Orders of the Day — Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords] (Programme)

House of Commons, 27 March 2001.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I beg to move,

Consideration and Third Reading

Lords messages

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Like the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I, too, have listened to many programme motion debates. It is unfortunate for him that this will be his first and last—or perhaps penultimate—such appearance. The Opposition are thoroughly against the whole system of programme motions. In many cases, the inability of the House to consider legislation thoroughly because of this new system will create a constitutional problem that will be extremely difficult to deal with; that will come home to roost and the country will be the poorer for it. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is broadly welcomed on both sides of the House, but it might not go far enough; we want to consider many issues, as was clear from many of the Second Reading speeches. However, the motion highlights the absurdity inherent in the new system. Like me, the Minister sat through the proceedings on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000; the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), sat through the proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 as well as the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act; the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) sat through the proceedings on both of those Acts; and although the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) will, unfortunately, not be joining us this time, he was also in attendance during the proceedings on those Acts and played a useful role. The cast of characters for the Bill's Standing Committee will, I suspect, be similar to that for all those Acts—

David Willetts (Conservative, Havant)

The old lags.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Indeed. I should have thought that the old lags would realise that we have always worked well together in deciding the end dates for Committees and in ensuring that we stick to our agreements. The Minister will remember the help that we gave when there was a bit of an upset during the passage of the Bill that became the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, so I find it sad and absurd that we have to have a programme motion on this Bill. The motion provides for four days in Committee—eight sittings. We shall either fill those sittings without difficulty or not sit at all. The apparent generosity of the motion leads me to three different conclusions about what the Government have decided. They may be planning to table a lot of Government amendments, which will take a long time to debate. They may intend to encourage their Back Benchers to contribute in a way that we have not seen in the past. Or, may I suggest a cynical calculation on the election date and that we shall not even go into Committee? That, I am afraid, is the only conclusion that I can draw from the mere fact that a programme motion has to be tabled on a Bill of this nature, which is largely uncontroversial, when we have in the past always agreed happily to end dates and other issues regarding the management of a Bill. We will, as we promised, table amendments to satisfy ourselves that these issues have been thought through. The Minister says that the Information Commissioner has no concerns. I accept that the commissioner has no concerns, but I should like to Know why she now has none, when originally she had many. The Opposition find it absurd and sad that a Bill like this, which was amended satisfactorily in the House of Lords, should be subjected to a programme motion, as is the usual draconian behaviour of the Government. It is completely unacceptable.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Does my hon. Friend think that there is now a grave danger that it would take longer to see the Bill through because there is a guillotine; and has she noticed that, ever since the Government tried to modernise, we have gone home later in the evening than we used to before modernisation? Does not that show that the Government are totally incompetent even at reforming the House of Commons?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

What else could I do but agree with my right hon. Friend? I do not think that any Bill in whose scrutiny I take part lasts any longer then it needs to, because I do not believe in extending debate any longer than necessary, but 1 think it is very sad that when we have established a good working relationship, this draconian measure should be imposed on us. In the long run, that Government will come to recognise as much as we do the damage that they have done to the constitution.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) seems to be assuming that the House will be dissolved shortly. Of course, I do not make any such assumption. It could be not 12 days but 12 months before there is a Dissolution, so I shall not make the assumption apparently made by the hon. Lady and other Member including my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), that we have heard the swan song of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I hope that we have not. If we have, though, perhaps I may take the opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution that he has made to the House in many capacities. I had the pleasure of shadowing the right hon. Gentleman when he was with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I have the greatest respect for his parliamentary talents. I thought that he introduced the programme motion with consummate modesty and characteristic glee because it looked as though it would not be necessary, so there may be something in the timetable to which the hon. Member for Beckenham referred. I will not make the assumption that this programme motion is purely academic. Its detail does not present a great problem for us, whether or not the timetable is as supposed. However, on the principle of the way in which these programme motions are still coming before the House, I share the views of many other Members present that these motions are total nonsense, even when they are acceptable in their detail. I shall let the House into a secret. Tomorrow afternoon I shall attend the meeting of the Committee of Selection, at which we shall decide which Members of the House are to sit on this Committee. Some would think that other people should take that decision, but it will be taken by that Committee. I can tell the House that more hon. Members will be appointed to the Standing Committee than have attended most of the debate on Second Reading, because I was here and saw it. In the middle of that debate, nine Members were present, and because I was one of them and I will certainly not appoint myself to the Committee, only eight could be eligible to serve on it. It goes without saying that the hon. Members who spoke this afternoon were not necessarily those who will take part in the Committee. It also goes without saying that the hon. Members who must surely take ownership of the way in which the Committee undertakes its business and those who will decide how best to consider the detail, to which many references were made in the debate on Second Reading, are the members of that Committee. Therefore, for the programme motion to be tabled even before those Members have been appointed to the Committee is obviously absurd. I can also tell the House, without revealing any great secret between the usual channels or breaking Select Committee confidences, that the Modernisation Committee will consider programme motions tomorrow. I think that that is probably widely known. Given the speech made by the hon. Member for Beckenham from the Conservative Front Bench, I hope that her colleagues on that Committee will support sensible moves to get the proposal back on track. I hope that the hon. Lady, who said that the motion was draconian, will recall that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who I regret is not in his usual place, made the original suggestion that such programme motions should be introduced. He is the godfather of programme motions. The fact that the godchild has gone somewhat astray in recent months should not blind those on the Conservative Front Bench to the fact that, in the original idea, there was a very good principle at stake. It was simply that the Government of the day. assuming that they could command a majority in Me House, had a right to expect Committees to deal with legislation in good time and to set the end date.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Says who?

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the previous Parliament, so he has no experience of Conservative Governments, but I can assure him that they made exactly the same assumption. They assumed that, if they had a majority in the House, they had a right to expect that their Bills would reach the statute book. That is parliamentary democracy. However, it has become increasingly obvious that the management of the individual issues of importance are properly discussed with the Opposition parties. The Opposition parties have a perfect right to decide what are the principal concerns that they believe should be addressed in the debate and by Division. It is also true that Back Benchers on both sides have a right to expect that that scrutiny will take place in a managed and sensible way. That was the original principle of programme motions, as suggested by the right hon. Member for East Devon in his previous capacity of Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that we shall make some progress. We could be here for another 12 months. I do not say that that is likely, but it is possible, and we certainly cannot continue with programme motions in their current form. The Minister, in winding up the debate on Second Reading and in moving the programme motion, said that there is widespread support in the House, throughout all parties, for the objectives in the Bill, but he also said, very fairly, that much of its detail will require careful consideration to get right. The problem that we face is clearly gigantic. In that context and, I hope, with the support of the House, this programme motion may not be objectionable, but I still believe that it is completely ludicrous in principle that we should decide how a Committee should conduct its business even before it is appointed. I hope very much that, before many days are out, we shall improve the procedure.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say before deciding whether to speak in the debate, but something that he said made it important for me to do so. If I heard him correctly, he said that eight sittings ought to be enough "to knock off' the Bill. The assumption that we are here only to knock things off for the Minister's convenience and that what we might think, say or do really does not matter shows almost breathtaking arrogance and a contempt for democracy. With that slip of the tongue, the right hon. Gentleman showed that, although this is the first time that he has introduced a programme motion, he instinctively understands the nature of the beast. When he reflects in the morning on the attitude that he has taken, I hope that he will feel ashamed of himself. When the Minister said that the civil servants had briefed him, he explained to the House that he did not need a briefing because he was a Member of Parliament. If he were a real parliamentarian who believed in the House and all that it stands for, and if he were a democrat who believed in the democracy that this country enjoys, he would have kept out of this debate on the programme motion. He should not be proud of the fact that it is the first time that he has introduced such a motion; had he been a real parliamentarian, he would have retired from the House never having moved one. He would have said to himself, "This is an affront to Parliament and the way in which we run our democracy." The right hon. Gentleman faces a problem even though he boasted to us that he had heard it all before. He said that he had been told what to expect. Unfortunately, however good his civil servants are, they did not brief him about what I might say. They will not have found a speech from me on a programme motion. There is a always a surprise in store—even at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary career. The Minister may have thought that he would get off lightly tonight. He looked around and said something about the usual suspects. It should not be a case of the usual suspects; all 659 Members of the House should be affronted by programme motions. Everyone who believes in democracy should be one of the usual suspects.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Is my hon. Friend surprised that Ministers show such contempt for the House by introducing programme motions, given that they are led by a Prime Minister who hardly ever votes in the House and who has the worst voting record by a long way of any Prime Minister that any of us can remember? Does not such complete contempt for the parliamentary and democratic process come from the top?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My right hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that the Minister has read the briefings that he has been given and he will have seen that many Members consider the Prime Minister's treatment of us and of parliamentary democracy to be a disgrace. The Minister will have read that, and I hope that he has taken that point to heart. I suspect that,if he were being frank, he would say that he agreed, because in many respects he is a genuine parliamentarian who believes in this place—or, at least, he did until he took the Queen's shilling and came here to spout out such undemocratic nonsense.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes, of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. By way of introduction, I was responding to the Minister's comments. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the motion or about other things, but I accept what you say and I shall move on. The Minister said that, as far as he could see, the Committee might want to sit on Maundy Thursday. I do not think that it will, but it is possible that the Prime Minister might put the country and not his party interest first and deal with the things that matter. Even if he did that, we would probably still not be here on Maundy Thursday, given the way in which the House has organised its business in the past. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could tell us what he proposes to do replace the sitting that could take place on 12 April—or does he expect members of the Committee to attend even though the House is in recess? We should know. I accept that, in some respects, in providing eight sittings for a Bill such as this, the motion is not as mean and nasty as some previous programme motions have been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, one has to ask why. If the Bill can be knocked off quickly because it has been considered in the other place and is relatively non-controversial, why do we need eight sittings? Why do we need a programme motion? What has happened to the principle that if one wants to be generous and reasonable, in the first instance one discusses the matter through the usual channels to see whether common sense will prevail? As I understand it, common sense would have prevailed in this case and there would have been no need for a programme motion. However, we have now got to the stage where the Government could not care less whether there is any common sense to be had from Conservative Members. They just go in with their boots on without even bothering to find out whether there could be agreement. That tells us a great deal about their approach to the House. We must ask ourselves why, if the Bill is not controversial, we have been given eight sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said that it did not matter, and the Government could have given us 800 sittings because after next week we will not be here to worry about it. That is probably the explanation, but I guess that the Minister knows no more than we do because the Prime Minister runs these matters in a dictatorial fashion and probably will not consult him. Nevertheless, it is possible that we will be here after next week—a Government who cared about the nation might see their term through. Let us assume for the moment that we will be here after next week. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is absolutely right and the Government have something up their sleeves. If we cannot work out why eight sittings are necessary, perhaps the Government are concealing something from us and at the very last minute they will table a large number of amendments. When I was listening to my hon. Friend's explanation, it crossed my mind that several Labour Back Benchers may have worked out which of their Front—Bench colleagues will shortly lose their sears and want to use the Committee to make a bid for an Opposition spokesman's job. That might explain why the Minister of State moved the programme motion—it is a chance for him to strut the stage and to point out that, in opposition, he could do a useful job. Another possibility that occurred to me is that by setting a limit, even a generous one of eight sittings, the Government are saying that they will look only for as much fraud as they can fit into a convenient time before they treat Parliament as a rubber stamp. It does not matter how many good suggestions are made, how many reasonable amendments are tabled or how many people think up new ways of bringing even more fraudsters to book if those factors cannot be tackled in the number of sittings suggested by the Minister. They could not care less about fraud if it does not fit. The Minister explained why having eight sittings was a particularly good idea, but he did not even mention Report. If I understand the Order Paper correctly, it suggests that the Report stage will be brought to an end at 9 o'clock on the day on which it starts. Presumably, if we do not have the general election that the Labour party seems to want for its own selfish ends—[Laughter.] The laughter tells us a great deal. Labour Members will be laughing on the other side of their face after they have called an election—I will tell you that for free, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we get to the Report stage, it is likely to be in mid-April, although it is difficult to say because we have not been given a date We will have a maximum of five hours for it, but if my guess about the date is correct, the shambolic way in which the Government have failed to tackle foot and mouth disease means that we will have another interminable statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or perhaps the Prime Minister will grace us with his presence because, by then, he will have lost confidence in all his Ministers and will have to do everything himself. Let us assume that we have another statement on the day on which the Report stage is taken. I noticed this afternoon that we were still wending our weary way through statements after 5 o'clock. That means that it does not matter how many amendments or new clauses are tabled on Report, because by the time the Minister has opened the debate and waffled on for ages, about an hour will have gone by, which will leave Back Benchers about an hour in which to say something before the winding-up speeches. That would be an undemocratic Report stage. It is pointless for hon. Members to give any thought to it if it can run for just three hours and Front-Bench spokesmen want to take time over it. This is the Minister's first outing in a programme motion debate and he should be ashamed. It is a pity that he has not been given the opportunity to leave the House without getting his hands mucky in an undemocratic and unreasonable process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, the right hon. Gentleman could have gone home earlier had it not been for his Government colleagues. Programme motions are part of the great modernisation process to allow hon. Members to go home earlier, because if they stayed too long they might have to take this place seriously. The Government have bungled that process. Not only does the Minister have to come here and dirty his hands, but he has to suffer the Government's incompetence. Instead of modernising, they make matters worse. I am sorry for the Minister, who could have left Parliament at the election without joining in an undemocratic procedure and adding his four pennyworth to this incompetent Government, whom we shall shortly remove.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Like the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), this is my maiden speech in a programme motion debate. I am puzzled about why a motion has been tabled to end the Committee stage by Maundy Thursday. If the Prime Minister intends to have an election, there is no reason to table such an insulting idea. He could at least pretend that that is not the case by giving us ample time to consider the Bill. However, instead of letting us have holy week off and completing our deliberations after Easter, he has decided to insult us. Perhaps he is not going ahead with the election but has still decided that the Committee must finish by Maundy Thursday without saying why.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Is not the Government's difficulty compounded by the fact that yesterday's timetable motion on the Adoption and Children Bill gave an exit date of 12 June?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Indeed. The Government compound absurdity with absurdity. Why must the Committee conclude by Maundy Thursday? Will that give us time to get the answers to the unanswered questions that my hon. Friends and I raised in detail? In an otherwise admirable summing up, the Minister, in what is possibly his swansong in a Second Reading debate, did not answer my question about whether a study has been conducted of the savings that were made from the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which I introduced. That was the precursor to this Bill and gave data-matching powers for data within government. Only when we have that information can we decide whether the detailed measures in the Bill are likely to bring about similar savings. The Bill might not be worth the candle and we might have to re-tailor the provisions to make the savings that the Government have suggested. They assume that there will be 800,000 inquiries. It is estimated that each will cost about £9 and will result in benefit savings of an average of £225. The Committee will want those figures explained, and the Government need time in which to work that out.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Given my right hon. Friend's great experience of trying to combat social security fraud, does he think it likely that many amendments will be needed to the Bill from the Government, to try to make the measure work practically in all the detail that he is describing? Until we know how many amendments will be tabled, is it feasible to know how long it might take to discuss them?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and one that undermines the concept of programme motions. Unless and until we know the sort of changes that will be needed in the course of considering a Bill, we cannot allocate time. We know that the Bill required changes even in the other place, a less contentious place than this place. It was changed quite significantly as it passed through the House of Lords, and it is likely to be changed even more in Committee—if we are given time to make changes, and if we are given time for the Government to answer the questions that we raise, which they have not answered today. I raised the crucial issue of why fraud is increasing under the Government, despite their claim, in opening the debate, that it is falling. Why did they not subsequently apologise for misleading the House? We know that they try to justify the statement by saying that if errors are allowed as well as fraud, there is a slight fall in fraud. That is not a significant fall, although they were telling us that it was. They have not explained why they made that claim, even though it was not valid. In Committee, we shall want to consider whether the Bill's provisions will bear down on fraud or on what the Government call errors. That might take some time.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

From the right hon. Gentleman's experience and from his knowledge of the Bill, will there be time to consider not only fraudulent claims by those seeking benefit, but the actions of those within the Department, who are mostly honest people? I am thinking of one of my constituents who was recently convicted and fined for £250,000-worth of fraud from the inside?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I do not think that we shall have time to consider that activity or to amend the Bill to cover it. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that that is serious and important fraud—and the numbers to which he refers suggest that it is—we should be able to amend the Bill to take account of it. I was raising the distinction that the Government draw between fraud and error. They say that if errors are thrown in, they are succeeding in their task. I have not noticed that.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should be able to reach consideration of clause 16 in Committee? It might then be possible to introduce a presumption of fraud where someone forgets to declare £200,000 of income?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I can guess what my hon. Friend is referring to. Usually, the sort of error that we are discussing does not include forgetting £200,000 of one's income. The average benefit claimant does not forget that, but I gather that it is quite normal on the Government Benches to forget that sort of amount. We should know whether that will be classified as error or fraud, and we will want to consider that at length. When on that subject, we shall want to consider whether to amend the Bill to give power to the Government or social security officers to obtain information that has been uncovered by DTI inquiries. If they can obtain information from banks and credit card owners, why cannot they get information about people who have been examined in the course of DTI inquiries, especially if there is provision, as there is on the statute book—despite what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says—for releasing such information to a designated body that is fulfilling a public function? It would be possible to take such matters into account in Committee if only there were time. I suspect that the Government want to rush through consideration in Committee because they do not want that sort of embarrassing discussion shortly before a general election. That is why they are trying to curtail discussion by means of a draconian programme motion. They want consideration to be completed by Maundy Thursday. They do not want to allow us the sort of discussion that we shall need to give the Bill the inquisition that it deserves.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I would like to make a few remarks on the programme motion. Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I should like to ask why there is a need for the motion at all? Did the Government try to come to an informal agreement through the usual channels? We shall spend three quarters of an hour debating the motion, plus the vote, making one hour. The Programming Sub-Committee will perhaps take an hour or two; there will be another half-hour debate on the programme in Committee and a vote, making three quarters of an hour. That may take the time up to three and three quarter hours. This motion makes provision for a programme motion to be introduced on Report and Third Reading, making another three quarters of an hour, together with a vote, bringing the total to an hour. So a total of four and three quarter hours could be spent on debating the timetable for the Bill to get through the House and the other place, which is the equivalent of a half-day debate in the House. Before introducing the programme motion in the House, it would have been much more sensible of the Government to try to see whether a voluntary agreement could be reached. Had the Government introduced sensible proposals, I am certain that a voluntary programme could have been entered into; more than four hours could have been usefully devoted to debating the Bill at greater length or debate could have been foreshortened. I am not sure why, under paragraph 3 of the motion, the Government want to complete the Committee stage of the Bill by Maundy Thursday. Unless a general election on 3 May is a racing certainty, it seems that the Government will run out of legislation to introduce. What on earth will we do if the election is delayed until October? Will there be another Queen's Speech? What will happen? We will be scratching around for motions to debate in the House. The Government are wasting our time because it is practically a racing certainty that we will have an election. However, assuming that we do not, we must deal with the Bill's timetable. I have dealt with one or two timetables before, and there are a couple of things that could be usefully incorporated in future. Why, for example, does the final sitting of the Committee have to be brought to a conclusion at 9 o'clock on a Tuesday or 6 o'clock on a Thursday? I have some Committee experience and, very often, the Committee suddenly gets into a panic towards the end of its consideration of the Bill and an awful lot is discussed on the last day. Given my experience of serving on Committees with timetables, it would make eminent good sense—if one has to have a timetable—to conclude proceedings at midnight. That is not unreasonable. The worst thing in the timetable motion is paragraph 7, which makes provision for a timetable for messages from the Lords, and states: the question … shall be put forthwith. If ever there was an abrogation of the democratic tradition of debate in the House, that is it. Whatever amendments the Lords make to the Bill, whatever messages they send to us, we shall have no time whatever to debate them. That is totally undemocratic.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Does that not imply that the reform and modernisation of the other place has backfired on the Government, like the rest of their modernisation? Does it not imply that, in advance, the Government are not prepared to trust their Lordships to come up with decent amendments and wish to vote them down forthwith, whatever they say? Does that not show that the Labour peers who were put in to pack the other place cannot even be bothered to turn up to do the job properly?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As usual, my right hon. Friend's logic is impeccable. He is right: the Government are so incompetent that they cannot organise the other place properly to get the answer that they want. Not satisfied with having a proper democratic debate in the other place, they are determined to use undemocratic means to reverse anything from the other place that they do not like. If that is democracy, the Government will go down in history as one of the most undemocratic ever seen in this country.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The proposal is not only discourteous to the other place, but to the House, as it excludes the possibility of discussing messages from the other place. The House has a right to discuss those messages .

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My right hon. and learned Friend makes my point for me. Of course the House, which is the bastion of democracy and the oldest democracy in the world, is being denied by this undemocratic Government the chance to debate any changes arising from the other place that the Government do not like. The way in which the Government are behaving is unbelievable. Some time, the British people will wake up and realise that the rights that they have had for centuries, vested in the Members of Parliament whom they send as their representatives in Parliament, have been taken away as a result of those very representatives not looking after their rights. Once the people cotton on to that, as they undoubtedly will, they will say that the representatives who did not look after their rights should be kicked out and replaced by others who can.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I happily give way to the Minister.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Has the hon. gentleman finished speaking?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

No. I thought that the Minister wanted to intervene. He looks more and more annoyed at what I am saying. That means that I must be hitting the target 100 per cent. true—the bull's eye. He knows that what I am saying is absolutely correct. I see that time is getting on. In view of what has been said tonight, it is right that the Minister should have a chance to reply. I have a great deal of respect for him personally. Whatever he has done at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in his present job, he has done with integrity. I hope that he will reply, as he knows that the democratic rights of Parliament are being taken away by the timetable motion that he is proposing.

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I do not think that Parliament's rights are being taken away. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the other place, the Government have 29 per cent. of the votes. The Bill has been through the other place, and there was not a single Division during its passage. The argument that there could be issues of substance coming back from the other place beggars belief. I did not have a chance to reply to one of the issues raised by the former Secretary of state, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). He obviously feels upset about the matter, but the Library brief is wrong. The baseline that we use is September 1998. The Library has taken 1999, so the figures used are not comparable. I have put that on the record, as it answers one of the questions that was raised. I shall answer the rest in Committee in due course.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. Does he agree that if the Government put eight Committee sittings aside for, say, a 13-clause Bill, they consider eight sittings enough? If new clauses are introduced, should not more sittings be allowed?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

That is always an argument. However, it would be arrogant of me to present a programme motion to the House and say that the Government have no plans for any amendments, or that the Government have huge plans for amendments. That would be wrong. We have just passed the Second Reading. We are planning a Committee stage and if that starts on Tuesday, the Government amendments would obviously be published before that. In the normal course of events—

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Jeff Rooker (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

No. The Bill could be knocked off in eight sittings of mature, adult consideration of the issues in it, as we have debated them today, if that consideration is not sullied by time-wasting speeches such as we have heard.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Consideration and Third Reading

Lords messages

SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With permission, I shall put together motions 8 to 11.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I think the Ayes have it.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With permission, I shall put together motions 13 and 14.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Religious Broadcasting Licences

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

This petition is from a number of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon and others. There are, I believe, some 1,365 signatories to it. The petition requests that provision be made to remove discrimination against religious bodies in obtaining properly regulated broadcasting licences. The prayer in the petition states: Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.

Walsgrave Hospital

Geoffrey Robinson (Labour, Coventry North West)

On the occasion of this Adjournment debate, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the lack of confidence in the chief executive of Walsgrave hospital, which serves the whole of Coventry, including, of course, my own constituency. A most unhappy situation, lasting some 19 months, led to my initiating the debate. The staff unions are opposing the consultants and the chief executive himself thinks that the current unrest could lead to problems arising over the new private finance initiative hospital for Coventry. I am led to believe from articles in today's edition of the Coventry Evening Telegraph that the surgeons are split on the matter. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who will reply to the debate, that one senior surgeon even thinks that there could be political manoeuvrings against the professional class of surgeons by her Department, but I am anxious to assure her that I do not share that view; nor is it widely shared by the surgeons at Walsgrave. It is not my intention to apportion any blame for the unhappy situation with which we in Coventry are confronted. I believe that the management has a lot to answer for and I also believe that management, with one simple step that I shall deal with shortly, could put an end to this great unhappiness and great lack of certainty. The purpose of raising the matter on the Adjournment is to urge that the situation be brought to a close, to outline the simple step that could bring it to a speedy resolution and to say frankly that, after 19 months, it has gone on for far too long. The problems of today started back in September 1999 with a whistleblowing incident. Members of the House will be aware of the whistleblowing legislation that was introduced by the Government in 1998. In 1999, three surgeons at Coventry blew the whistle on surgeons in the colorectal department because of the peri-operative mortality rate. One of the whistleblowers was Mr. Alban Barros D'Sa, who remains suspended. The immediate reaction to the whistleblowing was to suspend one of the whistleblowers; 18 months later, he remains suspended. His position should be resolved to bring order to the current disorder. The whistleblowing incident has reached a satisfactory conclusion for one of the surgeons on whom the whistle was blown. The professional advisory panel that reported to the hospital in December 1999, only three months after the incident, made three recommendations. All have been acted upon. The surgeon has been moved from colorectal work, and a new specialist will be recruited for the work. The third recommendation was that a performance audit of the department's work in the previous four years should be undertaken. A performance audit of only two years was carried out, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider one aspect of it. One of the reasons for blowing the whistle was the peri-operative mortality rate of operations conducted by one of the surgeons in the colorectal department. I choose not to name him tonight because I believe that he is competent in other areas, but that he should not undertake colorectal work. While he had a pen-operative mortality rate of 20 per cent. over two years, the specialist had a rate of only 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. The national target is 5 per cent. The statistics for reviewing performance are calculated on P values. Why do the figures show no significant difference between those surgeons' work? If we are generally applying P values, and drawing comparative conclusions, how can we claim that there is no difference in performance that poses a problem for patients when, in a two-year period, one surgeon has a 20 per cent. Peri-operative mortality rate and another has one of only 5 per cent.? The various statistics that we use, and the way in which we use them, currently lead us to that conclusion. I revert to the position of Mr. Barros D'Sa. He was a whistleblower who was subsequently suspended on four counts. All were considered, and except for a part of one of them, he was found not to be at fault. It is important to stress that Mr. D'Sa's professional competence has not been questioned. No one claims that he is anything other than a good surgeon. When we are so desperately short of cancer surgeons and others—colorectal work is associated with cancer problems—how can a surgeon of acknowledged competence and with an undisputed professional reputation be left idle for 18 months? Six months ago, part II of the report of an independent panel of three surgeons was produced. They were led by a noted local Queen's counsel, Jeffrey Burke. They reported that Mr. D'Sa was at fault for oppressing a junior. It is not for me to argue Mr. D'Sa's defence, which is not the purpose of the debate, but he says in his defence that he was quizzing the junior doctor rather aggressively about peri-operative mortality and failures of the operations conducted by the surgeons on whom he blew the whistle. I mention that simply in passing. The substantive recommendation of the independent panel was that Mr. D'Sa should be reinstated. It referred to his hitherto unblemished record. The management of the hospital could easily have accepted the part II recommendation, and reinstated Mr. D'Sa with a warning. The panel believed that he should receive a written warning. The matter would thus have been brought to a speedy conclusion six months ago. Instead of doing that, the management issued what it called a document of mitigation. As the judge it came up against was to rule, it was not so much a document of mitigation as of aggravation. In it, the management saw fit to include, as the major reason for not reinstating Mr. D'Sa, a letter that he had written to his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and copied to me as the Member of Parliament for North-West Coventry. Since we regard all matters to do with the cathedral, the police and the hospital as constituency issues, I felt it right that we should question the management's procedure in using a private and confidential letter that Mr. D'Sa wrote to his Member of Parliament as a reason for not reinstating him. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we took the issue to Mr. Speaker. It would be fair to say that we had to recognise that Members' correspondence does not enjoy privilege or, indeed, qualified privilege. What we say in this House enjoys total privilege and there is no way in which I would abuse that. I understand that any correspondence that I have with my hon. Friend the Minister or other Ministers enjoys qualified privilege. However, Mr. D'Sa's letter, which was private and confidential and naturally critical of the management, was included in the management's so-called document of mitigation and submitted to those concerned as a reason for not reinstating him. Despite all our opposition to the management proceeding in this manner, the chief executive was determined to do so. The case went to court, as we knew it would, and an injunction was taken out by the lawyers representing Mr. D'Sa. I hate to say it, but the management was humiliatingly defeated at the injunction hearing. Not only was it expressly forbidden to rely on or use the letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and copied to me: it was refused the right to rely on any surrounding information other than what was, quite rightly, in part II of the independent report prepared on the issue. One would have thought that that would be the end of it. Enough money had been spent, enough time wasted and enough management attention dissipated—all to no good end, except for the immense legal costs. Has that contributed one iota to patient care or to concern for those who need it most in the hospital? Of course not. This has been a great and costly diversion of resources. The management, which had taken the case to court, was condemned to pay all the costs, including those of the surgeons. One would have thought that was the end of it and that we could now proceed with the normal implementation of the independent recommendation in part II of the report. However, that was not acceptable. I am informed that the management is still pursuing the case and seeking leave to appeal against the ruling of the court. That will mean more costs, more delays and further harm. The vote of no confidence that the surgeons have determined to hold on the conduct of the case concerning Mr. D'Sa will proceed, and the Electoral Reform Society is being brought in to supervise it. There will be growing concern in the constituency among patients and prospective patients that the hospital is in disarray. That is in no one's interests, and in no way do I want to contribute to that uncertainty by bringing this matter to my hon. Friend's attention. On the contrary, I believe that it is necessary to highlight the one simple action that can be taken that will put an end to the matter once and for all. It will remove uncertainty, restore confidence and re-establish between surgeons and management the co-operation that is so vital to the good functioning of any organisation. It is very simple. The management should be prepared to follow the recommendations of part II of the report, which was prepared by independent experts in the field who were appointed to do the job, and to proceed with the reinstatement of Mr. D'Sa. That is why I brought the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not expect her to be able immediately to respond to my concerns about the way in which the statistics for judging the competence of surgeons are used. I hope that she will look into that matter and get back to me. However. I hope that she will be able to use her good offices to intervene, or to say that she is sufficiently aware of the situation and that it has gone on long enough, at too much cost and with too much dissatisfaction in the hospital; I hope too that she will ensure that the part II recommendations are introduced.

Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on securing time to debate a topic that is clearly of considerable concern to him, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in whose constituency the Walsgrave hospital lies, but who, by convention, cannot raise any matters that relate to the hospital in the House. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends are in the Chamber for the debate. For my hon. Friends' benefit, I wish to start with a few general observations about the Walsgrave hospital. Some newspaper headlines have given the impression that the hospital is in total crisis. The Walsgrave Hospitals national health service trust changed its status to that of a university teaching hospital at the end of October last year, when it became the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. The trust is made up of Walsgrave hospital, Coventry and Warwickshire hospital and the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby. Against the backdrop of a challenging agenda, including changes to the configuration of services, the trust has achieved success in a number of areas. The cardiac services directorate has gained national recognition for mitral valve repairs and receives referrals from throughout the country. A new renal dialysis satellite unit has recently been opened at the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby. I recently visited the hospital and saw the new unit. The trust's renal transplant department is in the upper quartile nationally for graft acceptance. The radiology department has recently taken delivery of a new £1.2 million mobile magnetic resonance imaging scanner, to be moved regularly between the South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS trust, the George Eliot Hospital NHS trust and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. Work has recently started in the radiotherapy and oncology department to provide state of the art linear accelerator facilities,involving an investment of about £6 million. In partnership with the local community trust, a walk-in centre has been established, offering a seamless service to patients. The trust is also taking the lead as the English national pilot site for colorectal cancer screening. With a catchment population of around 1 million, the uptake to date is well in excess of the target set for the pilot. These are just some of the successes that the trust can demonstrate, in addition to which it reports a reduction in the number of nursing vacancies, and a 30 per cent. increase in the number of consultants. Of course, last year the trust achieved accreditation as a university teaching hospital. The first issue of substance in tonight's debate was the suspension of a medical consultant at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. Where concerns are raised about professional misconduct it is right that, as an employer, the national health service is able to investigate concerns expressed about the competence or behaviour of that employee. Although that course of action should be a very rare event, occasionally it is necessary to suspend an employee. It is important to stress that, although it is not always perceived as such, in legal terms suspension is a neutral act and must not be used as a disciplinary sanction. Suspension is intended to protect the i interests of patients, other staff and the employee or to assist the investigative process. As my hon Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will be aware, issues around staff management are a matter for the employing national health service body—in this case, the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. That includes matters relating to the suspension of staff from their duties. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene or comment on the individual case highlighted by my hon. Friend in the House tonight, as I understand that the case is still subject to legal proceedings. However, I note the points raised by my hon. Friend and will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the regional director of the NHS executive regional office. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that we are revising guidance on the handling of suspensions. In future, there should be less need to suspend employees, because medical staff with developing problems can refer themselves—or be referred by their employers—to the National Clinical Assessment Authority—the NCAA. Through a swift and accurate identification of problems and solutions, the NCAA is intended to ensure that fewer suspensions will be necessary. The NCAA will issue guidance to NHS organisations late in 2001 to help them to identify suitable cases for referral, and to advise them on how to make such referrals. As part of its remit, the NCAA will also consider any outstanding cases that are still awaiting resolution. In future, NHS employers must ensure that suspension is used only after all other alternatives have been considered—for example, a period of supervised retraining pending outcome of formal investigation; voluntary restriction; or referral to the NCAA with voluntary restrictions. When an employee is suspended, employers must ensure that it is for the minimum necessary period of time. My hon. Friend draws attention to the importance of taking seriously concerns raised about the performance of individual staff members. We expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the NHS, and a culture and environment that encourage staff to feel able to raise concerns about health care matters sensibly and responsibly, without fear of victimisation. Wherever possible, concerns raised by staff should be dealt with locally, in accordance with local policies and procedures. However, in some cases, individuals have considered the local response provided to them to be inadequate; as a consequence they have sought to raise their concerns with the NHS executive. Officials are liaising with the regional offices to develop a protocol for handling cases raised with the NHS executive. That is likely to include identifying a first point of contact in each region. Public Concern at Work—a leading authority in that sphere—has offered to provide staff working in the Department and the NHS executive with training on how to respond to individuals who contact the NHS executive to raise concerns. Of course, I realise that the case raised by my hon. Friend is still subject to legal proceedings, but I shall ensure that the regional office is aware of his concerns. I hope that some of the issues that he highlights are less likely to occur in future because of the measures that we are putting in place. Before I address my hon. Friend's concerns on the standard of colorectal services at the trust, it is important to raise a matter covered in the local press today. I read a leading article stating that Surgery in the hospital is in turmoil. I must confess to the House that, in preparing for the debate, I have seen nothing that would lead me to such a sweeping conclusion. We need to be very careful when using language that causes great concern to the local population about the standard of service provided by their local NHS hospital. I believe that it could do a great disservice to the hard-working staff at the trust to read lead stories making such general accusations. On the standard of colorectal services at the trust, I am advised that my hon Friends have already had sight of the outcome of the detailed investigations conducted by both the trust and the regional director of public health following the concerns that were raised. I have read the report; the regional director agreed that there were issues that needed to be addressed at the trust. I understand that the regional director of public health made recommendations relating to future staffing levels for the service, and to the appropriate grading for staff involved in provision of colorectal surgery at the trust. I am informed that the trust is acting on those recommendations, and that a fully qualified colorectal surgeon has been appointed and is expected to start employment with the trust next week. I have asked the regional office to continue to monitor the establishment of that service at the trust in the short to medium term. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West about the basis of some of the statistical analysis. I think it would be best for me to write to him after the debate with precise details of how the analysis is determined. My hon. Friend also expresses concerns about the trust's senior management team, noting that there had been a vote of no confidence by a very small number of surgeons at the trust. I am aware that, on 26 February, my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues met Nigel Crisp, the chief executive of the NHS so that he might have an opportunity to take account of their concerns about the management of the trust. I understand that, following that meeting, Nigel Crisp spoke to the regional director of the NHS executive and asked him to ensure that concerns raised by my hon. Friends were being addressed. I am also of course aware of the issue that was raised as a point of order in the House on 17 January, relating to the use of a letter. Mr. Speaker has responded and it would be inappropriate in that context for me to add anything further.

Geoffrey Robinson (Labour, Coventry North West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was disgraceful for the management to seek to use a letter written in confidence to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and copied to myself, as a reason for not reinstating and putting in hand the part II recommendations? Would she not as a parliamentarian, let alone a Minister, deprecate that form of behaviour?

Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston)

As a parliamentarian I also accept the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker has responded to the issue and I am content with that. I recognise that my hon. Friend has some very real concerns about the matters that he has raised today, and of course it is important that they are addressed. It must be recognised that the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust has been faced with a challenging agenda over the past few years. It has made great progress in many areas. The trust has had to implement some major developments regarding the reconfiguration of services. The trust's management has driven forward the development agenda while maintaining good quality services to the population that the trust serves. At the start of my speech, I provided my hon. Friends with examples of some of the successes and improvements made by the trust, but every institution is capable of even further improvement and I am sure that that will happen in this case, too. Even though there have been service changes, it is incumbent on the trust chief executive and chair to ensure that the services provided at the trust meet the needs of patients and ensure their safety. As I outlined earlier, the colorectal service at the trust has been investigated by the regional director of public health. Following his investigations, the trust has acted on his recommendations with regard to future management of the service, and a new fully qualified colorectal surgeon is expected to start work at the trust next week.

Geoffrey Robinson (Labour, Coventry North West)

That point has been covered. Will my hon. Friend say why, in her opinion, the management will not accept the findings of part II as a simple resolution of our problems so that we can get back to the good progress that we all recognise that the trust has been making?

Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston)

The management and the management style of each trust is a local issue. The difficulty is that, as I understand it, there are still legal proceedings in this case. It would be inappropriate and foolish of a Minister to try to second-guess anyone else's reasons but, more important, it would help no one at this stage not to allow a due process to continue. We have made it clear that both the chief executive of the NHS and the regional office are well aware of the situation, but ultimately issues regarding employees are the responsibility of the local employing trust, which must take the decision. Our role is to ensure that proper processes are followed.

Geoffrey Robinson (Labour, Coventry North West)

It is on that point that we find it most difficult to accept what my hon. Friend is saying. The simple fact is that this process will cause great costs to the hospital—tens of thousands of pounds of further useless legal costs are being incurred, all to no good purpose, because the legal problems, of which I am as well aware as my hon. Friend is, will continue only as long as the trust is intent on a legal resolution. The trust has a recommendation, which it could and should implement. The further this matter goes on, the more difficult the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and I are put in, because our letter, a confidential House of Commons document, is being used—or an attempt is being made to use it—by the trust management to furthen its legal case, in which it has already been humiliatingly denied.

Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I think that my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into pre-empting either a decision of the court or a management decision by an NHS trust. Surely it must be up to local trusts, as the employer, to have the final decision on the most appropriate way to proceed, and I would not wish to pre-empt the reasons for their decision. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he is still dissatisfied with the answers provided today, he should request a meeting with the Minister responsible for the midlands region, the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), so that his concerns can be looked at in more detail. I am sure that he will meet my colleagues to discuss his concerns if he thinks that is necessary. On employment matters relating to an individual consultant where legal proceedings are still on-going, it would be inappropriate for a Minister to do anything other than to say that it is a local matter for the trust and that we will ensure that the due process is being followed.