Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)

Earlier today we had a discussion about out-of-hours GP provision. In my constituency and the whole of Suffolk, including your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have enough money for more than three doctors to provide an out-of-hours service. We have no money for a whole series of important things; the leaders of both major political parties admit that we have to cut the crucial things that service our constituents; and the Government have proposed that we spend £80 million or thereabouts—they have not worked out how much—on a question that very few people in this House think suitable. This debate is about the money resolution, but the previous contribution was a revealing statement of Liberal party economics. It showed that the Liberal party does not believe that one discusses the money in any connection with the purpose for which it might be used. As for ““ideas are not responsible for their authors,”” that is about as elliptical and confused a concept as the average Liberal Democrat party political broadcast; it is, indeed, typical Liberal confusion. There is nothing more confused than the Liberal Democrat party except the proposition that the Government have put before the House. The money resolution is, frankly, a scandal. My constituents do not have the wherewithal to keep our current systems going, because the Government have taken money from the national health service and local government and spread it elsewhere in order to distribute it to their heartlands. It is therefore a scandal to talk to my constituents about £80 million, and they will not forget it at the election. More importantly, the neighbouring constituencies, which are very marginal, will certainly not forget it. They will return to this House people more willing to care for the public finances. The reason why we are here is to defend the freedom of the people and to protect the taxpayer. The original purpose of this House was to ensure that the Executive did not spend money unwisely; did not spend money without due concern; did not spend money without exact accounting; and did not spend money in a way that the public felt unnecessary. That is why we are here. On this occasion, we are invited to spend money where there is no count; invited to spend money on something that the public has shown no concern for; and invited to spend money on asking a question that is not connected with the argument and not supported by anybody on any side of the argument except the Prime Minister, who has worked out—although I suspect that it was worked out for him—that this is the one change that would make the current system worse mathematically. We are invited to do so also before we have discussed the matter, and that is wholly contrary to the way in which the money resolution is normally placed.