntary organisation concerned with disabled people condemns the Government's failure to provide adequate community care for mentally handicapped and mentally ill people? Does she deny also that thousands of those people have been denied adequate help and that the present situation is an absolute scandal?

The right hon. Gentleman's account far from resembles my experience. There has been a substantial improvement in the care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped in our community. If we contrast what is available now with what was available several years ago, the situation is striking and most impressive. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more should be done. That is why I welcome the work that is being carried forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the specific grant for mentally ill people. We believe that there is a special need for co-operation between health authorities and local authorities and that further work needs to be done.

I was informed that the hon. Gentleman's question 21 had been withdrawn. If that is not so take question 21 first.

With permission, I shall answer this question together with question 2 at 3.30 pm as it is one of the 32 questions on the Order Paper about self-governing trusts. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I believed that the question was unstarred. Obviously we were wrongly informed that the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his question.

Junior Doctors


To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of national health service junior doctors to discuss their terms and conditions of service.

As I have made clear, we hope to meet soon the new chairman of the junior hospital doctors staff. We are determined to see further action on junior hospital doctors' hours.

Has the Minister's knowledge that the mishandling of the ambulance dispute classically demonstrated how an individual, subject to far fewer pressures than the complex pressures and experiences—

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please paraphrase his question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Order. This takes time out of Question Time.

Has the Minister's knowledge that the mishandling of the ambulance dispute clearly demonstrated that an individual subject to fewer pressures than the pressures daily experienced by junior doctors will act in an irrational manner? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Has that equipped her to understand—

—than the long-winded procedures that she has set up to deal with the junior doctors issue will put patients' health at risk? Will she take immediate steps to meet the doctors and resolve the issue?

I shall reply more formally when I have had a chance to study the hon. Gentleman's question in the Official Report. We are determined to see further action on junior hospital doctors. It is a matter for the professions involved and the royal colleges, but we believe that, for the first time, we have called the relevant parties together. We hope that there will be a constructive and realistic outcome.

Prime Minister



To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including—

Order. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition always have an opportunity to refer to their notes.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—including one with Chief Anyaoku, the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Chinese ambassador. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there are some terrorists whom her Government deal with? Every year at the United Nations, the British representatives vote for the seating of a Khmer Rouge representative. If the representatives do not vote for that this year, it is a bit late as the genocidal murderers march for a second time on Phnom Penh. How does she sleep at night knowing that she has helped to bring that about?

Nonsense. Who shall have the seat to represent Cambodia is very much a matter for the United Nations. We have hitherto supported the United Nations. In future, we shall reconsider our vote as to who should take that seat for Cambodia.

If the Prime Minister can find time today to give further thought to future policies, will she ask herself why it should be necessary for the Forestry Commission to own £1 billion of real estate in land and growing timber? Is not it a good candidate for privatisation?

I am well aware that my right hon. Friend has consistently taken that view, and I think that there is something in what he says, but we must consider it in more detail for future policy.

Does not the Prime Minister think that it would be only fair if the booklet about the changes being imposed on the national health service were paid for out of Tory party funds?

No. I think that when families have to spend £39 a week to maintain the national health service, they are entitled to a booklet on the national health service reforms, the people involved in it and how it works. It is extremely good value for money.

Families support the national health service. However, as for the proposals, the doctors do not support them, the nurses do not support them and, most importantly, the patients do not support them. Whenever they are put to the vote, they get turned down by huge majorities. The only organisation that supports the proposals and propaganda is the Conservative party. Let it pay for the booklet.

If the doctors do not support the proposals, it is astonishing that there are so many applications for both self-governing hospitals and practice budgets. I quite understand—[Interruption.]

I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying—any choice, whether on the part of the professionals who run the health service or the patient, is anathema to socialism.

If the Prime Minister is so confident about opting out and the reception that it will receive, will she give me an undertaking now that when it is proposed that a hospital should opt out, but the doctors, nurses and patients are against it, the Government will not accept the proposal for opting out?

No hospital is opting out of the health service, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He deliberately tries to give the opposite impression. Self-governing hospitals are part of the national health service; the real reason why the Labour party does not want them is that they will be extremely popular due to the better service that they will give to patients and will offer choice, which is anathema to the Labour party.

Amidst the excitement of World Cup football and Wimbledon, does the Prime Minister think that it is right to remind ourselves of the great difference between sportsmanship and gamesmanship? Does she further think it right to remind all those involved with sport, particularly people in the public eye—players, officials, commentators and correspondents—of the enormous responsibility that they have to maintain the standards of the game and to set an example, particularly to young people interested in sport?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We all wish our team well and success tomorrow evening. We hope that it and all our spectators will act in accordance with the best standards in Britain.

In view of the Prime Minister's well-known admiration for the views of Dr. Pöhl, the president of the Bundesbank, did she note that in his speech on the exchange rate mechanism yesterday, he clearly stated that, in his opinion, the Prime Minister's seven-year-old statement that Britain should join when the time was right now meant that Britain should join soon? Is she still unable to agree with him?

I read every word of Dr. Karl Otto Pöhl's speech. I saw him for more than half an hour yesterday morning and discussed those matters with him. I should not disagree that we are bound to join the exchange rate mechanism. We have accepted that, and we shall join—as Karl Otto Pöhl said—when the time is right. I do not know quite what he meant by "soon", but I could agree or disagree with that according to what it means.

Is not it the case that in the past few years this country has given assistance to black South African students to enable them to come to this country, to education projects in the townships and to humanitarian projects in South Africa to support the rural black community? At the time of the visit of Mr. Nelson Mandela, is not it right that due credit should be paid to this country for its work in furthering reform and progress in South Africa?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made a point of giving far more help to black South Africans in education and housing. We made it clear that we are for the end of apartheid—which is totally immoral and which must end—and that we were going to do something for black South Africans. All the kinds of assistance that my hon. Friend has enumerated were gladly given, and have already been a great help to them. That help will be of even greater assistance when they form the majority Government in South Africa.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

The Prime Minister must be aware of the grave difficulties of pushing the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill through the House, not least with her tiny band of Scottish Back Benchers who have revolted. Will she pledge not to guillotine the Bill and curtail debate on such an important measure, or will she back her totally isolated Secretary of State for Scotland at the perilously high price of ignoring her Scottish Back Benchers?

The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers is part of the Government's legislative programme; it came from the other place, and was given an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons. It is a significant reform, especially the parts that deal with the legal profession. It is important that it should receive proper consideration in Committee, and in due course become law.

Will my right hon. Friend ask her Cabinet colleagues to have a word with the president of the Bundesbank today, so that he can explain to them that the only choice is between joining the exchange rate mechanism—and moving inexorably towards a common currency and a common monetary authority—and not going in at all? He would also explain that there is no clever compromise, and that if we attempt one it will lead to greater instability in European currencies and the justified anger of our European allies.

We are pledged to join the exchange rate mechanism when the Madrid conditions are fulfilled, and we shall join it when they have been fulfilled. It is clear that some of our colleagues in the European Community wish to go further than the exchange rate mechanism. The proposals outlined in Delors stages 2 and 3 were debated in the House, and my understanding is that a move towards a single currency—with a board of bank governors not democratically accountable to anyone—was totally rejected. That being so, we wish to find a way forward with which other countries in the European Community—as well as Britain—could agree, and which would satisfy the demand for some kind of common currency throughout the Community.

We have put our proposals before the Community, and I am sure that they will be fully debated. We do not wish to adopt a single currency with a board of central bank governors who are not democratically accountable. We are prepared to have a common currency, provided that it does not lead to any inflation. That would mean our having a hard ecu.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In view of the new Government figures on increases in high street spending and borrowing, and reports that the Treasury has revised upwards its fourth quarter inflation estimate, is not it clear that the Government's policy of relying entirely on high interest rates is not working?

No. The economy is extremely strong and very dynamic and there are more jobs, higher output and a higher standard of living than ever before. Of course it will take time for a high interest rate to work. That is not the only policy and I am surprised that that has escaped the hon. Gentleman. He knows full well that there is a budget surplus. That, too, is part of the policy.

My right hon. Friend has often said that for every right there is a corresponding duty. Will she alter the rules so that those claiming benefit should first have to produce a certificate saying that they have registered for the community charge?

That would be a needless extra bit of bureaucracy. We are very pleased that the overwhelming majority of people properly registered for the community charge in spite of Opposition forebodings to the contrary. We believe that the overwhelming majority as citizens will pay it, and we hope that a bigger percentage will pay the charge than used to pay rates.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.

Will the right hon. Lady give a straight answer this time? If doctors, nurses, medical staff and patients are against opting out, will she listen to them?

No hospital is opting out. All are in the health service. If the professionals wish to apply for self-governing status, the application will come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, after a period of consultation, will make his decision. It is quite clear that the Opposition do not want people to have choice. They are socialists to the backbone.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months of freedom from union domination and restrictive practices, Britain's docks have moved from strength to strength? Is not this anniversary of the abolition of the dock labour scheme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—a suitable moment to reiterate the superiority of free enterprise over socialism and trade monopoly?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is one year today since the dock labour scheme was abolished. Since then productivity has raced ahead, ships have been loaded and unloaded far faster, we have the lowest strike record in Britain, and the hinterland of all the ports is flourishing. It was a good day when we abolished that scheme and we note that the view of the Opposition was to call that abolition an act of wilful sabotage against the country's economic interests. Wrong again, they were.

Nhs Trusts

The following questions stood upon the Order Paper:


To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards setting up national health service hospital trusts.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the effect on services to patients in those hospitals which choose to become national health service hospital trusts.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the first national health service trusts to be in operation.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of interest in the formulation of self-governing hospital trusts have so far been received.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest information on the total expenditure incurred so far on preparation for self-governing hospital trusts.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence of the views of community health councils regarding the formation of self-governing hospital trusts is available to his Department.


To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last had discussions with the chairman of the Mersey region health authority; if the opting-out of hospitals on Merseyside was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

3.32 pm

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer these questions together.

On a point of order, I should like to give the House an explanation which Opposition Front Bench Members have requested about the adoption of this procedure. Last night, when I started the final detailed preparation for answering parliamentary questions, I discovered that there were 32 questions on the Order Paper about applications for national health service trust status. Last night there were eight such questions in the first 25. It became quite clear that, if we tried to handle those in the course of ordinary parliamentary questions, first, most hon. Members would not get an adequate reply to their questions—[Interruption.] They are about to get more than adequate replies to any questions that are forthcoming. Secondly, it was also clear that no other subject could sensibly be dealt with during health service questions. For example, we would not have reached the questions on junior doctors' hours and on eye tests which the Opposition regard as important.

I regret that this is an Opposition Supply day because I realise that that has caused some difficulties, but it was obviously for the convenience of the House to handle these questions at this stage.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State, in his apology to the House, conceded that the device that he has adopted has caused offence. He proposes to answer not one question but seven linked together. That is not for the convenience of the House; it is an abuse of the procedures of the House. It is inevitable that that abuse will take time out of the debates on the motions on education and housing, tabled in the Opposition's name—time that was available to the Secretary of State during health questions. He will not remove that offence by making a statement to the House under the guise of giving an answer to questions on the Order Paper. He knows perfectly well that by using such a device to make a statement he is avoiding the need to give the Opposition advance notice of the text, and he is denying the Opposition the right to respond immediately, which is presumably why he has chosen this method of smuggling in a major statement on a controversial issue. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to reflect on what additional protection is necessary—

I am addressing my question to Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman will listen.

What additional protection is necessary to defend the rights of this place against a Government who, despite a majority of more than 100, constantly seek devices to prevent the Opposition from getting a fair hearing in the Chamber?

Order. I shall not take any more points of order at this stage. Of course it is up to the Government how they link the questions. I was aware of the decision, and that was why I suggested that the Government consult through the usual channels as to whether this was an appropriate method to deal with the matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to put on record the fact that this procedure is not acceptable to the Opposition, and we made that clear from the outset. It is clear that, before today was allocated as an Opposition Supply day, the questions were on the Order Paper. In any preview of today's business at Question Time, the Government would have foreseen this difficulty—long before it was known that Tuesday would be an Opposition Supply day. This is a squalid device on the part of the Government's business managers to prevent the effective use of time by the Opposition on a Supply day, and no one should be in any doubt about it.

The National Health Service and Community Care Act gives me the power to establish NHS trusts, by order, as self-governing units within the national health service. NHS trusts will not opt out of the national health service, and they will continue to provide treatment free of charge, but they will be given substantial freedom to manage their own affairs. In particular, they will be free to determine the terms and conditions of service of the staff they employ, to acquire, own and dispose of assets, to borrow money and to retain surpluses. We intend that trusts should use their powers to improve the quality of the health care which they provide and to respond more effectively to the needs of general practitioners and NHS patients.

We intend that the first NHS trusts should become operational on 1 April 1991, and I have now invited formal applications. Units will be able to apply for trust status at any time, but those units intending to become trusts from 1 April will wish to submit their applications as soon as possible.

One hundred and ninety nine NHS units have expressed interest in NHS trust status. They represent a wide range of units—single hospitals, groups of hospitals and non-hospital facilities. I understand that about 60 to 70 of the units which have expressed interest—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not good enough. This is a statement.

Order. Hon. Members must reflect, if they are concerned about protecting the Opposition's time, that a statement would take much longer than questions answered together—[Interruption.]

Order. I will take the points of order provided that hon. Members reflect on the fact that they take time out of the Opposition's Supply day. Mr. Haynes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is shameful and you are allowing it to go on. It is time that you put your foot down because the Government are running all over us. They did it last night and you did not do anything about that. They introduced amendments—

Sit down. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman make that charge about last night? I was not in the Chair last night.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that dastardly charge against me? I was not even here.

I accept that you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I still say that you knew what was going on last night. You always know what is going on in this place, and you know what is going on today, but you have not done a damn thing about it.

I hope that the House will reflect quietly on this. This is an Opposition Supply day. [Interruption.] It is up to the Government to decide whether to make a statement or to answer questions at the end of Question Time. A statement would probably take half an hour and questions taken together after Question Time would take about 15 minutes. The House can decide what it wants to do.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in the middle of attempting to answer, in effect, 32 parliamentary questions. The answer is therefore undoubtedly lengthy, but all the points that I am covering relate to the questions on the Order Paper. If the Labour party prefers to get excited about procedural matters rather than matters of substance, it is free to do so. If it is worried about wasting its Supply day, it has the simple remedy of not asking any supplementary questions.

Order. We are clearly in difficulty over this, but if it would help the House the Secretary of State can make his answer and I will treat it as a statement. If it will help the House, I will do that.

I am obliged for that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Of course it is implicit in what you have just said that what the House is now hearing is not an answer to parliamentary questions but a statement. The Secretary of State has already been speaking for more than two minutes—

That is a question that the hon. Gentleman must address to his Secretary of State because the Secretary of State is well aware that this is a matter of major interest to the House on which, had he wished to make a lengthy statement, he could have arranged to do so. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the procedure for making statements contains within it certain protections for the rights of the Opposition, one of which is that the Opposition receive advance notice of the text that the Secretary of State is to share with the House. The device that you are proposing, which is to treat the statement as a statement, while recognising the reality of what the Secretary of State is up to, does not contain that protection of the rights of the Opposition.

I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that since it would appear that you are now persuaded that what we are hearing is not a parliamentary answer but a statement, the appropriate thing to do would be to invite the Secretary of State to take away his statement, to return with it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am addressing my remarks to the Chair, not to Conservative Members. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but some Conservative Members appear to think that they are the Speaker and so are answering my question.

Would not the appropriate course be to invite the Secretary of State to come back tomorrow with a statement which will protect the Opposition's right to see the text in advance and enable the House to proceed with the important debates in Opposition time on Opposition motions?

Order. I am on my feet.

Clearly the House is in difficulty on this matter. It appears that communications between the usual channels have broken down, which is a serious matter. When I heard about the matter at lunch time, I understood that the usual channels had come to an agreement on it. Those hon. Members whose questions are on the Order Paper today have a right to have their questions answered. If communications between the usual channels have broken down on whether to have a statement or to have supplementary questions, we should hear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they have a right to put their questions.

We should hear now what the Secretary of State has to say. I will call those hon. Members and then we shall move immediately to the Opposition's Supply day.

Order. I have a very long list of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, and it will be difficult for me to call them all.

I am sure that it will be helpful, and I am seeking your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Many hon. Members who have been in the House for a few years are aware that quite a number of questions on a particular subject can be tabled to a Department on any one day. From what has happened today, are we to understand that if six, seven or eight questions are tabled on one subject to a specific Minister, the Government of the day can adopt the procedure that they have adopted today, which is to make a statement in all but name and therefore deny the Opposition the opportunity of having knowledge of what is to be said?

Order. Hon. Members must allow me to answer. It is in order to pursue such a procedure under our rules, as they stand at the moment, although it is unusual to answer quite so many questions. That is why I suggested that the matter should be agreed through the usual channels, and a resolution reached that would be to the convenience to both sides of the House. I must ask the Secretary of State to continue.

I will accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and resume. I gather that we are now in a mixture of answering questions and making a statement. Of course it would have been possible to make a statement, but the effect of that would have been to take more time out of the Opposition's Supply day. It would also have deprived the hon. Members who have tabled questions of a reply to them.

Some 199 NHS units have expressed an interest in NHS trust status. They represent a wide range of units, single hospitals, groups of hospitals and non-hospital facilities. I understand that about 60 or 70 of the units that have expressed an interest in trust status are likely to submit applications in the first wave. The first three applications from Mersey region were handed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health yesterday. When applications are submitted, I shall direct regional health authorities to have public consultations on the applications and to report the results to me.

Why should we put up with this sharp practice? It is disgraceful.

Regional health authorities will decide who should be consulted, taking account of the facilities offered by the proposed trusts and the patients served. However, we made it clear that those consulted should include the health authorities and family health service authorities concerned, staff of the proposed trusts, general practitioners and the local public. I shall decide whether to accept applications on the basis of consideration of the application documents, comments received by regional health authorities in local consultation and any other relevant information. No group will have a veto over my decision, which will be based on my assessment of whether, in the light of all relevant factors, NHS trust status for a particular unit will benefit NHS patients in that locality. We have made it clear that the cost of implementation of the NHS review will not be met from—[Interruption.]

Order. This is absolutely intolerable and more bad behaviour on the part of the hon. Members concerned. They know the situation perfectly well. The Secretary of State must be allowed to finish his statement. [Interruption.] I know that it is not a statement, but has the right hon. and learned Gentleman finished his remarks?

The establishment of NHS trusts will represent a major step in improving the quality of care available to NHS patients, and I welcome the enthusiasm with which groups of managers and clinicians have been working on preparing their applications.

Allowed? The hon. Member knows perfectly well that my position has been made clear. The Government have a right under our existing rules to do what they have done. It is for the usual channels to consult on this matter. That they have broken down is very serious, but it is not my responsibility. The hon. Member is a member of the Whips Office, and he should know.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he acknowledge that these reforms must be justified by the assurance of better services to patients? In particular, will he confirm that one of the advantages of the reforms will be that NHS trusts will be free from interference from such people as Chris Wright, known as "the prat in the hat"? He is a former parliamentary Labour candidate and a Labour appointee to Croydon health authority, who is under a life ban from Crystal Palace football club and was one of the ring leaders of the hooliganism in Sardinia last month.

Order. Just because there has been a very long statement, hon. Members must not abuse the House by asking very long questions, because that is just as bad.

If Mr. Wright had succeeded in his aim of being elected as a Labour Member of Parliament, he would have felt quite at home in the demonstrations that we have just seen of Labour's approach to matters of consultation on NHS trust status.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the only basis for judging applications for national health status, self-governing status or any other reforms is whether or not they are likely to lead—[Interruption.]

Order. I must warn the House that the next action I shall take will be to suspend the sitting until right hon. and hon. Members have calmed down. That will take even more time out of the Opposition Supply day. Therefore. I am reluctant to do that.

If I am right in believing that the services provided by trust hospitals will be effectively by contract with the district health authority acting on behalf of the national health authority, and if, on advice—for example, from their own medical or surgical faculties—such hospitals want to provide additional services such as heart surgery, as they wanted to do in Nottingham but were denied by the regional health authority, will they have that kind of independence?

Order. I am not taking points of order now, and I will not be bullied by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

Mr. Harry Barnes.—[Interruption.] Order. I suspend the sitting for 10 minutes until this matter is sorted out. This is an intolerable breakdown of the usual channels. I ask them immediately to get together to sort out this matter.

Grave disorder having arisen in the House, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting) suspended the sitting for 10 minutes.

Sitting suspended at 3.54 pm.

On resuming

I understand that the usual channels have now had an opportunity to discuss the matter. The Government have applied to make a statement about it tomorrow. Of course I shall ensure that those hon. Members listed on the Order Paper for linked questions today will be called on that statement. It is now in the best interests of the House that we move on.

The hon. Gentleman may be seeking to make a point of order, but I did not call him.

May I welcome your statement, Mr. Speaker, which provides a sensible way of proceeding this afternoon? This exchange, and the outcome, represent an important defence of the rights of this place.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the unfortunate precedent that you tried to establish of making an answer to a question a quasi statement—

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down, please, while I explain to him what happened. It is not for me to grant leave to answer questions at the end of Question Time or even statements; that is entirely for the Government. At lunch time, when I heard about the large number of questions to be answered at the end of Question Time, I immediately sought to discover whether it had been agreed between the usual channels. I was assured, after some negotiations, that it had been arranged. As I understand it, that information was incorrect; but it is nothing to do with me.

During the interchange subsequent to the Secretary of State trying to give an answer to a question, you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, indicated that you were going to take answers to questions as a quasi statement. I trust that we start de novo and that what you said is expunged from any scintilla of precedent of the House.

I was merely seeking to be helpful to the House. I am not part of the usual channels; perhaps it is a pity that I am not. I was trying to see how it might be possible to get on with the business.

I am most regretful that I had to cross swords so noisily with you, Mr. Speaker, but may I say in defence of you that it is quite clear from what has transpired that you were misled by the Government into thinking that there was an agreement when there was no agreement between the two parties? The proceedings went ahead because of the usual deceitfulness of Ministers.

It is fair to say that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House were let down by the fact that the usual channels did not function as well as they should have done. That involves all of us; there were distinct misunderstandings on both sides. It was only just before 2.30 pm when I was warned that there was any doubt about this procedure, and I thought that I would resolve it by the first explanation that I gave. Plainly, that was a mistake and we