Signs of Tory political virility
Authors: P. Johnston
Journal: BMJ (1986)

The dust had only just settled last week after the government's shock second reading defeat on the Shops Bill when the detectable stirrings of another backbench Tory revolt could be seen at Westminster. It will not be as cataclysmic in its consequences as the Sunday trading reversal; in fact, the government will hardly notice it. But there is a mood of militancy among Conservative back? benchers that has sent many of them in search of an issue on which they can rebel. To digress slightly, it was precisely this sort of eventuality about which former Cabinet minister Francis Pym warned during the last general election campaign. As the Labour vote disintegrated before the nation's eyes he began to express concern that the government could win a massive Commons majority. As a former chief whip and leader of the House, he was keenly aware of the trouble that that could bring; when the chips are down and a government is clinging to a small majority MPs think long and hard about walking through the division lobbies with the Opposition, and then don't. But when a government is cushioned by the 140 vote margin enjoyed by Mrs Thatcher MPs can indulge themselves in the luxury of defying their whips. It may, and invariably will, mean that they can whistle goodbye to a job in the administration, but with so many backbenchers, and competition for posts so intense, there is little chance of getting one anyway. But the prophecies of the seer Pym are now being realised; even he probably did not conceive of the government actually losing a Bill on its second reading, an almost unheard of setback. No such fate is likely to befall the latest blockbuster legislation to emerge from the DHSS, the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill. The main reason is that it is supported by the Opposition, so the votes are in the bag. But the aforementioned Conservative awkward squad is already beginning to flex its muscles over one provision in the complex Bill, which was ostensibly the wherewithal to remove crown immunity enjoyed by NHS hospitals in the wake of the food poisoning outbreak at the Stanley Royd Hospital. Ministers found themselves with an extremely timely and useful method of introducing two other legislative changes, which had been outstanding for months and for which a parliamentary slot could not be found (at that stage they did not realise that a huge gap was about to open up in the programme with the disappearance of the Shops Bill). These were, firstly, to introduce the new pharmacists' contract, which had been successfully challenged in the courts last year and eventually withdrawn after the House of Lords had rejected its implementation in Scotland alone; and, secondly, to clarify the mechanism for correcting past payments to the four NHS con? tractor professions if they have been inadequate or excessive. Legislation introduced in 1984 to do just that was found to be deficient when two opticians organisations successfully challenged in the courts government attempts to recover ?11 million over reimbursed for NHS spectacles. During last week's second reading for the new Bill Health Minister Barney Hayhoe was in a generous mood. He pledged,  think it is right the opticians should not be deprived of the fruits of their court victory and I give the clear undertaking on behalf of the government that no further attempt to recover the ?11 rnillion will be made. As an aside, he added:  can also give the assurance that there is no intention whatsoever to change the current system for determin? ing the pay of medical and dental practitioners, which is based on the recommendations of their independent review body. He did not, by the way, say when it would report this year, but on past precedent the professions will have to wait until the middle of May to hear the bad news. So the new Bill is a many tendrilled thing, and much of it found favour on both sides of the House.