|
Dr. Harris: I interrupt the Under-Secretary because I am waiting for him to respond to amendment No. 395, which is also in this group of amendments. I note the point that was made by the hon. Members for Westbury and for Epsom and Ewell, and by the Under-Secretary, that any list of statutory consultees would give those groups a greater right of consultation than others.
I invite the Under-Secretary to comment on amendment No. 395. After all, we are here to debate
Column Number: 575
the amendments and to hear the Government's response. I ask the Government to publish in draft, for public consultation, the standards that it is forcing on the NHS. I should be grateful to the Under-Secretary for a response. I can then judge which amendments, if any, I should press to a Division.
Mr. Lammy: As I said, those arguments were rehearsed yesterday. We have heard them replicated in slightly different language, but they are the same arguments. The Secretary of State has a duty to consult, and that is sufficient. For the reasons of bureaucracy, delay and division that I mentioned, I would resist amendment No. 395 as well.
10 am
Dr. Harris: I am keen to press amendment No. 395 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 395, in
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 13.
Division No. 15]
AYES
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Calton, Mrs. Patsy
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Grayling, Chris
Harris, Dr. Evan
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Young, Sir George
NOES
Anderson, Janet
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Burnham, Andy
Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Jones, Mr. Jon Owen
Lammy, Mr. David
McCabe, Mr. Stephen
Pound, Mr. Stephen
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Ward, Claire
Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman: I request hon. Members to bear in mind that sometimes during Divisions it is difficult to hear what is being said because of a slight undercurrent of noise in the Room.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Information and advice
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): I beg to move amendment No. 510, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 511, in
Mr. Burns: The amendment deals with the beginning of clause 43, which refers to the general functions of CHAI, and to the information, advice and instructions laid down for it.
Column Number: 576
In relation to clause 43(1), the amendment seeks to ensure not that CHAI must keep the appropriate authority informed on the provision of health care, but that it should make regular reports available to the public on the information that it gathers and the reports that it produces. In this subsection, the appropriate body in England is the Secretary of State; in Wales it is the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment would improve the Bill because it would make the process much more transparent. I have no problems, in the context of the Government's intentions, with CHAI keeping the appropriate authorities informed.
However, I do not see why it cannot go one step beyond the appropriate bodies to the public. It is the people's health care system and national health service, and they should be entitled to know exactly what is going on. Furthermore, if one were to make the reports public, one would know what was going on at all times. There is a possibility that although CHAI might keep the appropriate authorities informed, those authorities might not pass that information on to others.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will see the amendment as a move to open out the process and to make it more transparent. I hope that that will be an attractive proposition to him.
Mr. Burstow: I support the group of amendments, as they are useful additions to the Bill. They enable the Government to give substance to one of the things that the Secretary of State said last April, when he introduced the report ''Delivering the NHS Plan'', which was that if commissions are to act as judge, the public will be the jury. It is hard for a jury to act in its proper capacity if it does not have access to information and if information is not freely provided to it. To include a clear requirement in the Bill that such information should be published in this way is a useful addition.
It would be helpful to hear the Under-Secretary's thoughts on how the two commissions will discharge that responsibility and, specifically, if he could set out how he envisages the public being kept informed about health care and social care, about the activities of the two commissions and about the findings from their inspections of health and social care.
Mr. Lammy: Amendments Nos. 510 and 511 will place a duty on CHAI to make regular reports available to the public on the provision of health care by and for NHS bodies, and on a par with what it also provides to the appropriate authorities. The function set out in the Bill is necessary to ensure that the appropriate authorities are kept informed on the provision of health care for which they are responsible. As a way of demonstrating its increased independence, the Secretary of State will not have the regulation-making power that he has over CHI on the publication of reports.
Such a power enabled my right hon. Friend to specify the means and manner in which the old CHI disseminated its findings to the NHS and to the general public. I cannot accept this amendment, as it would, in effect, compel the new CHAI to do that. The
Column Number: 577
public rightly expect the new CHAI to be an authoritative, independent judge of quality and efficiency and to be a driving force for the continuous improvement of health care provided by all NHS bodies.
It is already obvious that the new CHAI will want to keep patients and the public informed of developments in the NHS and in independent health care provision. I am confident that CHAI will have patients and the public at the forefront of its considerations and that it will operate as openly as possible. CHAI will have ample opportunity to ensure that the public are informed about the provision of health care, and it is not necessary to state that explicitly in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Burns: I am disappointed by the Under-Secretary's response, because, notwithstanding his remarks, the amendment would be a positive step towards increasing the transparency of the process and, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, towards enabling us to have a judge and jury. I should like to stress on the record that this is a wasted opportunity. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, however. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 371, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 347, in
Amendment No. 348, in
clause 135, page 57, line 20, at beginning insert—
'(1) If at any time after the passing of this Act—
(a) the name of the Health Select Committee is changed; or
(b) the functions discharged by the Committee at the passing of this Act, or functions substantially corresponding thereto, are discharged by a different Committee of the House of Commons,
reference in this Act to the Health Select Committee shall be construed as a reference to that Committee by its new name or, as the case may be, to the Committee for the time being discharging those functions.
(2) Any question arising under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
(3) .'.
Mr. Burstow: The amendments develop the theme introduced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) regarding transparency and greater openness in reporting. They seek to impose a requirement on CHAI and CSCI that the information that they produce should also be provided to the Select Committee on Health. Were that Committee's title to change, there is provision in the final amendment in the group for that to be dealt with in the usual way. There are provisions in
Column Number: 578
section 13 of the National Audit Act 1983 that deal with such matters in respect of the Public Accounts Committee, and this amendment seeks to cover the Health Committee in a similar way.
The amendments simply seek to ensure that there is a clear link between the work of the two commissions and the Health Committee. That Committee has an important job to do in scrutinising the health and social care activities of the Government, the public sector and others. They would be an additional and invaluable way of ensuring that members of that Committee—and, as a consequence, all Members of the House—could make sure that both commissions discharge their duties appropriately. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments in the spirit in which they are moved.
Mr. Burns: I declare an interest as a member of the Health Committee. The amendments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam do not appeal to me. I understand the reasons form them, but they would not be practical. I do not part company with him in wanting more information and transparency. In that, we are in agreement. However well intentioned the proposal to ensure that the Health Committee gets information, his amendments are, up to a point, unnecessary and possibly misunderstand the role of the Health Committee.
The Committee usually carries out two major inquiries on health care subjects a year, in addition to a few mini-investigations on matters of health care and the provision of service. Apart from generating a great deal of effort and paper, what would be the benefit in ensuring that the Health Committee has, in effect, a statutory right to receive all the papers from CHAI?
|
