| Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
|
|
Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Hutton: I will not give way. I have dealt with that point. The hon. Gentleman can come back to his point later, if he wants to. We can all look forward to that. Speaking to amendment No. 142, the hon. Gentleman for West Chelmsford laboured the point ad nauseam that this was a fundamental compromise Column Number: 221 in the operational independence of the independent regulator. That is not true. The regulator will be paid for by the Secretary of State using public funds. The Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the use of public resources, and it is right that he has a say in how they are deployed. The hon. Gentleman's argument bordered on the ridiculous.We should have some flexibility on amendment No. 140, which deals with the regulator's term of office. That is my only point on that amendment. On amendments Nos. 143 and 235, of course, the regulator must establish an office and appoint staff. The regulator is the best person to judge what staff and skills are required. The office will be funded by the Government, using public money, and office staff will be civil servants. It is therefore appropriate that the Minister for the Civil Service be consulted on their terms and conditions. That is all that the Bill requires, and it is not unreasonable. There are several precedents in legislation that the Government have enacted and in legislation that the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member enacted. Mr. Streeter: The Minister is talking about a completely new apparatus, which would cost money. I accept that valid inspections cost money. Will there be any corresponding savings in the health service to help to pay for the new apparatus? Mr. Hutton: Yes, that is our intention, and it will be the case as the regulator takes on new roles and responsibilities. We are not creating a parallel or duplicate bureaucracy. We envisage that there will be further reductions in Department of Health staffing as a result of the creation of the new office of the independent regulator. Several other points have been raised, Mr. Griffiths. Briefly, the key point about amendment No. 236 is that the Bill provides for the regulator to delegate his functions to his staff. The inclusion of the words ''generally'' or ''specifically'' is a standard device, which simply makes it clear that the regulator does not have to delegate his function formally on each and every occasion that he wishes a member of his staff to do something on his behalf. It is not a huge issue. The Chairman: Order. As it is twenty-five minutes past eleven—[Interruption.] I apologise; I was misled by a message that was passed to me. Mr. Hutton: It must have been the effect of my speech on you, Mr. Griffiths. I promise that it is rapidly drawing to a close. The final point that I wish to make relates to amendments Nos. 234 and 141. For obvious reasons, we do not anticipate, or want to be in, a situation in which the Secretary of State removes the independent regulator from office. However, in the unlikely event that the regulator becomes unable to fulfil his role, the Secretary of State must be able to act quickly to ensure that the interests of NHS patients, and the wider interests of the NHS, are protected. To create a further delay or another set of obstacles to the process—as, essentially, the amendments would do—would not be helpful if there were a need to act in those limited Column Number: 222 circumstances in which the incapacity or misbehaviour of the independent regulator arose.The hon. Member for South-West Devon asked me what I meant by misbehaviour, and I declined to give him a verbatim history of the case law and jurisprudence on the subject. I will arrange for him to receive a copy of it, if he would like to peruse it at his leisure. Obviously, he needs to get out more. There are precedents for the choice of such words, including the appointment of the chairman and other members of Ofgem, the rail regulator, the Director General of Water Services and the Director General of Telecommunications. These amendments raise many issues, but Opposition Members' criticism of the Bill as it stands is fundamentally misconceived. However, I accept the general argument made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that the Government must keep under review the structure and the shape of the office of the internal regulator. We will certainly do that. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that we examined a variety of different models that we could use to set up the office of the independent regulator, including the sort of board structure that he suggested. We went for this particular shape because we believe it is the right structure, given the specific roles of the independent regulator and his functions in relation to the wider national health service. However, we are always willing to listen to arguments on how the structure could be improved from the Better Regulation Task Force or others, including Conservative Members and my hon. Friends. However, at present, given where we are and where we will start from, I ask my hon. Friends to reject any amendments that are put to the vote for the reasons that I have given the Committee. Mr. Lansley: The generous words of the Minister in his opening remarks do not deflect me from the view that amendments Nos. 102 and 101 are an entirely appropriate and fundamentally well-conceived way in which to address the Bill. I have made the point that I do not accept for one minute the proposition that this regulator will be so distinct from all other economic regulators that he is required to be one person, as distinct from the board structure. It seems that almost all the arguments that I have ever seen on the reasons why most regulatory structures shift inside government from a single person to a board are equally applicable to this regulator. We will return to that point in the future; we may return to it on the basis of further recommendations from the Better Regulation Task Force. I hope that the Minister will write to the chairman of the task force, David Arculus, about it; if he does not, I will, because I expect to return to the matter. The Government are creating a rod for their own back because, if this argument is presented to the House of Lords in its current form, the noble Lords—who are equally familiar with the argument—will change the Bill. The Government will have to change it later, if they do not do so now. Therefore, I am seeking a down payment from my hon. Friends and from the Government. Column Number: 223 Amendment No. 102 simply changes the word ''officer'' to ''office''. It is technically consistent with the manner in which the explanatory notes describe the office of the independent regulator, as distinct from an officer. If I may, Mr. Griffiths, I want to press amendment No. 102 to a Division, as a down payment on the fact that the Government will have to reconsider that there should not be ''an officer'' but ''an office''. We will return on Report or at another point to see that that office is properly constituted in a board structure. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 13.
Division No. 4]
AYES
NOES
11 amAmendment proposed: No. 145, in
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 13.
Division No. 5]
AYES
NOES
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 20 May 2003 |
