Effect of Secretary of State's Instrument

Part of Orders of the Day — National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill – in the House of Commons at 4:45 pm on 13 March 1980.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Ronald Brown Mr Ronald Brown , Hackney South and Shoreditch 4:45, 13 March 1980

I support the amendment. In his speech on Second Reading, the Secretary of State prayed in aid the argument of his predecessor that the area health authority had overspent by about £3 million. Later, when explaining how far the commissioners had achieved their objective, the right hon. Gentleman said: Thirdly, they made a few decisions, specifically aimed at reducing patient services as a means of achieving the essential cost savings."—[Ofticial Report, 11 March 1980]; Vol. 980, c. 1171.] To have achieved the savings they did, the commissioners must have had to cut very deeply into patient services. It does not matter now whether the Secretary of State was right or wrong in his judgment of whether they should have done that. What matters is that he was out of order. What he did was illegal.

In putting forward amendment No. 4, we are not arguing the morality of whether in principle the Secretary of State was right and whether his intention was honourable. What he did was illegal. Therefore, in considering the amendment we have to decide whether anyone who suffered from that illegal act should be compensated. It is right that the constituent to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) referred, and any others who may be similarly affected, should be invited to make a claim in accordance with the provisions of the amendment. We are not arguing whether what was done was right or wrong. We are arguing that it was illegal and, therefore, that anyone who suffered from that illegal act must be given redress.

The Minister argued that what he did illegally in August should now be made legal. In other legislation that is now going through Parliament, another Minister is arguing that an action performed legally by a person in April should become illegal in November. That is an extraordinary situation. We are saying in one Bill that although he acted illegally we will indemnify the Minister, yet in another Bill we are saying that a decision taken legally by a local authority in April will become illegal at the end of November and financial sanctions will be taken against the local authority. The Government are not in a clear state of mind about what they are doing. These two Bills are incompatible.

The Bill cannot make legal an injury that has occurred. I will not be a party to a Bill that tries to do that. It is against the fundamental rights of the individual. It cannot be right to indemnify the Minister and not to compensate a person who has suffered an injury. Amendment No. 4 is designed to redress that position.

I am not so sure that I would go to the stake for amendment No. 5 on behalf of suppliers. The fundamental issue still remains that an illegal act remains illegal. People who have been injured must be properly taken care of.