National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2015.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

In a moment, we will resume consideration of Mr Efford’s sittings motion and amendments (a) to (c). As joint Chairman, I have had the pleasure of reading the Hansard report of the first meeting of the Committee; it may be helpful if I make the following observations.

I am expecting Mr Nuttall, who tabled amendment (a), to conclude sooner rather than later, to allow me to open the debate to all members of the Committee. I note that my co-Chairman requested that Mr Nuttall address the specifics of the amendment on a number of occasions, and eventually drew his attention to the terms of Standing Order No. 42. I further expect other participants in the debate to avoid ground already covered by Mr Nuttall in his remarks; I remind hon. Members that Standing Order No. 42 is aimed at tackling repetition and irrelevance within individual speeches, but also across the debate as a whole.

It may be helpful to Committee members in thinking about their diaries if I give notice that now the Committee is in its second day I am minded to name 2 o’clock this afternoon for its next meeting if we reach 11.25 am without having settled on a timetable by other means.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment (a), leave out from “on” to “when” and insert—

“Tuesday 10th February at 10.00am, and thereafter on Tuesdays at 10.00am”.

Amendment (b), leave out from “meet” to end and insert—

“at 9.25am on the following days—

(a) Tuesday 10 February 2015;

(b) Tuesday 24 February 2015;

(c) Tuesday 3 March 2015; and

(d) Tuesday 10 March 2015”.

Amendment (c) leave out from “on” to “when” and insert

“Thursday 12th February at 11.30am, and thereafter on Thursdays at 12.00 noon”.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I welcome you to the Chair; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. We are a Committee of the British House of Commons, established to scrutinise a Bill and authorised to do so by the Committee of Selection. We should therefore take precedence over private meetings and room bookings by Members and by other ad hoc organisations that have taken our rooms over. I notice that we have been shuttled from Room 14 to Room 11. Can you give us some assurance that there will be some consistency to any future meetings, so that we can at least stay in one set room?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his years here that it is quite in order for a Committee to move to a different room.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; we much enjoyed serving under Mr Hood a few days ago, but the privilege will be just as great today. I want to ask for a point of clarification on Standing Order No. 42 and the issue of “tedious repetition”. May I take it that if the repetition is amusing, that is allowed, but if it is tedious, it is not?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

That is an important point of order and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. It will be entirely for the Chair to decide whether Standing Order No. 42 is relevant.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Again, may I say what a pleasure and honour it is to serve under your chairmanship? As it happens, at the end of our previous sitting, I was on my feet intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. Since I am conscious that interventions should be short and that this one has gone on for nearly six days, I think I should resume my seat.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that is most helpful.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Bone, to continue this debate on the sittings motion for this important Committee. I will begin by confirming that I have almost concluded my remarks, so I will not detain the Committee for very much longer.

It has been proposed that the sittings motion tabled by the hon. Member for Eltham be amended in three separate ways. As the amendments are grouped, I seek your permission, Mr Bone—having dealt with my own amendment, as you will have read in Hansard—to deal briefly with the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. Like me, other members of the Committee have spent the past six days wondering what was troubling our right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, but we now know that we will never know what is still troubling him. Therein lies a mystery which we can all consider for the rest of time.

Without making any criticism of any Member who is not present, as you will again have read in Hansard, Mr Bone, one of the issues before us is whether the sitting time should be 9.25 am or 10 am. I have proposed that it should be 10 am. On the first day of the Committee, not every member—for whatever reason—was able to be present at the appointed hour for the start of the meeting. I appreciate that there may well be very good reasons for that.

Amendment (b), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, is slightly different from mine, as it proposes a start time of 9.25 am, providing an extra 35 minutes for every sitting. The amendment also sets out specific dates so that there can be no doubt about when the Committee would meet. The first of those dates is today, and so that requirement is superfluous. The second date is Tuesday 24 February, the third is Tuesday 3 March, and the final date is Tuesday 10 March. I admit to the Committee that the fourth sitting is superfluous too, given that the House has already resolved that private Members’ business should be considered only on two further sitting Fridays—Friday 27 February and Friday 6 March. It therefore seems that there is not a great deal of merit in the Committee sitting on that date.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

It is worth noting that, if there were some emergency that led the Prime Minister to use his powers to issue a statutory instrument and it was approved by the House, the election could be delayed by two months. It would then be normal for the House authorities to allow a pro rata number of sitting Fridays. It is not impossible that there may be another sitting Friday to consider private Members’ Bills.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

That is indeed true. It is perhaps a remote possibility, but it is certainly a matter to which this Committee should give consideration. Indeed, it perhaps gives some explanation of why amendment (b) contains a provision citing Tuesday 10 March. Perhaps we will hear more about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. Other than the change in sitting times, there is little difference between amendments (b) and (a). Obviously, for the reasons which I have set out, I submit to the Committee that my amendment is preferable. Perhaps we have seen some evidence today of why that is the case.

Having spent only a couple of minutes on amendment (b), I turn to amendment (c), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, whose views I look forward to hearing. The amendment brings a new day into consideration, as it proposes that the Committee sit on Thursday 12 February at 11.30 am and thereafter on Thursdays at 12 noon. We have not previously considered that option; I have certainly not considered or discussed it. The Committee will be aware that it is the practice of the authorities and the Leader of the House for the House to consider on Thursdays business set down by the Backbench Business Committee. We will find out whether that was behind my hon. Friend’s thinking in suggesting that the Committee meet on a Thursday.

It is worth noting that my amendment has the advantage of not drawing Members away from the Chamber, whereas my hon. Friend’s amendment would do so, albeit on a day when Government business is not often considered, as we usually deal with business set out by the Backbench Business Committee. I noticed that my hon. Friend has astutely proposed that our Committee meet at 11.30 am. That would give Members an opportunity to attend daily Question Time. Provided no urgent question is being considered, they would have the opportunity to listen to business questions in the Chamber.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ascribing wisdom to me that I do not deserve. I believe it would not be orderly for us to sit before 11.30 am.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

In that case, perhaps I have ascribed wisdom to him to which on this rare occasion he is not entitled. Perhaps the wisdom of those who laid down Standing Orders took into consideration the matters to which I referred. As with amendment (b), I look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friend about the merits of his amendment.

I will conclude by reminding the Committee of the salient points I have made. This is no ordinary private Member’s Bill. It is not tidying up lacunae in legislation; it is not a matter of conscience or a measure that has cross-party support. It is a matter of great political significance and would be more properly dealt with by a Government Bill. I have proposed Tuesday, because Members’ diary commitments mean that we are more likely to achieve full attendance on Tuesdays rather than Wednesdays. Tuesday is still a day when, unlike Monday and Thursday, Members are coming and going from the Palace of Westminster. I have proposed 10 o’clock because that will give Members an opportunity to deal with their paperwork before they come to Committee.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that although it is such a long time since he began speaking to his amendment that hon. Members may have forgotten what he said at the outset, we cannot have the whole thing regurgitated.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

Mr Bone, I have only two lines left.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Is there a way of bringing to the Committee’s attention your presence of genius, as you noticed that my hon. Friend was coming to the end of his speech?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

That is not a point of order.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

You are quite right, Mr Bone. I was about to say that that would give Members time to deal with their work and would not conflict with the sitting times of the House. I commend amendment (a) to the Committee.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to speak to amendment (b), which is in my name and in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire and for Chelmsford. The amendment seeks to change the original motion moved by the promoter of the Bill so that we sit on Tuesdays at 9.25 am: today, on 24 February, 3 March and 10 March. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and I are both qualified solicitors. I believe that he used to be paid by the hour when he was in practice. I, on the other hand, used to do mainly set-fee work, so I am not going to be as lengthy in arguing for my amendment (b).

At the previous sitting a number of Members discussed whether they should declare an interest. I have no interest to declare except as an occasional—which I hope remains the case—or even non-existent user of the NHS. I have no other interests to declare in respect of this matter. It is a pleasure to serve on a Committee with the hon. Member for Eltham. A little while ago he and I fought together on another campaign. Unfortunately that endeavour was not successful, though we were right to do what we did. However, I do not agree with his remarks at our last sitting, when he drew attention to those Members who were not present at the Second Reading debate and did not take part in the Second Reading vote, and argued that it was therefore strange that they were members of this Committee and now seek to take an interest in the matter. Nothing in “Erskine May” prevents a Member from taking an interest or taking part at any stage in our proceedings. The fact that some of us were in our constituencies on the date of Second Reading and were unable to take part in no way invalidates our interest in or ability to scrutinise the Bill. If it did—if there were a rule that Members have to be present and vote on Second Reading and could not otherwise take part—his right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) would never be able to make a speech again in this building.

There are a number of alternatives before us. It is not a case of which is right or wrong: it is a matter of personal preference. It so happens that I prefer to attend Committee meetings on Tuesdays. I do not think that we should tamper with the time: Committees generally meet at 9.25 am. That is why I am not with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in suggesting that we meet at a later hour. To suggest that we meet at 10 am seems odd. Some could even argue that it would be spiteful to the supporters of the Bill to seek to shave 35 minutes off what is traditionally a two-hour sitting.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

I remind my right hon. Friend that in the Public Bill Office note about when Committees should meet in the morning there are two possible times given:

“A morning sitting usually starts at 9.30 am or 10 am”.

Therefore, it was not entirely unreasonable of me to suggest 10 am.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

It was not unreasonable, but Labour Members of the Committee would have regarded it as unhelpful to them, as it would mean that the morning sitting had 35 minutes less scrutiny time. I do not see that there is a case for doing that. If we are going to meet, we might as well have a good, solid two-hour sitting in the morning to deal with matters before us.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The right hon. Gentleman proposes that we commence the debate at 9.25 am. Given that it has taken us so long to get to the point we have reached so far, does he agree that if necessary the Committee should sit again in the afternoon, if it is proceeding as slowly as it appears to be? He is proposing that we sit on a Tuesday, which I would prefer, but if it is simply to truncate the debate into a morning sitting, I cannot support his amendment. We need to have sufficient time to deal with all the business, particularly if the Committee is going to proceed as slowly as it has so far.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is a fair intervention and I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. Mr Bone, you will not remember, because you were not here, but in the 1980s and 1990s in this place, before we had programming up-front, Committees would normally sit in the morning on a motion moved either by the Minister or, if it were a private Member’s Bill, by the Member in charge. Then, later, if progress on the Bill had not been as speedily accomplished as had been hoped, the Minister would bring forward a supplementary motion to move, “that the Committee do sit” in addition in the afternoon. My amendment would only provide for us to sit on Tuesday mornings. It seemed to me that that was a reasonable starting point.

The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, as a supporter of the Bill, is that if progress remains very slow he would wish the Committee to have afternoon sittings. There would be nothing to stop him, if the Committee today approves my amendment (b), tabling a motion that we sit also during the afternoon. That is a decision he could make later today, depending on our progress. I said to him in the margins of the Committee earlier that I do not intend to take all the time that is available to me today to move my amendment. I want to make my case as cogently and speedily as I can and then sit down.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. An interesting debate has opened up over there about afternoon sittings. Can you clarify that a majority of the Committee would be required to amend the sittings motion to allow afternoon sittings? Therefore, agreement would be required across this Committee to amend the motion in such a way.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That appears to be entirely correct.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. I seek clarity on when a supplementary sittings motion may be moved. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is suggesting that if, during a debate on a clause or an amendment, we consider that progress is so slow that we need additional time to dispose of the business before us, we may move a supplementary sittings motion in Committee at any stage in order to ensure that we can sit in the afternoon.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is correct that a supplementary sittings motion can be moved without notice.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

At any time?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

At any time.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. Does that mean that a supplementary sittings motion would then be open to debate and that we would be back to where we are right now?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Yes, I believe it is open to debate, but I am not sure that we would be back to where we are.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I would have thought that the point made by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Eltham, is self-evident: if someone wants to change something, in any arena, they need a majority. That stands to reason, does it not? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, I have made no decision on afternoon sittings. I am open to being won over to supporting afternoon sittings should I feel that they are needed. When I tabled my amendment before the Committee’s first sitting, I was not aware of our likely rate of progress. It seemed to be the normal practice in the initial stages to move to morning sittings only and then to reflect on the matter if further sittings were needed. As I said a few moments ago, it is a matter for the Committee, and it is a matter of personal choice. I just happen to prefer dealing with Committee work on a Tuesday. That is the way I tend to try to deal with my parliamentary work—on a day-to-day basis.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

My right hon. Friend is right. I do, too. The objection I had previously to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and by my right hon. Friend, in relation to the Committee considering the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, has fallen away because that Committee is sitting now, so I will serve on this Committee and not on that Committee.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful for that information. From time to time, the press make great play of attendance in the Chamber and at this place, but every Member of Parliament would accept that we have a twin-track duty. We have a duty to scrutinise what the Government or, in this case, a Back-Bench Member wants to achieve in Parliament, but we also have a duty to look after our constituents, which means that Members of Parliament must try to be in two places, albeit not at the same time, during the working week. What I find objectionable about amendment (c), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, is that it seeks to move Committee sittings to a Thursday. By common consent on both sides of the House, Thursday is the day when many Members like to be back in their constituency to discharge their duty.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

May I remind my right hon. Friend that, more often than not at the moment, on Thursdays there are important Back-Bench debates, which our constituents are often most anxious that we attend in order to listen to whatever the subject might be? We would be precluded from taking part in those debates if this Committee were to sit on a Thursday.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is another argument against Thursday sittings. Most Members are used to multitasking, and at some time in our career we all have a difficult decision to make about which venue we attend, which debates we support and which debates we have to let slip by because of our other commitments. Where they should be at any one point in time is a daily matter of agonising over for many Members.

I am against the motion, for the same reason, because it seeks to take us into the realms of afternoon and perhaps evening sittings on a Wednesday. When there is no whipped business on a Thursday and no business to which they are attracted or that needs their attention because of a constituency interest, I know many Members like to start their journey north, or south—or wherever their constituency is—on a Wednesday evening. The risk of accepting the motion unamended is that we could find this Committee sitting morning, afternoon and evening on a Wednesday, thereby impeding, on occasion, journeys back to the constituency, if that is what a Member wants.

It seems to me quite reasonable that, if we accept my amendment (b) and, at our next meeting, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives wants to bring forward an amendment seeking to draw us into afternoon sittings on a Tuesday, no one could possibly complain if this Committee moved into evening sittings on a Tuesday. Tuesday is a day of the week when Members expect to be here and do not make other arrangements. However, if we were to accept amendment (c) to sit on a Thursday, it could prove very disruptive to constituency work. Indeed, the original motion could have the same effect, although I admit not on as many occasions.

I hope that the Committee, whether or not it wants to add afternoon sittings at a later stage, will agree that the best option for us is my amendment (b). I commend it to the Committee.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

May I reiterate the great pleasure it brings me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North to consider the issue of time?

We are with Job who—you will recall from the Old Testament, Mr Bone—ruminates on the question of time:

“Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? Are not his days also like the days of an hireling?”

We look back over many centuries to see how time should be allocated. Job complains that when he is sleeping or waking he wonders whether the night will ever end; and when he is awake he wonders whether the day will ever end, so that he may go back to sleep.

I can see that members of the Committee may feel exactly the same as they discuss the intricacies of this important Bill and look at the fundamental question of time and how it should be allocated. How should time be divided between the many duties that Members have in their constituencies, in the Chamber, and in Committee to ensure that they are completed in a way that is becoming to a Member of Parliament, is satisfactory to the electorate and is supported by their party Whips? All of those duties have a role, although I would say that our electorate are the most important and the people to whom we should look for guidance, instruction and thoughtfulness as to where we should spread ourselves.

I notice, talking of spreading ourselves, that we can now spread lots of butter on our bread once again, because it turns out to be wonderfully healthy, which is a nice note in a health service Bill. I hope we can come back to that later. We have to spread ourselves in various ways.

The question today is do we spread ourselves at 9.25 am on a Tuesday, 10 o’clock on a Tuesday, 9.25 am on a Wednesday and at 2 pm. Or, should we consider, re-evaluate, be brave, bold and modernising and look to Thursday? Thursday is the great day named in honour of a Norse god, Thor, who is the god of thunder and lightening, but also of oak trees. He is a god we can claim for our own in England as the symbol of our nation and, as it happens, of the Conservative party. A rather wishy-washy oak tree is used for the Conservative party, but none the less, that symbol is associated with a Norse divinity, although not one I believe in. That does not mean that the stories about him are not interesting or relevant to the question of whether 11.30 am and 12 o’clock on Thursdays might be not only the best time but the ideal time, the perfect time—that ethereal concept which many of us have been seeking throughout our lives—where time is used to its greatest efficiency.

We often think of Rudyard Kipling and his “unforgiving minute”. Will those unforgiving minutes on a Thursday be more forgiving on a Tuesday or a Wednesday? I think they would; there is more latitude on a Thursday for a thorough examination of a Bill, and we can consider it in the round. I have looked at debates that are coming up. On Thursday we will miss important debates—there is a debate this coming Thursday on public houses and, representing a rural constituency where cider is particularly popular, that is something that I would wish to be involved in, but there not be a substantive vote at the end of that debate. It will come to a conclusion with a motion to take note, so my absence will not unduly discombobulate my constituents. They will feel that it is reasonable that I should attend to the health of the nation on a Thursday rather than consider public houses.

This Thursday, there is also an important debate—undoubtedly, unquestioningly, indubitably—on the destruction of antiquities in Syria and Iraq—a very serious problem and one that many of us would be interested in, but I fear that the powers of the House in this respect are limited. The days of empire, when Mesopotamia was a British protectorate of which we had charge, are gone. That has all changed. What this House decides on Syria and Iraq in relation to antiquities, although an important subject and an interesting debate, is something that we would miss if we were present in this Committee Room, or in the Committee Room that we were in last week. I am sorry, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, that we have been downgraded. I think of Committee Room 14 as the crème de la crème of Committee rooms: a fine, large room where members of the public can come in their hordes to watch our deliberations and where there is a special pen, a much bigger pen, for the press. This Thursday, if we are in a Committee Room, it would be a fine thing for our constituents to know that we are working assiduously on their behalf.

The third debate that is coming up this Thursday—it has not been mentioned, you will be relieved to know, Mr Bone—is on mental health in London. That is another important subject, and it is right that the House should debate it, but it would be hard for me to intervene unduly in such a debate, as I represent a rural constituency in Somerset. I ought to leave that to others.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

To follow my hon. Friend’s argument to its logical conclusion, should he not be arguing in favour of Friday sittings?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My hon. Friend—my right hon. Friend; I apologise for ignoring his membership of the most honourable Privy Council—makes a valid and important point. I would be happy to sit on a Sunday. I am not a Sabbatarian—

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Uh?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

No, I am sorry but what else would one prefer to do than be in this Chamber, in this Parliament?

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Go to church.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Well, we can go to church before coming to Parliament. We can go to church every day; we just have to be up early with the lark and go to church or to chapel. It is interesting to note that, although we begin our day with prayers in the main Chamber, the Chairman did not start off with a little prayer this morning. That would be a fine tradition at the start and would be helpful to us.

I am not a Sabbatarian. I would have been happy with Sundays, or indeed Saturdays or Fridays, but I thought it would be an unduly onerous burden to place on my fellow hon. and right hon. Members, who have constituencies that are more far-flung than mine. For Members for Yorkshire constituencies and constituencies in Cornwall, such as St Ives, the travel times make it hard to interrupt the weekend for parliamentary business; to go back and forth like a ping-pong ball, or like legislation between this House and another place. I therefore ruled out the proposal that we should sit on Friday, Saturday or Sunday for the general convenience of hon. Members, right hon. Members and—not that there are any at the moment—most honourable Members. I focused on Thursday because that is a proper parliamentary day when we should be at our desks—our stalls, so to speak—champing at the bit like racehorses ready for the off, to scrutinise legislation, although racehorses are known for their scrutiny of legislation; I was speaking metaphorically. We may model ourselves on them in our enthusiasm and urgency in attending to the business at hand.

Fridays are reserved for sittings of the main Chamber, but sadly it is not well attended. Mr Bone, you are one of the most assiduous attenders on Fridays. Unfortunately, if you were to chair this Committee at the same time that would be a loss to the Chamber and to the progress of debate, as the main Chamber considered other urgent and important private Members’ Bills, legislation on Report, and Lords amendments to Bills that have wended their way through intricacies of the legislative sausage machine, as I believe Bismarck did not say, although that comment is widely attributed to him. That was part of the reason for ruling out Fridays.

It is unusual for the House to sit on a Saturday, although it would be interesting to table a motion to discover Members’ views on the subject. The last time we met on a Saturday was in 1982 to consider the urgent matter of the invasion of the Falkland Islands. That day must be held special for the most urgent business of the nation, it feels that something so important and profound has happened, Parliament must be recalled to debate what is to the fore on that day. We can therefore set aside Saturday.

If my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives is worried about slow progress and he tabled a motion to suggest an extra Saturday sitting, I would be open to such a proposal, although I might be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. As I have already mentioned, I am not a Sabbatarian, but I accept that some hon. Members are, and I would not like to trespass on their religious feelings. They would be most upset to attend to the business of the House on a Sunday.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

If my hon. Friend were ever a voice in the wilderness, I know it would not bother him too much. Will he tell the Committee, if the rest of us do not favour his amendment, what is his second choice? Where would he go if the Committee rejected his amendment?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am taken aback—I am shocked—by the suggestion that the Committee would not welcome my amendment with open arms. That was the impression I was gaining; that this was the amendment of the day—the amendment du jour, as they might say in France, although I am not sure they use the word, “amendment”. Better French speakers than me might be able to advise.

Where would I go next? I am between Scylla and Charybdis, between the pressures of Tuesday and Wednesday. I must weigh it up as though I were a judge sitting in court. We are the high court of Parliament. We must examine the pros, the arguments in favour, and the cons, those against. That which pushes me one way towards a Tuesday then pulls me back towards a Wednesday. I am torn in the manner of those ancient punishments when horses were tied to people’s limbs and they were dragged apart. That is the position that we find ourselves in.

What a fine amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North brought forth to the Committee, with such extraordinary brevity. He did so in a way that Gladstone would have thought half-formed, embryonic in the oratory required. Lord Palmerston who spoke on the great issue of Don Pacifico would have thought my hon. Friend had barely scraped the surface of the topic under consideration with an amendment substituting 10 o’clock for 9.25 am, and Tuesday for Wednesday.

Wednesday mornings are perhaps convenient for Bill Committees, because the House does not sit then. However, I find Wednesday afternoons particularly difficult, because the European Scrutiny Committee sits at 2 pm, and it covers a great deal of legislative material that changes our laws and feeds through to become the fundamental law of this country under the European Communities Act 1972. It provides a degree of scrutiny that, compared with the scrutiny that we are giving this Bill, is as nothing. However, laws become laws via European regulations or directives, without any fine discussions on how they should be debated, how they should be looked at and how they should be considered. Instead, they wend their way through, with only the ESC standing between us and that awful state of affairs of being governed by Brussels.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I know how seriously my hon. Friend takes his duties on the ESC. Would he find the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Eltham more attractive if he was accommodated with a manuscript amendment, so that in the afternoon the Committee did not begin at 2 pm but at 4.30 pm?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My right hon. Friend is a genius; I think we all knew that, given his reputation, not only in this House but in the country. That would certainly be a wise manuscript amendment, because if we were to move to 4.30 pm I would be able to attend not only the ESC but the Procedure Committee.

Not everybody finds procedure fascinating, Mr Bone. You will be shocked by that, alert and hawk-like as you are to Standing Orders, sitting there, watching them carefully and ensuring that everything follows the Blue Book, which lays down how we should behave, not to mention that which is set out clearly in “Erskine May”. However, these procedures govern so much of what we do and how we legislate. To miss a Procedure Committee meeting—particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North serves on that Committee too—could allow things to get through and change to happen. Change can be a very dangerous thing unless it is thought through very carefully. If the manuscript amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to move to 4.30 pm were considered and approved, how could I complain? We would be able to begin sittings of this Committee at 4.30 pm.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

My hon. Friend mentions change and, not surprisingly, he seems, by and large, to be against it. If he studied the record of the last 30 years of Parliament, would he not discover that most private Members’ Bills sit in Committee on a Wednesday, and to move them to a Tuesday or Thursday is to make a change?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I recall what a former Liberal Prime Minister said. Lord Palmerston, one of the best Liberal Prime Ministers, if not the only good Liberal Prime Minister that one can call to mind, said:

“Change? Change? Aren’t things bad enough already?”

There has been so much change that the change from Wednesday to Tuesday, or indeed to Thursday, in the grand scheme of things, is almost a continuity, if you follow the logic of that, Mr Bone. Because our sitting hours have been thrown up in the air and have fallen down where they will, the traditions that we have had have become somewhat abeyant, if that is a word. They have lost the force of continuity that they once had and we find that some things have changed, but others have not altered with them, so that we have an incongruity, which means we need to make further adjustments to keep the sense—the coherence—that used to be present.

As they say in the fashion world, some colour is the new black, so I wonder whether Tuesdays are in fact the new Wednesdays, and that if we looked at things in that way the tradition would now be to look at a Tuesday rather than a Wednesday. However, that discussion has slightly distracted me from the joy I was coming on to, which is having a 4.30 pm session on a Wednesday if a manuscript amendment were tabled. Then—what could be finer than this?—we could sit through until about 9.30 the following morning. That would allow time for the proper consideration of the Bill and for speeches to be made that would not be cut off in their prime, so that we would not lose that energy possessed by speeches that provide a full and rounded view of all the matters that need to be discussed by the Committee.

If we began at 4.30 pm on a Wednesday how many hours would that give us? It would give us a whole swathe of time. Even Job would be happy, and no one would be sitting here thinking, “When will it end?” Instead, they would be on the edge of their seats thinking, “Can this go on a bit more? Can we hear more arguments in the time that has been allotted to us?” However, if we were to sit at 2 o’clock instead of 4.30, not only would it make it very difficult for hon. and right hon. Members to be here because of their other Committee duties—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how he reconciles his current remarks with his constant support for programme motions on Government business?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am but a poor Whips’ lackey. I think that programme motions are a great disappointment, but that is how business is now dealt with. That came in before I was elected to Parliament. Therefore, I thought that to make a stand against it would not be so much “Horatius at the Bridge” as “The boy stood on the burning deck”. Members will recall that,

“all but he had fled”.

It was a sad end for the boy on the burning deck; he died. I did not want to put myself in that position. I thought that the boy who stood on the burning deck was noble and heroic, yet ultimately it was a sad heroism that did not work. I thought that, were I to do that as I came into the House and as programme motions had become almost an accepted part of our procedure, I would look—horror of horrors—pedantic.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. We are not having a debate on programme motions, as much as I would like to. We will go back to the subject, Mr Rees-Mogg.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Thank you, Mr Bone. You are quite right that the subject is of great importance. I was referring to my apparent inconsistency in being broadly cautious about change but favouring programme motions. That, of course, is part of how time is allocated. If we sit at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday, rather than 4.30, have we not made time too elastic because, as I said, we could go on all through the night? From 4.30 to 9.30 would be a reasonable and suitable amount of time, in spite of and irrespective of the inconvenience caused to Members because they would not be able to attend their Committees—a point that I made earlier, but that is worth reiterating. That extra two and a half hours really would make all the difference. It would turn us from sprinters into marathon runners, and surely that is not what we want. We need the right amount of time; not too little and not too much. One recalls Goldilocks and her porridge. She did not want it to be too hot or too cold; she wanted it to be just right. I want the time that we allocate to this debate to be just right. We are getting there.

It has been so helpful spending a little time considering the various options so that we can work through what we ought to be doing and how we should be considering it. We have listened to a variety of arguments. On my own motion on Thursdays—why do I choose Thursdays and why have I put forward this amendment? The nub of the matter is that there is the least contentious parliamentary business on that day.

I have a genuine difference of opinion with some other right hon. and hon. Members inasmuch as I think that on days when this House is sitting, it is the duty of Members to be here. That is not to underestimate the importance of constituency work. The House sits for around 35 weeks a year, which leaves 17 weeks in which we can devote ourselves to activities in our constituencies, not to mention 52 weekends—there is a slight double counting in that, but there are 35 weekends when the House is sitting and the Fridays when the House is not sitting. That provides an enormous amount of time to attend to constituency business when the House is not in session. When the House is in session, who would want to be absent? What a strange thing; it is a great honour to be Members of what is, undoubtedly, the greatest Parliament in the world, and surely we want to be here.

One has heard rumours of socialist MPs being sent off to Scotland to campaign on Thursdays when the House is sitting. I was shocked to hear that. Indeed, I think it might conceivably even be a breach of privilege to tell—[Interruption.] Good heavens, I hear, from a sedentary position, that they are even sent there on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays as well. That is shocking. It is a breach of privilege to tell people that they should be away from the House when we are sent here and have a writ that is issued to bring us here.

Indeed, there is a great deal in “Erskine May” about how, in the old days, it was insisted upon that Members had to be present: they had to get leaves of absence. That is a good system. There is too much wandering away from Parliament; we should bring people back on Thursdays to attend the legislative business that we are here for. That is why I have tabled my amendment. We are a legislature, not a grandiloquent talking shop, although some Members may believe otherwise. We are here to scrutinise legislation and decide whether to pass it or not. That requires attendance in this House. This trend for Thursdays to become a second-tier day—a voluntary day, which does not necessarily require people’s presence—worries me. I tend to be here almost without fail on Thursdays.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s speech on his commitment to the House. Could he explain where he was when we debated the Second Reading of this Bill? He did not vote.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I have voted since elected on 95%—or fractionally under, by less than a percentage point—of Divisions. I was away on the day in question because I had to attend a funeral, which I am sorry to say was out of the country. I hope that that was a good enough reason, and that the hon. Gentleman will not criticise me for it. I am always reluctant to miss the House when it is sitting, and do so extremely rarely. It was a funeral of a colleague of mine, which is enough detail for the time being.

I reiterate that one’s job is to be here, and that absences need to be for good reason. The modern trend of thinking of Thursday as a day for campaigning is wrong and should be rebuffed. One of the ways of reversing it is to ensure that people are called here for Committee, because there is a great pressure and incentive to be here. The turnout on this Committee is splendid; it is encouraging that there is so much enthusiasm for attending legislative Committees. I am particularly impressed by the turnout on the Opposition Benches. We had a European Scrutiny Committee yesterday at which only two or three Opposition Members were present, so attendance is declining. Yet here, on a proper legislative issue, we see a very good turnout: that is to be encouraged. If it were on a Thursday we would begin to re-establish that right-standing position of the House as the centre of the nation’s political life which, when it is sitting, Members have an urge to attend because they feel that anything else is a distraction. We come back to Job and his ruminations on time when misfortune had befallen him—

Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)

My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive speech about the importance of Thursday. He had just got to the commitment of time and the pull it has upon us. While I have great sympathy with his argument, I also feel that I need to balance my time in the House with time with my constituents, to communicate the important activities that go on here. I know that he has been asked this previously, but if his amendment were not approved, which of the others would he support?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My hon. Friend’s intervention is almost perfectly timed, because as I have been talking, I have been thinking. That is one of the great things about multi-tasking: can people in this House talk and think at the same time? At times it might seem that that is not so. Some people seem to talk without any thinking before, during or afterwards; but on this happy occasion I have been both talking and thinking and giving due consideration to the many balancing factors there are and the hard decision that must be made. I have found that ultimately I must turn my face against Wednesdays and I do so with sorrow, because of the risk that it might be seen as a change, a modernisation, a move towards socialism. It is not: I do it because I feel that the manuscript amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to move to 4.30 may not get the approval of the Chairman or the support of the Committee. Therefore, to go with that would be taking a risk or a gamble. It would be like betting on the horses and I have never been a gambler. I am one of those boring Johnnies who prefers safety first, along with Stanley Baldwin. That was a very good election slogan, which I am thinking of using in the next few months.

The risk is that we should be caught up at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday when the European Scrutiny Committee has its work to attend to. We have a great avalanche of legislation coming from our friends in Brussels with just us—the St Bernards of the legislative system, with our little bottles of brandy round our necks—to try and rescue British sovereignty from the perils of Brussels. I would miss that if we were to meet at 2 o’clock on a Wednesday. Had the hon. Member for Eltham tabled a motion for half past 4, I should have been like a lamb in springtime in my support of it. I should have been gambolling around the room in joy if he had tabled that, but alas he did not. He did not take us down that happy route. Therefore, the risk that I would take is too great. It would not well serve my constituents, who I know are concerned about what is going on in Europe, want to ensure that it is kept in order, is kept down, and that we are able to scrutinise it properly and send reports to Ministers for proper debate and scrutiny. That 2 o’clock time is therefore precious and that moves me against Wednesday.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Can he tell the Committee whether he is aware of any support in this room for amendment (c)? Will he reflect further on this matter and hopefully settle on my amendment (b)?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My right hon. Friend’s powers of persuasion are so remarkable that in those few words, those fine words plucked from the dictionary, words that Dr Johnson himself must have described when he put together that great dictionary of us, a work that took him 10 years—and I believe that 100 Frenchman could not do in 150 years, for a dictionary of their own language—those few words have persuaded me. After due consideration and thought on his impassioned oratory, I have decided not to press my amendment, but will support the amendment that we sit at 9.25 am on a Tuesday.

Daniel Poulter (Conservative, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I will be brief for the sake of the Committee. We have had a very informative debate on the sittings motion and have learned a lot about parliamentary protocol. I am sure we are all very grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for that debate. We talked about whether we should sit on a Tuesday morning, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays or at weekends. On this side of the Committee a general consensus has been reached, balancing the need for hon. Members to attend other Committees, including the important European Scrutiny Committee, and to return to their constituencies in a prompt manner. Amendment (b) tabled in the names of my right hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire, for Chelmsford and for North East Hampshire is the amendment which achieves the right balance, noting of course the very important points of information and the replies that were given about the potential for extended sittings as may be appropriate.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I will be very brief because we have had a very extensive debate on how long we should sit to debate the Bill. All of the amendments tabled to my sitting motion would curtail the debate because they would cut out afternoon sittings and the freedom of the Committee to sit longer if it felt that it was necessary in order to make progress. We would be guillotined at 11.25 am in all of these amendments, save the one that bizarrely suggests that we should meet at 12 noon.

We have now spent more than three and a half hours debating how long and when we should debate the Bill, rather than getting on with dealing with the Bill. We have heard nothing substantial from the hon. Members opposite. All I point out is that if we were to go for any of these amendments we would lose the opportunity to sit in the afternoon and make progress on the Bill. We would require a majority of this Committee in order to amend a sittings motion that limited us to just morning sittings, if we wanted to amend the motion so that we could sit in the afternoon.

Quite frankly, the performance of the Members of the majority party opposite has shown that they would not be sympathetic to such a motion and we would not get a majority, so the status quo would apply. That would mean that we would be limited to morning sittings only, particularly if we were to go for amendment (b). Nothing that has been said in this debate has convinced me to accept any of the amendments. I reject all the amendments and will stick with my original sittings motion.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Further to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Eltham, I simply say that I came to this part of the debate in Committee on the sittings motion with the intention of supporting amendment (b), that we sit on a Tuesday. That is simply from the point of view of my own diary. To be selfish about it, that would be more convenient than sitting on a Wednesday. I have been persuaded against that simply by the length of the contributions made by the hon. Member for Bury North in particular and by the hon. Member for North East Somerset. To take three and a half hours to get to this point is reprehensible.

The fact is that this was really an opportunity to judge whether hon. Members on the Conservative Benches had the responsibility and the maturity to engage in this debate in a proper manner. They have failed that test in the past three and a half hours. I fully intended to support amendment (b), but I regret to say that the antics of the hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have strongly persuaded me to support the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Eltham.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I would like to confirm that. I have had some discussions with the hon. Member for St Ives about the amendments, and he has consistently told me that he intended to support amendment (b). I hope that this is a lesson to the Conservative members of the Committee: they have actually lost this vote because of their appalling behaviour.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I think we can allow that comment to stand. If I may, I will finish with a point of order or a question to you, Mr Chairman. Is there a possibility of now introducing a manuscript amendment to amendment (b) that would enable us to sit on a Tuesday afternoon? That would give us what we clearly need in order for the Bill to proceed and to be given proper scrutiny, rather than simply an opportunity to talk it out by filibustering. If it were possible now to introduce a manuscript amendment to amendment (b) that would enable us to sit this afternoon if necessary, and certainly on future Tuesday afternoons, in order to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves, then I might be persuaded to support amendment (b). I would only support amendment (b) if it were possible to introduce that amendment to it before we proceed any further. If that is not possible, then I shall support the motion before us today.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Mr Nuttall, do you wish to move your amendment to a vote or speak to it?

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

I have listened carefully to what all members of the Committee have said. The points I made were valid. I responded to a number of interventions, and I point out to the hon. Member for St Ives that you, Mr Bone, have made it clear that if either amendment (a) or amendment (b) were adopted today, it would be perfectly possible for either the hon. Member for St Ives or any other member of the Committee to table an amendment at any time to the sittings hours motion. I suggest that that is the correct way to proceed.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

To emphasise the point that my hon. Friend makes, is it not the case that if the hon. Member for St Ives wants to sit on Tuesday afternoons, he could table a sittings motion later today which it would be in order for us to debate here and to approve at our very next sitting?

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

That certainly would be one way forward, Mr Bone. This issue of Tuesday afternoons was not raised previously and it is important to note that there is no amendment before us that includes sitting on Tuesday afternoons. It would have been perfectly possible for anybody who felt so strongly about it to table one. We have heard that it would be possible to do that in the future. I therefore commend amendment (a) to the Committee.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I need advice as to whether it is possible now to introduce a manuscript amendment to amendment (b) such that we will have a vote on amendment (b) with an addendum enabling this Committee to sit on Tuesday afternoons. I would propose a 2.30 pm sitting time for Tuesday afternoons. Could we do that now? My fear is that by leaving it to a later date—indeed, until next Tuesday—that would be too late. It would not give this Committee sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly in time for a Friday sitting.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which probably actually was a point of order. The situation is, as he rightly says, that he can move, without notice, any amendment he wishes relating to this, but we will have to dispose of amendment (a) first. Of course, if amendment (a) is carried, the other amendments fall.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. May I propose that, in amendment (b), after the words “at 9.25am”, we insert the words “and 2.30pm”, and that we give the Committee the opportunity to divide on that amendment to amendment (b)?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. Could the hon. Gentleman clarify what he is proposing? Is he proposing that we start sitting on Tuesday afternoons from today or from our next sitting?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. I propose to to read the motion back with the proposed amendments to make sure every Member knows what we are talking about, and then we will debate it.

Amendment (b) would now read, ‘leave out from “meet” to end and insert “at 9.25am and 2.30pm on the following days”’, and those days are as on the amendment paper. The whole motion would read: “That the National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill Committee do meet at 9.25am and 2.30pm on the following days”, and it then lists the Tuesdays, from (a) to (d).

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. So that there is absolutely no doubt, will you clarify whether this manuscript amendment, if approved by the Committee, would bite with effect from today, meaning that we would, with very little notice, be sitting this afternoon? [Hon. Members: “That is what it says.”] I am asking him to confirm that.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. You are entirely correct, Sir Greg. The situation now is that we will commence the debate on Andrew George’s amendment. I will ask him to speak first. Then, other Members can contribute. If the amendment to amendment (b) is carried, that will be the end of the matter.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. May I also propose a manuscript amendment to amendment (b), in addition to the manuscript amendment from the hon. Member for St Ives proposing that the Committee sit in the afternoons at 2.30 pm? I propose that we also have a manuscript amendment saying that the Committee finishes at 6 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It would be perfectly possible for him to do that.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. May I seek your guidance on how? I assume that, in proposing it, it would be a manuscript amendment.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I think the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that if he wants to make a point of order and propose that, I will accept it.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. May I formally propose that there is a manuscript amendment? If amendment (b) is accepted with the manuscript amendment of the hon. Member for St Ives proposing that the Committee sit at 2.30 pm on a Tuesday afternoon, my amendment would be that the Committee should finish at 6 pm on a Tuesday afternoon.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that is clear to the Committee. We will debate both manuscript amendments together, and then we will vote on Mr Burns’s amendment first. If that fails, we will vote on Mr George’s amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I am trying to clarify exactly what the amendments are saying.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. You will be able to do that in the debate.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move a manuscript amendment to amendment (b), after the word “9.25 am”, insert “and 2.30 pm”.

I am grateful to you, Mr Bone. I intend to be very brief. As I have already said, it is clear that we need sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill, to which a large number of amendments have been tabled. The Bill and all the issues in it have been thoroughly debated by the House on many occasions, even before Second Reading. We must ensure that we give the hon. Member for Eltham sufficient time to allow his Bill to proceed to Report and Third Reading.

In my view, the Bill needs amending, and we must have time to enable that to happen so that it can be reported to the House. We need to take this matter seriously, and I fear that that is not the climate in which the Committee has proceeded thus far. Therefore, allowing sufficient time for afternoon sittings will help to concentrate Committee members’ minds. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, time is extremely precious, and we need to recognise that there are consequences to the time that we allocate. I therefore strongly recommend that the Committee accepts my amendment on sitting on Tuesday afternoons.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I neglected to say earlier that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bone. I am very impressed with the way in which you are conducting these proceedings. It is obviously challenging for the Chair.

I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for St Ives has approached the Bill. Clearly, he has concerns about sittings on Wednesday afternoons, and he has been frank and had discussions with me. He is seeking a way forward so that he can play a full and active part in these proceedings, and I would like to accommodate him as much as I can. My colleagues and I are minded to support his manuscript amendment on afternoon sittings.

We have been discussing the amount of time that we are going to allocate to discussing the Bill for nearly four hours, which is an absolute disgrace. The hon. Member for Bury North spoke for nearly three hours and took about 90 interventions in that time, nearly 40 of which were from the hon. Member for North East Somerset. We have been subjected to the most incredible filibustering.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman has spoken far too much.

The hon. Member for St Ives is absolutely right that we need to make time in the afternoons for discussing the Bill. Hon. Members have made eloquent speeches about how much time they like to commit to the proceedings of this House, but they have been speaking in favour of motions that would curtail the amount of time we would have to discuss the Bill. The manuscript amendment of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford says that we should cut off at 6 pm, regardless of how much progress we have made.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I really am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think there might be some confusion. I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford will be able to move his amendment, on the basis that you cannot curtail an afternoon sitting. It will not be in order, so we will not have to deal with that problem.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

On a point of order, Mr Bone.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I have a choice. I call Mr Burns.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am very grateful, Mr Bone. May I seek guidance in light of your ruling? As one is not able to move a manuscript amendment that curtails debate while the House is sitting, if I changed my manuscript amendment to “half-past 7,” when the House rises on a Tuesday, would that be caught by your ruling, or is it exempt?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The situation is quite clear, but I will give an example. If we sit this afternoon and are still discussing the business before us, the sitting will continue after the House rises, so we could be here continuing our discussions at 3 am, if that is the wish of the Committee—the Committee does not get shut down. The only way that the Committee can be shut down this afternoon is if the majority supports a motion to adjourn.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. The sittings motion says:

“2.00pm when the House is sitting.”

Does that mean when the main Chamber is actually in session, or does it mean on days when the House has been sitting?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

The sittings motion indicates the days when the House is sitting, not the timing of those sittings.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Is it the case that this Committee, which ought normally to be in charge of its own proceedings, is unable to take a decision that it will sit, say, this afternoon between the hours of 2.30 pm and 6 pm? It would be a bit odd if we were incapable of doing that.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Perhaps I have not made it clear. It is entirely the Committee that will decide its hours. If the Committee wishes to adjourn for the day at 6.30 pm, that is exactly what happens—a motion will be proposed, the Committee will vote and, if there is a majority, the Committee will adjourn. That is the procedure. You cannot programme the afternoon sitting of a Committee. You cannot say that a Committee shuts down at a particular time.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I am minded to accept amendment (b), as amended by the manuscript amendment moved by the hon. Member for St Ives.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I will be brief because, as you and the Committee are aware, Mr Bone, I suggested a manuscript amendment to define the amount of time that the Committee will sit during an afternoon sitting. You have cogently and coherently explained to us that that is not possible, which means that it would be irrelevant if I were to persist in pursuing my manuscript amendment, so, in order not to waste the Committee’s time, I will not do so.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I appreciate the support of the hon. Member for Eltham for my manuscript amendment. We know the origin of this proposal, which was a significant own goal by Conservative Back Benchers. I reassure the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, who proposed a 6 pm finish time, that in light of the Chair’s advice in relation to moving a motion to finish at any time of the Committee’s choosing, such a motion would clearly address that matter. There is therefore no need for a further amendment to define a guillotine time at the end of a sitting day.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Amendment (b) is now in a form that I did not table or envisage being asked to support. Can you tell me whether, as I moved it earlier, the amendment is now the property of the Committee? If it is, I would prefer someone else to move it because it is not what I was urging on the Committee.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is entitled not to move the amendment. Does anyone else wish to?

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I will, Mr Bone.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I wonder if yesterday’s answer to my question given by the Secretary of State for Health has been brought to your attention. It sets out some of the costs associated with the Bill. Would it be possible to review that in light of the absence of a money resolution, as specific costs have now been identified for a number of parts of the Bill? Under the normal proceedings of the House, it will not be possible to put those clauses to the Committee. Is the Chairman at this stage in a position to rule on that or looking into it with the advice of the Clerks, because it does not affect clause 1?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point of order. The House authorities will undoubtedly look at that matter and refer back to us as the Committee progresses.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Will you please be a little more specific on when the House authorities will report back to us? My understanding is that if a Committee considers a Bill that should have a money resolution but does not, the House has the power to refer the Bill back to that Committee at a later stage. I would hate it if we were to scrutinise the Bill in detail and report to the House, only to find at a later date that we had to start our proceedings all over again.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that helpful point of order. I am sure the matter will be looked at urgently.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. May I ask your guidance on your selection of amendments and the order of debate? Although your selection is of course, ipso facto, correct and right, I see that under clause 2 we will discuss clause 5 stand part, but later in the order of consideration we come to clause 5, to which it is possible that amendments may be tabled. How can we debate under clause 2 the issue of clause 5 stand part when we will not at that stage know whether clause 5 will be amended at a later stage?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, but I do not see anything disorderly or wrong in the selection.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. I raised the point because when discussing clause 5 stand part under clause 2, we will not know what it is we are discussing should stand part of the Bill; if we amend clause 5 to say that the mayor of Canterbury has turned green—to take an example at random—we will have discussed clause 5 stand part without being aware of the involvement of the mayor of Canterbury. I think that would be a mistake.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I do not wish to get into a debate with the right hon. Gentleman on the substance, but the situation is quite clear. If an amendment is tabled, it will have to be discussed.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. Would we then be able to have a reprise—under your discretion—of whether clause 5 should stand part of the Bill?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I am entirely sure that that would be possible.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Will you clarify something about the grouping of amendments to clause 1? If I am looking at the selection correctly—and I stand to be corrected—amendments 50, 51 and 52, which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, are grouped under clause 1, but they appear to relate to clause 2. Am I reading things right?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The groupings are as have been selected. I hope he is not challenging the Chairs.

If there are no further points of order, we come to discussion of the Bill itself.

Clause 1 - Duty on the Secretary of State to promote comprehensive health service based on social solidarity

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end add

“as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England and without any additional regulatory burden.”

Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end add—

“(c) nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda, nor to discriminate against specific foodstuffs, nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry;”.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 8.

Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “general economic interest” and insert

“that ensures value for money”.

Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Amendment 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end add

“subject to consultation with relevant local government bodies”.

Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end add

“or is a charge made to a person who is not entitled to free care by virtue of his immigration status.”

Amendment 50, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Amendment 51, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “mutual cooperation”.

Amendment 52, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Thank you for your wise selection of amendments, Mr Bone; it includes a fair number of mine, which I have tabled to help the Bill along its way—how nice it is that we are now doing so.

I have quoted before what Disraeli said in his speech at the Manchester free trade hall in 1872:

“sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas…the first consideration of a minister should be the health of the people.”

As always, it is good to see the Conservatives putting their principles into action by giving due consideration to Bills relating to health. Amending them can ensure that they have achieved their main objective, because health has been a Conservative subject since 1872—before the foundation of the Labour Party—so we have a very good record on this issue.

The amendments that I have proposed encompass a number of different points. First, I thought it behoved us—it was our duty—to remove what one might call politically correct gobbledegook—the sort of phraseology that is so popular in the Left that they look to put fine-sounding baubles into Bills, as if they were a Christmas tree, and make them sound as if they were about motherhood and apple pie and those sorts of things, with which one could not disagree but which have very little legislative effect. How would one legislate that everyone should like apple pie, perhaps with or without custard? That is why I come to the removal of social solidarity.

It is of course a good thing that society should be united and that we are all in it together, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so wisely put it on many occasions. How true that is: we are all in it together. But how possible is it to legislate for this togetherness, this sense of community? A sense of community builds up through the ages: it is a commonality of feeling that comes from a shared history and experience, a shared society.

There was a wonderful exhibition in this House last Thursday in which the four surviving original copies of Magna Carta were brought together. That is what brings us our social solidarity, our feeling that as the people of the United Kingdom came together, we had a sense of being one people and because of that took on great enterprises. We established our freedoms and spread them around the world. Because of this sense of social solidarity we built a great empire and fought world wars; we defeated Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. It is indisputably important and held dear. But in a sense the theory of it is not an issue that you can pass into legislation: you cannot say that the hon. Member for Eltham and I must share social solidarity. I happen to think that he is a very good egg; that is my private opinion. However, we have many differences of opinion and approach and represent very different communities, so although we have a social solidarity in the broadest sense as Members of Parliament and as Britons, do we have a social solidarity that can be legislated for—can an ardent socialist and a die-hard Tory have social solidarity by rule of law? I do not think so; it is something that evolves and develops.

I appreciate that I may be at risk of reducing our social solidarity the more I make amendments to the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and I regret doing so, but that is part of legislative scrutiny. I am generally against putting things into Bills that are not actually legislative. What if this Bill comes before the courts? What is a judge—learned in the law, bewigged, berobed, sitting on a fine plinth looking down on his courtroom—supposed to say? An action is brought before him to say that there is not sufficient social solidarity. How is this learned judge able to interpret that and give it action? Can he send a police officer out to arrest somebody for not being socially solid? What do we mean by being socially solid—is this about people suffering from obesity, which is a problem that affects the health service, or is it merely something intellectual, theoretical, ethereal and difficult to pin down and make actionable?

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a powerful speech. Does he think that it would be helpful if some detailed explanation and guidance was given on the face of the Bill about what “social solidarity” means?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

That is a very good point. It is often useful to set out in a Bill what is meant by the terminology used. In Bills of old, when Parliament first met—it is wonderful to go to the Victoria Tower and see some of those historic rolls of the Bills that Parliament passed—there was a magnificent clarity of language. Our legislators spoke firmly as to what they meant. They did not haver around the issue or use words in the Humpty-Dumpty sense with which we have become familiar in modern politics. The whole concept of spin was alien to our forefathers in Parliament.

When thinking of pithy Bills of the past, I think of the Act against appeals, which was only, sadly, repealed in the late 1960s. It prevented anyone from this country from going to a foreign court outside these shores, the penalty for doing so being treason. It is a great pity that that Act did not remain on the statute book because it would solve a lot of our European problems today if it were still there. That legislation was clear, well-written and obvious in its intent. I am sorry to say that it was deadly in its effect because it hit some of my co-religionists; but, leaving that aside, the language used was precise.

We live in an age of woolly language and spin. To avoid that in legislation, it is wise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North so sensibly says, to have notes at the end to say, “This is what we mean,” so that people can understand the terminology and what it means in legislation. Wishy-washy, vague and nice-sounding terms are difficult to enforce in law.

As the legislation goes through the courts—the lower courts, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court—people will look at the phraseology and look at “social solidarity” without the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who would have set out with clarity, had it been his Bill, what the term meant. Instead, the decision has to be made by a judge. That upsets the fundamental principles of democracy that we hold so dear, because instead of having law made by our legislators, our law is developed and evolved by our judges. I thought that this country had the most glorious constitution, and in that sense, perhaps, I am too much of a Whig; but then some Whigs saw the light and became Tories in the end.

There is a feeling that our constitution is a beautiful, pure thing that works but that it has been distorted in recent years. The balance that existed between Commons, Lords and judges has got out of kilter. Judges have been taking increasing power from the legislature because we pass laws that use language vaguely and imprecisely. Therefore, judges have to step in. It is not that judges are sitting in their Inns of Court eating fine dinners, and saying, as they skewer a morsel of lamb, “How do we skewer the legislature too?” but that we ask them to consider that which ought not to be within their bailiwick. We ask them, by passing imprecise laws, to evolve the law because we do not have the clear statements of meaning that are necessary for precise law.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

My hon. Friend is a respected member of the Procedure Committee, which decided that it would enable Members to give an explanatory memorandum to amendments that were moved at certain stages. Has he done so for his amendments, because I certainly have not been circulated a copy? Therefore, should he not do as he preaches on this matter?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It is a terrible lacuna in my own proceedings that I have failed to put down detailed explanations of what I am trying to do or what I have failed to do. I ask the Committee’s forgiveness and forbearance, but I had hoped that the clarity of language that I was inserting into the Bill would almost be self-evident. I hoped that, given the wisdom assembled in this room—as I look around it I see some of the wisest people, not only in this Parliament but in all Parliaments—Committee members would immediately have gathered the sense of what I meant. As I explained it in Committee, they would find that it all became clear. If they had any doubts or wanted me to make any further explanations, they would be able to intervene. Although I recognise that I have not on this occasion followed the good, helpful suggestion of the Procedure Committee, I think that my sin of omission—as it clearly is—does not necessarily require a confessional.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. At this stage in his speech—to which I am listening with fascination—I should declare an interest. My wife is a judge, and might therefore be called upon to consider this issue. How does my hon. Friend think that the clarity of the Bill would be improved if one removed the word “social” from the phrase “social solidarity”? I always think that tends to help with an understanding of the phrase used.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point, and I am fascinated by the fact that his wife is a judge. This really does come to the heart of the matter that we, in this Committee, are looking at in microcosm. Who should make our laws? Should it be my right hon. Friend or should it be his learned wife? It is my view that he should make the laws and his learned wife should then interpret them. I hope that that is how the Arbuthnot family operates. That seems to me to be a very good model for family life, because it ensures that one’s wife has the ultimate authority. I think that is probably true for most of the gentlemen in this House, if not necessarily for the ladies, obviously.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about removing the word “social”, we would then just have “solidarity”. It would be based on solidarity. This was, of course, the name of the trade union in Poland, I seem to remember. It was one of the very few trade unions of which I have been an admirer, because it was in favour of freedom rather than obstructionism. If one just said “a health service based on solidarity”, what it meant would be very unclear—just as unclear as “social solidarity”. What is solidarity? What are we trying to get at in saying that? Surely it is obvious that if a health service is free at the point of use—which the Conservatives are deeply committed to and have been for a very long time—surely it will treat everybody fairly. That is the whole point of it: everybody has an equal right to use it.

My amendment would replace “social solidarity” where it occurs throughout the Bill with the term “medical necessity”, because I like precision and facts. No doubt the Committee will remember the great Ronald Reagan giving a speech at the Republican convention in which he said, “Facts are stubborn things”. Facts are stubborn things, and they are justiciable and understandable and interpretable, whereas spin is not. I take my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that the term “social solidarity” should be changed to merely “solidarity”, but I reject it because it does not actually tell us anything. It sounds very nice; it sounds good and kind and cuddly, but to use a time-honoured phrase, it butters no parsnips. I am very keen that when we legislate, as far as possible parsnips should be buttered, rather than simply having fine words.

Looking again at social solidarity and how we are trying to get there and how unsuited it is to legislation, in October of this great year of anniversaries we have the 600th anniversary of our great victory at Agincourt. There we see social solidarity in those words of Henry V about those who were not there, who were “a-bed”, who “shall think themselves accursed” not to have been at Agincourt on St Crispin’s day. That is social solidarity. That is something created by people following a common enterprise. That is a band of brothers coalescing to ensure that what they are trying to do is in the interests of the nation and pushing forward to ensure that the best interests of the people are served.

However, after Agincourt—or probably before from Crécy onwards—legislation was on the statute book saying that there must be archery practice at very regular occasions subject to penalties, in order to create the social solidarity that the hon. Member for Eltham wishes to put in his Bill. It consistently failed to work. Without that great feeling of common enterprise, legislation could not enforce that which was not in the hearts of the people. The hearts of the people already support the national health service and therefore to say that it needs to be on the basis of social solidarity seems to me otiose, but also bad law. Think on our friends of Agincourt and their great enterprise.

Stephen Metcalfe (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock)

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s very informative and enlightening speech. This concept of social solidarity was expanded on by Emile Durkheim, but in my reading of what he said, it seems a slightly woolly concept. It is more ethereal than something that could be referred to in a court of law. That is why I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point and would support his amendments.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and support. I look forward to his speech on this subject, which will be more philosophical than mine. He gets to the heart of the issue. It is not a concrete concept and cannot be enforced on people by law, but comes about through the nature of things. I mentioned Agincourt, one of our great anniversaries. We also have the anniversary of Waterloo on 18 June. There is a French historian who is trying to maintain that Napoleon won. For the record, he did not. Wellington did, with the help of Blücher, who came a bit late but better later than never. That, once again, created social solidarity. The Iron Duke, Wellington, said all those rude things about his own troops—how they might not frighten the enemy,

“but, by God, they frighten me”—

yet when he was there ahead of them, leading, he inspired them with a sense of social solidarity.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Just for the record of historic facts, the army that defeated Napoleon was a precursor to the European Union because the vast majority were Europeans, not British.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am inordinately privileged to have had the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I look at it another way. It has been in our nature as a nation to have allies, but Napoleon is the precursor of the European Union in trying to enforce order without democratic support. Napoleon is the model for the EU, where we, with Blücher and so on, are the model for a Europe of nation states.

I fear, Mr Chairman, that in your hawklike attention to detail, if I stray too much on to this subject, I may be threatened with the horrors of Standing Order No. 42 as implemented in Committee by Standing Orders—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is nowhere near Standing Order No. 42 yet.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I remain privileged and grateful for the wisdom of the Chairman. I want to come back to matters at hand, such as that spirit of social solidarity that there was at Waterloo and the commonality that they felt in their hearts that inspired them to do more. To be fair, that was true of the enemy as well. As an aside, it is worth remembering that in Crimea, Lord Raglan kept referring to the enemy as the French when by that stage they were our allies.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. The Committee stands adjourned till half past 2 this afternoon in Room 12. I wish I could say that was because the House authorities had taken note of what was said this morning, but I fear it is because we were not expecting to sit this afternoon.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Before we resume our consideration of the amendments to clause 1, it might be helpful if I report the reassurance that I have received from the Public Bill Office that our proceedings are not at risk and the Bill does not require the support of a money resolution. In addition, I have notified the House, as there is no specific time at which we must adjourn today—that is at the discretion of the Committee—that we may be sitting through the night.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end add

“as far as is compatible with the liberties of the people of England and without any additional regulatory burden.”

Amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end add—

“(c) nothing in this section shall be interpreted as entitling or requiring the Secretary of State to direct people in their personal conduct, nor provide unsolicited advice on diet or behaviour, nor to spend public funds on propaganda, nor to discriminate against specific foodstuffs, nor detrimentally to affect any lawful industry;”.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 8.

Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “general economic interest” and insert

“that ensures value for money”.

Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Amendment 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end add

“subject to consultation with relevant local government bodies.”

Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end add

“or is a charge made to a person who is not entitled to free care by virtue of his immigration status.”

Amendment 50, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Amendment 51, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “mutual cooperation”.

Amendment 52, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “social solidarity” and insert “medical necessity”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Mr Bone, what joy you bring into our lives with your announcement that we may be here all night! I have been looking forward to this ever since I was elected to Parliament. We can model ourselves on the late Charles Stewart Parnell, who knew how to keep things going properly. None of that namby-pamby finishing at 7 o’clock and going to the theatre—we will show what proper parliamentarians are about.

I thought that, before resuming my comments—I think that I had just got to considering the social solidarity that Bonaparte experienced and exhibited to his soldiers—I might tell the Committee that, in preparation for this effort, I made sure that I ate fish for lunch, because as members of the Committee will know, fish is very good for the brain, and to have one’s brain functioning as fluidly and effectively as possible when debating these important topics is of the highest importance.

Let me talk about Bonaparte, because I have given credit to the Duke of Wellington, the Iron Duke, a former Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, who created a great deal of social solidarity with his troops when he went into battle at Waterloo. I am thinking of the formation of the square that made it so difficult for the enemy to attack—that coming together of a body of men in social solidarity to ensure that they could not be defeated.

It was well known that Bonaparte’s troops came together in a most effective way because of the feeling of solidarity that he, a self-proclaimed emperor, created among the forces at his disposal. It was said that his leadership was worth having an extra division in a battle. He was that effective a leader, although, it has to be said, a most awful man. None the less, awful though he was, evil though he was and tyrannical though he was, he could inspire his people and his soldiers, through social solidarity, to come together as a body to be more effective in their battles than they would otherwise have been. He showed that in so many of his battles, including the famous battle of Austerlitz, which of course he wins against the Austrians. Indeed, even when he returns from Elba—“Able was I ere I left Elba”. Many members of the Committee may be familiar with the palindrome.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

I think it is “I saw Elba”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am so grateful for the correction from my right hon. Friend. Bonaparte left and created social solidarity with the people of France—liberty, fraternity and egality, which they were so keen on as long as Napoleon was emperor, but that is an aside. He created the social solidarity that made him a force to be reckoned with, until he came across the greater social solidarity expressed by the Iron Duke in the form of the square at Waterloo that made it so difficult for Napoleon to win and, indeed, led to his defeat and his exile on St Helena, where he spent the last few years of his life—perhaps he was poisoned with arsenic, or perhaps not. At the heart of it is social solidarity, but how do we legislate for that? How do we legislate for a Bonaparte, of all things? How do we say that we must have this in the national health service—that we must have this model dictator put into our legislation and then made justiciable?

Of course, it is more than that. I have given examples from Agincourt and Waterloo, but social solidarity is not an ancient habit. It is unquestionably more up to date than the 15th and 19th centuries. If one looks back only 100 years, which is a mere bagatelle in these terms, the first world war is a great example of social solidarity. I am thinking of the troops who came from communities, from villages, from towns, who formed together. They did that before conscription came in: they did not need the state to bring together their social solidarity. They needed to do it because it was in their hearts, as I know it is in the heart of the hon. Member for Eltham.

Social solidarity is not a matter of legislation; it is a matter of feeling, of inner sense, and we have seen it throughout our history. Another example is the battle of Britain, when we had social solidarity in the air. It did not need necessarily to be on the ground. The few who fought the battle of Britain, to whom we owe so much, had a solidarity not just with each other but with the nation as a whole. They had the same coming together, the same spirit, that allowed the nation to stand up against the greatest threat and terror that it had ever faced in its long history. As Winston Churchill said, whose death 50 years ago we commemorate,

“if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour’”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

It was a very fine example of a coming together of a people with guidance, unquestionably with leadership, with social solidarity, but not a social solidarity that could be legislated for.

That is why I have tabled an amendment against social solidarity. I think that we have it. It is an inner sense. It is not a sense one can put into law.

It occurred to me that it is worth looking at the question of social solidarity in its broader context so that the Committee may come to a fuller understanding of what the term means. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, who is no longer in his place but who will, no doubt, be here in a matter of moments, raised a philosophical point while I was speaking before the lunch interval. It is noticeable that in the Commons we take a longer lunch interval than they do at Lord’s—I mean Lord’s, not the House of Lords. Before the lunch interval, he made a deeply philosophical point about social solidarity. I thought, therefore, that it was worth examining how social solidarity fits in to the teaching of the Catholic Church, because this must be at the heart of what the hon. Member for Eltham is trying to get at.

Let us start with Boniface VIII and his papal bull, “Unam sanctam”, which sets out a very high level of claim for the authority of the Church in relation to social solidarity and how much its spiritual rights trump those of the temporal authorities. The more modern interpretation of social solidarity really starts with Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, “Rerum novarum”. That sets out the social solidarity between peoples of different types and how they should work together. It is, I am glad to say, a document that is very against socialism; he thought that socialism was extremely dangerous. It says, in relation to social solidarity, that it was the primary purpose of the state to provide for the common good, that all people have equal dignity, regardless of social class and that a good Government protects the rights and cares for the needs of all its members, both rich and poor. It carries on:

“As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal”.

This is at the heart of social solidarity.

“The members”

of various classes

“are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth...Therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of”

all classes,

“otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due”.

Leo XIII also pointed out that everyone is in some way a contributor to social solidarity. Some are leaders and thus more conspicuous. Others are less visible and may seem, individually at least, to contribute less, but everyone’s contribution is important.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

My hon. Friend is using the words “social solidarity” as though those were the words used in the document. Is he able to tell the Committee when social solidarity as a concept was first brought into being and when it was first used?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful for that intervention. I will have to leave the history of the term “social solidarity” to my right hon. Friend to elaborate on. I do not know the first occasion of it being used, but I do know that it is an important underpinning of the modern social teaching of the Catholic Church and must therefore be relevant to the clause under consideration, because we are trying to work out what social solidarity means. I tabled an amendment to take it out, but I do not want to do that if it turns out that it means something that is useful to the Bill and that would be helpful and ensure that the country were better governed. By the description that I am able to give to it, and by the understanding that we are elucidating through this debate, we may understand that it is not a concept that we ought to have in the legislation. [ Interruption. ]

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. I remind the Minister that he is not allowed to pass notes to his officials.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Thank you, Mr Bone. I was momentarily worried when you stood up that there may be some other point of order that you were going to raise—perhaps a concern that the Order Paper mentions that the Committee would meet at 2 o’clock, before we had decided—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. I am afraid that was an error. It should not have said that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am extremely grateful, Mr Bone, for your characteristic clarity of thought. It is of great assistance to all of us on the Committee who labour to improve the legislation of the House of Commons.

Social solidarity is a concept that comes from the Catholic Church, initially from “Rerum novarum”, but is developed further. It carries on and becomes important in later encyclicals. On the 40th anniversary of “Rerum novarum”, Pius XI developed it in “Quadragesimo anno”, in which he talks of the social order and the social solidarity that comes from that. He says that, because industrialisation resulted in less freedom at the individual and communal level, because numerous free social entities got absorbed by larger ones, a society of individuals became a mass and class society. This was a matter of concern to him. He felt that this was making things harder and that we needed to see greater solidarity and subsidiarity than are present in capitalism, so it is quite interesting.

“Quadragesimo anno” is moving in a more socialist direction than “Rerum novarum” in its elucidating of social solidarity. This, as a non-socialist, gives me a degree of concern about the trend in the Church to which I am pleased to belong and view myself as an obedient and loyal servant. Fortunately—I thought this might be helpful background—such teachings, although important, do not meet the qualification for infallibility laid down by the first Vatican Council. Although they are worth taking into account, they do not have that fundamental authority that an ex cathedra statement would have.

So we see this development in the idea of social solidarity moving in a socialist direction and away from the rather greater clarity that one has with Leo XIII, who is a believer in property rights and thinks that socialism is a particularly dangerous form of political belief, a view which I must confess I share, so I am perhaps a Leo XIII style papist, rather than a Pius XI one. To be perfectly honest, I am more Pius XI. He was nicknamed Pio No No because he said, “No, no” to everything, which is a view that I think could often be well applied to ambitious legislation that tries to upset the Government’s programme.

If we come back to the Church’s teaching on solidarity, away from Pio No No, where does it come from? What is the origin of this idea? It has a very biblical instruction. This may refer to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Although the term is not used, it is drawn from St Luke’s gospel: do to others as you would have them do to you. That is the basis of social solidarity and understanding—going back to Genesis—that we are our brother’s keeper to some extent. We must have a consideration for those who are within society but are not immediately connected to us.

It has been said that solidarity is one of the most embracing of the central teachings of the Church. It essentially means—and I am very pleased by this—that we are all in it together. Is it not interesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing little more than quoting St Luke’s gospel when he tells us that we are all in it together? I had not previously realised our great Chancellor’s divine inspiration in his understanding of social solidarity.

To quote the late St John Paul II in “Sollicitudo rei socialis”—“socialis” is not, in this context, anything to do with socialism—

“We are all one family in the world. Building a community that empowers”—

I am sorry, but “empowers” is a ghastly word. As the encyclical would have been written in Latin, His Holiness would not have used such an ugly word; it is merely the way it has been translated.

“Building a community that empowers everyone to attain their full potential through each of us respecting each other’s dignity, rights and responsibilities makes the world a better place to live.”

That is a more up-to-date view from a most distinguished Holy Father.

Solidarity is the concept that we are connected with our neighbours in our towns and villages, across the country and around the world. It is about thinking not just about ourselves. It actually ties in with overseas aid, because we have social solidarity not just nationally but internationally. However, in the context of a Bill on the national health service, I am afraid that that concerns me. Although, in a social and spiritual sense, the concept of social solidarity is important, do we really want inadvertently to put into the Bill the ability for people who do not have a right to care in this country to get it through social solidarity? Are we saying that our global social solidarity is something that the NHS is going to take care of, or is it a matter that we should deal with in other budgets and through other means? That is why I keep saying that precision is essential to good legislation, and that nice words that are not precise are extremely unfortunate.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that his amendment is fundamentally flawed, in that it would change the wording to place a duty on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service based on “medical necessity”, which fundamentally misses the point? We are no longer talking about a medical model of the national health service. His own Secretary of State is talking about doing more preventive work and more on public health to prevent people from getting ill in the first place. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would fundamentally weaken that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

Yes, absolutely it would. I am very suspicious of the Government telling me that I should not eat things such as bacon sandwiches, or whatever it is that Labour party members so much enjoy. I want to eat those things without interference from the Government. I have every intention of speaking on that important matter later in my remarks. I have tabled other amendments to make it absolutely clear that I think that the health service is about curing people who are ill, rather than telling us how to live our lives.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

I am shocked by what my hon. Friend is saying. My understanding is that one of the duties of the national health service is to keep us as healthy as possible in the longer term. That might be interpreted as falling within my hon. Friend’s phrase, “medical necessity”. Therefore, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish misunderstood the value of medical necessity in prevention and in curing people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am sympathetic to what my right hon. Friend is saying. It is one thing for the health service, as a matter of medical necessity—that is the term I used—to prescribe statins. They are a medical advance and an advantage that help people to eat more nice things. They are an absolutely wonderful medical breakthrough. I tuck into my statins so I can tuck into my chocolate éclairs. The two go hand in glove and add to the general joy and happiness of life.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

Does my hon. Friend therefore regard his intake of statins—I must admit that I do not partake, although I know that others enjoy them—as a medical necessity?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

That is a good question. Yes, I do. Otherwise I would not be able to eat my chocolate éclairs, and the cream that comes from dairy farmers—in Somerset, I hope—would not be produced. It is therefore not only a medical necessity but an economic imperative, in order for the good people of north-east Somerset to prosper from their sale of dairy produce. Medical necessity allows for preventive treatments; it does not allow for telling people how to live their lives. We want to maximise free choice rather than giving detailed instruction.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I have some sympathy with the argument made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Let us take the case of a person who has a cataract over one eye. One could argue that it is not a medical necessity to perform that operation, but it would certainly be highly desirable.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am not convinced by that. I think that it is a medical necessity to give somebody a basic cure for an illness from which they suffer. That is the purpose of a medical necessity. If my right hon. Friend took his argument to its logical conclusion, almost nothing would be a medical necessity, because all of us die eventually. It is a question of getting the balance right between that and interference in people’s lives. If somebody does not want a cataract operation, I would not send the police round to arrest them, bring them to hospital and force it upon them. To that extent, it is not absolutely necessary, but none the less, it is a perfectly reasonable and important medical procedure.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that on that basis, the definition of a medical necessity could change as time goes by? What might be necessary for someone in their 20s might not be regarded as necessary for somebody in their 60s or 70s.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful for that intervention, because the great virtue of medical necessity is that it allows practice to evolve. Not only might what is necessary change over the course of somebody’s life; it might also evolve over succeeding generations. As medical practice becomes more advanced and more successful, things that might not have been necessary because they were disproportionately risky might become in 20 years, let alone 50, so easy to perform and so routine that the balance of necessity shifts in that direction. Medical necessity is a term with the virtues of being understandable and clear and being able to grow with legislation over the years.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I want to follow on from the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. In 2012, the RNIB did a freedom of information request on all NHS trusts, and it found that 57% had set their own criteria for cataract operations, and that 152 trusts had decided to limit the treatment available. It is rather ironic that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, who was then the Health Minister and who sits on this Committee, described that as unacceptable. Is that not why we need to move away from the amendment and keep the Bill’s wording?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful for that intervention, but no. Choices must be made in the health service; it is a question of where those choices are made. Are they made centrally or by the clinical commissioning groups or hospitals concerned, or is there a mix of approaches, so that as many decisions as possible are made locally but some are made nationally, or there is some form of appeal nationally? I would go for a mixed and relatively flexible system that encompasses what the hon. Gentleman is talking about while leaving the first decision to be made locally, by the people who are closest to their patients and know them best. That is why I stick to the point about medical necessity.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Clause 1 is about placing a duty on the Secretary of State. As we are talking about a national health service, not a series of local health services, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to set out a framework based on the issue of social solidarity rather than changing the criteria, as he proposes? The “N” in NHS—the “national” —and the “what” should be set centrally. I am very much in favour of the “how” being a local decision.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

There is less disagreement between the two of us than might be immediately apparent. It seems to me that the core requirements of the health service can reasonably be set by the Secretary of State. However, the question is then: what are those core requirements? In my view, they are medical necessity, not social solidarity, because social solidarity is a relatively flexible term. It is very imprecise and difficult to litigate around because it is essentially a philosophical or theological notion, as I have tried to explain and, indeed, will come back to explain. Medical necessity is layman’s English and is understandable to almost anyone. Of course, whether one thing is strictly necessary or not can be argued and decided. There is, as in all cases, a determination to be made, but the basis on which that determination is being made is clear.

James Arbuthnot (Conservative, North East Hampshire)

Following the intervention that my hon. Friend has just taken, would it not be right to say that his amendment points to the “H” of NHS— health—which is surely what the national health service should be about? It is surely about medical necessity as opposed to the rather vague term of social solidarity.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My right hon. Friend has, as he so often does, hit the nail on the head. “Rem acu tetigisti” is, I believe, the phrase that the classicists liked to use. I only know that from my reading of P. G. Wodehouse; I have never read it in its original form. My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on; it is about health. It is about both the “national” and the “health”. We are not dealing with vagaries.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made a point about localism and national provision. Helpfully, that too is covered by the teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of social solidarity. Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope Emeritus, explained in “Caritas in Veritate”:

“The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.”

That seems to me a really important point that has perhaps not been considered in debates on the Bill. Surprisingly, it is the left that is looking for a paternalist social assistance model in its terminology.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I am interested. The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that he takes his statins so that he can eat his chocolate éclairs and therefore sustain the dairy industry in Gloucestershire—[Interruption.] Sorry, in Somerset; it is beyond the M25. I want to point out that clause 1 says:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement”

in the prevention and diagnosis of treatment.

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the NHS has no role at all in improving people’s awareness of things that might be dangerous to them and that the NHS should provide no information that might prevent people from getting themselves into a situation where taxpayers have to pay for their statins through the national health service. That is an irresponsible approach to the national health service. I agree about freedom of choice, but people should make informed choices. The NHS has a role in informing people.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. Before the hon. Member for North East Somerset responds, the speeches seem to be getting longer and so do the interventions. Perhaps I am just getting tired.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am concerned that you should be tired, Mr Bone. It might be helpful if the Committee adjourned so that we can have a siesta and resume later, but perhaps, in spite of our European involvement, we are not that continental.

There are two points to make in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Eltham. First, I pay for my statins personally, rather than making a charge on the national health service. Secondly, I have tabled amendment 40, which would deal with precisely the point that he made. He will be reassured to know that I am looking forward to coming on to that amendment at a later stage in my relatively brief remarks.

I want to come on to what it means to practise social solidarity, sticking to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that we may have a full understanding of what is going on, having made the point that having solidarity without subsidiarity gives way to paternalist social assistance. We do not want this rather condescending model of the health service telling people how to lead their lives—how they should eat, exercise and so forth—in this deeply paternalistic way. We want a health service that allows people the maximum amount of freedom in their lives, with liberty to do as they choose rather than saying, “Because the state pays for it, we must determine.”

I always agree with Pope Benedict XVI, who is one of the great men of our time, but on that point he is so right and helpful to the debate that he might almost have written his encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” specifically for the debate we have in hand, although I have a feeling that he did not, because it predates the presentation of the Bill to this House.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I seek some clarification. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NHS has an important role to play in public information so that, when people experience a medical episode or symptoms, they can present themselves for treatment early and avoid long-term care? The excellent advertisements on strokes are an example of that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That is invaluable work, and treating people who have had a stroke is a core part of what the national health service does. However, I seem to remember that a few years ago it told the British public how many potatoes they should eat every day, because if they ate too many they might fall ill from some related disease—they might get potato blight or something, whatever it was. The state should not be doing that. Of course it should be saying what the symptoms of a stroke are. It should put up posters and even spend money on advertising. Normally I am deeply suspicious of Government advertising, because it is often a means of promoting the party in government rather than Government generally, but, in the specific instance that he refers to, I am all in favour.

I am less keen—my right hon. Friend might agree—on the Government spending a lot of money telling people not to smoke if they want to. If people have not worked out the dangers of that by now, they never will. I happen to speak as a non-smoker and, though his predilections may lie in the other direction, he is entitled to do so without being nagged by these paternalistic social assistance types who we have established are really rather disagreeable.

Solidarity is more than an idealistic attitude for shaping society; it is a moral value. Solidarity exists not only between individuals, but within and between social institutions. Signs of solidarity in practice are services of neighbours, social action and mutual respect. That leads me back to why I am so concerned about legislating for social solidarity. Morality—we now see that solidarity is a moral value—is a matter for individual conscience rather than the statute book, although that has not always been the case. Many moral statutes were passed in the 16th century.

Daniel Poulter (Conservative, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

My hon. Friend makes some important points. On the basis of that definition of social solidarity, does he not agree that it seems strange that the Bill would stop charities from providing NHS services?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I think that would be absolutely extraordinary. I have not declared this in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—it has ceased to be relevant, as it happened before I was elected—but many years ago, I was a trustee of the Hospital of Saint John and Saint Elizabeth, a Catholic hospital just beyond Lord’s cricket ground. It is a private hospital, which uses its profits it makes to run a hospice charitably. That sort of wonderfully good work should be hugely encouraged, but that is a type of moral value outwith legislation. It is not necessary to legislate—indeed, I would go as far as to say that it is wrong to legislate—in this way for a moral value, which is essentially a matter of private conscience about how people conduct themselves towards one another.

As I was saying, we used to legislate for moral values. We used to legislate that people had to go to church on Sundays and that they would be fined if they did not go. We had legislation on conformity, and legislation on people’s private behaviour behind closed doors. Historically, all sorts of matters were covered by legislation, but we have tended to move away from that approach to a feeling that it is not the duty of the state to tell people how to lead their lives, and that it is the duty of the state to legislate for basic security of the state and for the institutions that the state has determined to run.

That point—that it is a moral value that we are considering—means that putting that moral value in legislation is a rather backwards step. I find myself surprised to oppose something old-fashioned; I normally like things that are old-fashioned. However, on this occasion it is unsuitable for legislation.

I thought that it might be worth giving some examples of the non-legislative social solidarity that is shown by the Church. Pope Francis celebrated mass on the tiny Sicilian island of Lampedusa to commemorate thousands of migrants who died crossing the sea from north Africa. That is the Holy Father putting into action social solidarity with people from an underprivileged part of the world, and a part of the world at risk, but it is not a legislative matter.

In these few remarks, I hope that I have made it clear why social solidarity is unsuitable for legislation. Either it is merely woolly talk—something that is unjusticiable, and spin to say what decent jolly people we are that we like motherhood and apple pie—or it is an example of the social teaching of the Catholic Church, which in itself is a good thing, but it would be quite a break for this House of Commons, with an established Church of England, to start legislating for the social teaching of the Catholic Church, although there is one hon. Member on the Opposition Benches of the Committee who may think that that is a jolly good thing. He is a very sound hon. Member in many respects, but I am still not sure that, even with his support, we should incorporate into our domestic law the rules of Holy Mother Church.

That covers one or two of my amendments, because they take out the term “social solidarity” where it appears and replace it with the term “medical necessity”. Let me go back to the term “medical necessity”, and why I have used it. I have touched on this in answering some interventions. I think it is an important part of the objective of the Bill, and what a private Member’s Bill, and indeed legislation, is about.

There is an argument that the Government set up a service and pay for it. Of course, taxpayers pay for it, because the Government have no money. Other than, arguably, the Crown estates, there is no actual Government money; there is simply taxpayers’ money. And once the Government have decided to spend that money on that service, anything that leads to a charge on that expenditure then becomes a matter of concern to the Government. We can see the slippery slope argument advancing: the Government pay for the service; therefore, if someone does x, they may be at risk of y; y will have a cost of z; the Government do not want to pay for z; and therefore one must not do whatever letter it was that I started with—I think it was x. Therefore, if someone does that, they are either to pay or they ought to be penalised for doing it; it ought to be made illegal and there ought to be some punishment.

I wanted to bring matters back to medical necessity, because that takes the issue away from the ability of the Government to go down that slippery slope. The terminology—“medical necessity”—is pretty clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said in interventions that they thought the phrase “medical necessity” was too tight, and that there could be occasions on which medical necessity could not be absolutely shown or there were two different options that could be used, one cheaper and one more expensive. It may be, then, that should this amendment be accepted, further amendments to tidy up the language will be tabled on Report, or else perhaps their lordships may consider the matter.

As I have mentioned the battle of Waterloo, I suppose I should mention Lord Raglan, who had his arm amputated at that battle. That may or may not have been a medical necessity, although they thought it was at the time. The great thing about it, brave man as he was, was that they cut his arm off and threw it on to a pile of limbs in the surgery where the amputation was taking place, but he shouted, “Oi, there is a very valuable ring on my finger, which you have just discarded. I want it back,” and he got the ring back. I must say that that seems to me to be the height of courage—to remember, on having just had an arm cut off, that there was a valuable ring on it and demand the ring back.

One wonders what Lord Raglan might rather have had done to him in terms of medical necessity. I suppose that in those times the amputation was necessary, whereas now there would be other forms of treatment—although someone could have an old-fashioned doctor who might say that he would rather do an amputation. I therefore see why hon. Members want to tidy up, tighten and reinforce the concept of medical necessity so that we do not find that doctors are doing things that are out of date or are beneficial but not necessarily within the bounds of absolute necessity. There are discussions to be had around degrees of necessity, but something like the phrasing in the amendment needs to be in the Bill.

The health service is there to look after people who are ill, free at the point of use. I doubt there is a person in this room who would wish to challenge that fundamental principle. It is a principle beloved of the British people. But it is about medical necessity.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point with regard to the health service being free at the point of use. I know he has done his homework, so he will be aware that section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 amended the National Health Service Act 2006 to insert a new section 1, in subsection (4) of which that specific commitment was enshrined for the first time in legislation.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reiterating that point. It is a fundamental principle shared on a cross-party basis—even the UK Independence party has come round to it after a brief flirtation with other views.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

I am sorry, but I cannot let my hon. Friend get away with that. I am sure he will remember that the leader of UKIP believes that a conversation needs to be had about an insurance-based health service. That certainly is not a national health service in the same way and with the same commitment that every member of this Committee signs up to.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. That subject is far away from what we are discussing today. I am a lenient and generous chairman, but we need to come a bit closer to what is on the amendment paper.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful, Mr Bone, to get back to the issue of medical necessity—we can wander back.

The point of the NHS being free at the point of use is that it applies to things that are medically necessary, not to things that may be optional. What are those going to be? They are hard to define, but doctors used to be able to prescribe bottles of whisky for their patients, back in the 1970s—I think it was Margaret Thatcher who made that impossible through one of her legislative reforms—and Christmas puddings if they thought that would be good for patients who needed building up. Those things are now no longer deemed medically necessary even though a nice Christmas pudding may be a good thing to have and a bottle of whisky may be equally welcome. It is not my drink of choice, but people may wish to have one; however, again, it is not a medical necessity.

That is why we need to hone our terminology and phraseology to make sure that what is being done constitutes the right use of hard-pressed and hard-working taxpayers’ money.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I am still very concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s terminology. Although I do not doubt his motives, I worry that there are some, across the political spectrum, who might see what he is saying as an opportunity to water down the commitment to the NHS. I will give him what I think is a superb definition of social solidarity from page 2 of the NHS constitution:

“The NHS is founded on a common set of principles and values that bind together the communities and people it serves”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a characteristically helpful intervention, but I think that it helps my point. In the constitution of an organisation it is quite right to use terms that do not have a clear justiciable precision about them, but in legislation it is different. The right place for the terminology of social solidarity is in documents relating to the health service published by the Department of Health.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

My hon. Friend is right, as is the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, to draw attention to the contents of the NHS constitution. An even more important signal that the Government will not dilute that commitment is that it is enshrined in legislation. The 2012 Act states:

“The services provided as part of the health service in England must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.”

The last time charges were introduced was in 1998 by the previous Labour Government, with regard to road traffic accidents.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

That is a valuable point, and it is worth reiterating the absolute commitment to the principle of free at the point of use. That is why we need the safeguard of medical necessity. This great service needs to be there for people who are using it for the right purposes, but not for the Christmas puddings and bottles of whisky that were once available. That is why I have proposed that we should replace “social solidarity” with “medical necessity”, to ensure that taxpayers get value for money but that patients get exactly the service that they require. That is of fundamental importance. It underpins everybody’s commitment to the national health service that the whole purpose of it—

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

The hon. Gentleman started off by saying that he did not want a paternalistic view of the NHS to creep into legislation, but services are not free of charge if an NHS trust restricts treatment—if it uses his definition and deems something not to be medically necessary. That is more paternalistic than anything that anyone has suggested today.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am not convinced about that. We have all had constituency cases in which issues of medical necessity have arisen, where it is possible to help constituents work their way through the national health system if they have a medical necessity to ensure that they get the treatment that they need. I think that that system and the appeals within it mostly work, and they have to be based on medical necessity. The whole point of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is to try to work out whether treatments will work, whether they are necessary and whether they are funded. I believe that that was brought in by the previous Labour Government.

For once, let me praise the previous Labour Government —I am glad that you are seated, Mr Bone; otherwise you might fall down in shock—for doing something that was actually pretty sensible. There has to be some independent body that works out whether such matters meet a requirement for medical necessity. If it is left entirely free and open, it is possible that money will be wasted, and that cannot be in the interests of the NHS or of taxpayers. Why do I say that that would not be in the interests of the NHS? It is of great importance that the NHS retains the support of the country at large. To retain that support, which it has overwhelmingly, it needs to be able to show that it is using its funds efficiently.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I will try to help the hon. Gentleman with an example from my constituency, where a lady came to see me at my surgery having been diagnosed with breast cancer. NICE has approved the use of the drug Herceptin. The local health trust where she lives decided that that was not medically necessary for her. Had she lived in the other part of my constituency, the NHS trust would have prescribed her Herceptin.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I obviously do not know the hon. Gentleman’s individual constituency cases, but I have found, mostly with the constituency cases that I have had, that good sense has prevailed and that a reasonable agreement has been reached.

Daniel Poulter (Conservative, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

My hon. Friend is making a good point. Does he not agree that one reason why, as he has indicated, good sense now prevails is the fact that unlike previous rationing decisions when primary care trusts were in place, clinical commissioning groups are run by clinicians, so there is a clinical oversight of the process of how local health care services are run under the 2012 Act that we introduced?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I must confess that I entirely agree with that, because my experience, although limited—I have only been in this House for five years—is that since the clinical commissioning groups have been in place, I have had fewer of these cases to deal with. The decisions seem to have been got right at an earlier stage. The system has also been easier to collaborate with. It seems to work more efficiently, and I think that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford deserve credit for the work they did on that Bill to make sure that it got through Parliament and allowed that to happen.

I think it is a requirement that there is medical necessity. It is hard to get away from that and I do not really understand why, when there is the ability to use precise phraseology—phraseology that can be understood not just by the legal eagles, but by the nation at large—we should want to get away from that. I want to reiterate the theme that I was touching on before the previous intervention. The NHS requires the consent and support of the nation at large. It has that overwhelmingly, but the best way to keep it is if it consistently manages to do its job well. If it does its job well by medical necessity, by treating people who are ill, by the fantastic success record it has got in treating so many illnesses, but particularly in terms of—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

There is a Division in the House. I think it would be convenient if we returned at 15.50.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

15.50?

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

That is correct.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I was talking about the issue of the medical necessity of the NHS, so that people will respect it, feel that they have commonality with it and have confidence that it is spending its money as wisely as possible. This is an important point about why we need to insert the term “medical necessity”.

David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a risk that the term could be interpreted in different ways depending on the occupation of the patient concerned?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extraordinarily interesting and perceptive intervention, because “medical necessity” has great virtue as a term, in that it is precise on the one hand but flexible on the other. Precise flexibility is a good place to be in terms of this legislation.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks that doctors do other than determine medical necessity.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

It is the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and he put in the term “social solidarity”. Perhaps he did not take in all that I said about social solidarity. I will therefore add a wonderful point from “Mater et Magistra” on the issue of social solidarity, to remind the hon. Gentleman of its importance. The Pope writes of the dignity of agricultural work, with the family farm held up as an ideal, and notes that a trend of people moving away from farms toward cities was partly due to economic growth but also reflected depression in the occupation of farming and inadequate standards of living in rural areas. I confess that that is a concern of mine too. I always want to see the highest social solidarity in farming areas.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

Like my hon. Friend, I have a serious problem with the expansion of social solidarity, which sounds rather militant. The health service is not militant. Medical necessity is important, but would my hon. Friend not agree that clinical necessity is even more important? All decisions taken by doctors, nurses and consultants are based on clinical need. Should that not feature more?

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a number of points in his intervention. The first is that this social solidarity is the Arthur Scargillisation of legislation. I remember when I was a schoolboy between childhood and adulthood seeing groups shouting, “The miners united will never be defeated”. That is perhaps what they mean by social solidarity—that they want to bring back picket lines and all that went with Mr Arthur Scargill. I see my right hon. Friend’s point.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about clinical necessity, why did I not choose the word “clinical”? The reason is partly pedantry. The word “clinical” strictly means “bedside” and, although I know that it has evolved to mean something more encompassing, a clinical manner is strictly a bedside manner rather than what we have come to think of it meaning. I accept the charge of pedantry, and accept that “clinical” has virtue, because it is slightly wider than “medical”. Nonetheless, I think “medical” covers what we are trying to get at, partly because of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who made an inspired point about the concept of flexible certainty. That is to say—to go back to “Mater et Magistra”—that the medical need for the agricultural worker may well be different from the medical need of the office worker. They may have different requirements.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we are talking about the duty on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service? That is not just about the medical model; it is about the whole of the national health service.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—grateful but puzzled on this occasion. Surely the object of the health service is in its title: its object is to be a health service. Therefore, when he talks about broader responsibilities to society, there are other institutions that deal with that. There are charitable organisations, individual activities and the women’s institute, but it is not a job for the national health service.

Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman has probably not made it to 1848 in his speech, let alone 1948, but with today’s national health service we are talking about the integration of the medical, the physical, the mental and the social needs of the population. It is not just about one aspect—the medical model—but about integrating all health and social care.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

The hon. Gentleman is being unduly narrow.

Simon Burns (Conservative, Chelmsford)

It would seem that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has not read the Health and Social Care Act 2012, because section 1 lays out the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and defines what that is. It includes mental health, and states that the health service should secure improvement in the

“prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental health issues.”

Mental health is enshrined in the original legislation that the Bill seeks to amend.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

My right hon. Friend is spot on. It is obscure to say that mental health is not part of health or medical necessity and therefore will not be part of the requirement on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service. The whole point I was trying to make was that this is a health service. If a health service is based on anything other than medical need—I accept that an argument could be made for clinical need, but basically the same terminology applies—then it is not a health service. It may be a general service doing all sorts of nice and good things, but it is not a health service.

To go back to the point I was making when we went off to vote in the Chamber, it is important that the health service retains its primary objective so that it maintains the support of the people. If it becomes a vacuous service trying to do a million and one things, but none of them very well, and if it has statutory duties thrown upon it that do not relate to the health of the nation or of the individuals who make up a nation, it cannot be seen to be doing its job. The Secretary of State for Health needs to be focused on the duties given to him that underpin the seals of office that he holds. He holds his seals of office by virtue of health and not by virtue of a broader range of nice-to-do things—of motherhood and apple pie, as I said earlier.

I return to an earlier intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North—lest you think, Mr Bone, that I had forgotten it or allowed it to slip my mind, because it was an important point on differences in medical necessity. The flexibility within the term is such that while it may be particularly important for a spin bowler to have an operation on his hands, someone who is 90 and is no longer bowling—Dunbowlin being the retirement home for old cricketers—may not need such an operation. I believe Tich Freeman retired to a property called Dunbowlin, and the Chair will remember that he was a first-class bowler at county level. He is the only man ever to take 300 wickets in a season. If he had a problem with his fingers, it would have been a medical necessity for him to have that operation, but if I had such a problem, it would not particularly impede my speaking. I could carry on addressing the House. Although I confess I make the odd hand movement, I would not be in the same position as the famous, now late, Tich Freeman, most remarkable man that he was.

The concept applies more broadly. A racing car driver would have different medical needs from someone who did not race motorcycles, but raced horses instead. A jockey would have different concerns, because of the position he adopts, from a racing car driver. If we look at the various types of footballer—

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. It is quite clear to me that the hon. Gentleman has made that point and is now repeating himself. He should get back to the amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I am sorry, Mr Bone. I thought it was important to consider some of the aspects to which the measure could apply. I accept that we have covered the professions, but difference in age is also important to the issue of what determines necessity. The term “medical necessity” has a glorious sense of flexibility as well as being precise.

To return to our learned friends—to the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, who may consider such matters in her court at some stage—if the clause said “medical necessity”, our learned friends would be able to rule on it in accordance with what Parliament had said, rather than guessing what we might have meant or looking at our proceedings, which has recently been allowed, unfortunately. I think that the more robust approach taken historically—that no proceeding in Parliament could ever be considered in a court—was preferable and put a stronger onus on us to pass robust and intelligible legislation. That has been eroded by allowing judges to look more into what we, particularly Ministers, actually say in Committee, rather than at the precise wording of Bills. Although the House can be enormously proud of its parliamentary draftsmanship—a fabulous service is provided—right hon. and hon. Members sometimes do not take the advice of our fine parliamentary draftsmen and end up with language that is imprecise and difficult to judge.

My proposal to replace “social solidarity” with “medical necessity” arises in a number of amendments that I have tabled—I draw Members’ attention to amendments 38, 39, 50 and 52. Basically, wherever “social solidarity” appears, I propose to delete it, in clauses 1 and 2. I look forward to turning to the matter more specifically in relation to the next clause.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

My hon. Friend has not yet convinced me that his amendment is worthy of support. Echoing in the back of my mind I have the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I will give my hon. Friend an example relating to the phrase “medical necessity”. Would it be deemed a medical necessity for the NHS to operate on a man with varicose veins? Under his definition, that may well not be a medical necessity and the man might be told to go away and wear stronger socks.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset)

I had not realised that we were going to be debating gentlemen’s hosiery.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.