| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We therefore brought forward Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15 to make sure that infections arising from micro-organisms present on or in the patient’s body prior to the person’s entry into the health care system are included in the definition of health care associated infection used by the Bill.
Dr. Murrison: Although these are described as “minor and drafting amendments”, they are, as the Minister said, quite important. I believe that Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 were inspired by the Royal College of Nursing. They rightly recognise that organisms already present on a person but not doing any harm can become opportunistic pathogens in a health-care environment.
We await the electronic code of practice on the control of health care-associated infections. It would be interesting if at some point the Minister could update us on where it is. The British Medical Association managed to publish its code in February of this year.
Caroline Flint: I am happy to update the hon. Gentleman on where the code of practice is, but first let me respond to what he said about Lords amendment No 37. The amendment commences all regulation-making powers on Royal Assent, and speeds up our ability to lay the regulations by removing any need for us to lay separate commencement orders switching on the powers. That does not allow us to do anything that we could not already do via an alternative route. The alternative route was laying individual commencement orders to switch on regulation-making powers. We felt that that was too bureaucratic, and that commencing the orders automatically on Royal Assent was much more sensible.
We have
made the code of practice available throughout the Bill’s
passage. The last version, a
near-final draft, was placed in the House of Commons Library back in
February. We will publish a final draft shortly, before the provisions
are brought into force. However, the provisions will not be implemented
until at least two months after the Bill receives Royal
Assent.
Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 22 agreed to.
Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 25.
Caroline Flint: The Government tabled Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 25 to meet concerns raised in the Grand Committee in the other place about the “authorised persons” who can enter and inspect an individual’s private home in relation to securing the safe, appropriate and effective management of controlled drugs.
Lords amendment No. 23 limits when an “authorised person” for the purposes of clause 19 can enter relevant premises which are or form part of a private dwelling. It ensures that an authorised person may only enter such premises if he or she is accompanied by a constable, or in such other circumstances as may be prescribed by regulations. Lords amendment No. 25 is purely consequential.
Lords amendment No. 23 contains a power to prescribe circumstances in regulations in which an authorised person will not need to be accompanied by a constable. That is simply to ensure that if, for example, a medical practitioner’s surgery is separate from his or her private dwelling but access has to be through the private dwelling—for instance, it may be on the ground floor of a block of flats with a shared hallway, in which case it will be a private space—it will be possible not to require the presence of a constable.
It will also be appropriate to use the power to exclude care homes from the requirement. While they can properly be classed as private dwellings because they are already inspected by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, it would seem illogical to require the presence of a constable in those specific circumstances.
Dr.
Murrison: My noble Friend Earl Howe and my right hon.
Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) argued
that authorised persons entering a private dwelling under the
provisions of part 3 should be accompanied by a police constable, and
we are pleased that the Government agree with that sensible suggestion.
The power of entry will of course be exercised very rarely, but
Conservative Members regard such incursions as quite grave and serious,
and we welcome the safeguard that the amendments will provide. We also
note the protection
that they may give authorised persons, and the evidential benefits that
may accrue.
I was going to quiz the Minister on what circumstances she might have in mind in providing the possibility of exemptions to the sensible provisions that she has described, but she has given two good examples. With that in mind, I support Lords amendment No. 23. I hope that it will provide the safeguards that we have sought in Committee and in the other place.
Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 28 agreed to.
Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 34.
5.30 pm
Caroline Flint: These amendments all relate to the disclosure of information obtained through the use of the powers set out in part 4, chapter 3, which deals with the protection of the NHS from fraud and other unlawful activities. Clause 50 provides special protection for information obtained from personal records, from which the identity of the individual thereabout can be ascertained. An Opposition amendment tabled in Grand Committee in the other place aimed to make it absolutely certain that any personal information was not disclosed to any person in respect of whom it was not necessary to disclose it. That was always our policy intention, but the amendment gave us pause for thought and the noble Lord Earl Howe, who tabled the amendment, graciously withdrew it in order to allow us time to think whether there was anything further that we needed to do to ensure that this important policy objective was met.
The result of our deliberations are the Lords amendments in the group. Although they look fairly complex, they do nothing more than put tighter safeguards around the disclosure of personal information. The amendments were welcomed in the other place, so unless Members are keen to hear the detailed explanations for each amendment in turn, which I am more than happy to give, I will stop there.
Dr.
Murrison: I have left the Minister plenty of time if she
would like to explain the details further. She should feel free to do
so. I am pleased that the Government have assimilated the concerns
about the disclosure of personal information that were expressed by my
hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in
Committee and by my noble Friend Lord Earl Howe in the other place. On
that consensual note, I welcome this set of Lords
amendments, but I would like some indication of when we can expect to
see the code of practice relating to disclosure, heralded by clause 48
as amended by this group. Clearly, it must be produced swiftly in order
to give advance information to those who may have to disclose or handle
information in accordance withthe
Bill.
Caroline Flint: I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman’s points and I am happy to look further into them and to provide more information about the code of practice.
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
Government of Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Government of Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9th January and 27th February 2006 (Government of Wales Bill (Programme) and Government of Wales Bill (Programme)(No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day’s sitting.
2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 3, 17, 21, 22, 18, 4 to 9, 19, 20, 16, 1, 2, 10 to 15 and 23 to 102.
Subsequent stages
3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Mr. Watts.]
Government of Wales Bill
5.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(Mr. Peter Hain): I assume that the programme motion has been moved, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Moved and agreed.
Mr. Hain: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
I believe that the package of amendments that we present today forms the basis of a cross-party consensus to achieve Royal Assent before the summer. The Government have listened to debates in this House and particularly in the House of Lords, where some major amendments were tabled. We have sought agreement and I believe that we now have that on the composition of Assembly Committees. The d’Hondt formula is now, instead of being up front, very much a fall-back option and on the backburner. It is there if needed, but we hope that it will not be needed. We have also made concessions on the name of the audit committee and, importantly for all Oppositionparties and—frankly speaking—for ourselves, on the membership of the Assembly commission.
The debate on the details of the Bill has now been had and I hope that the Conservatives will now join the other parties in Wales to make the new powers work, and not pursue old arguments. I thought that it was very apt of the former Plaid Cymru leader, Dafydd Wigley, to have told the Western Mail yesterday:
“I hope both sides can give and take. To prepare for what happens after next May, it is extremely important that the Bill gets through before the recess.”
That is indeed important. There are important preparations to be made for the election and many orders to be laid in respect of the new internal architecture of the Assembly. The Assembly officials and others want to get on with that and, therefore, Royal Assent by next Tuesday is very important.
After that brief introduction, I shall now address the amendments specifically. I realise that the ban on dual candidacy is contentious with all Opposition parties, but it is a manifesto commitment. Our 2005 general election manifesto stated that we would
“prevent candidates from standing on both the list and in a constituency in order to make all candidates genuinely accountable to the electorate and to end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by voters.”
That is a clear commitment from a manifesto that we took to the country in May last year and on the basis of which we won a resounding victory, certainly in Wales and also in the rest of the country. It is a measure that this House considered at length and supported by a considerable majority earlier this year.
The proposals in clause 7 of the Bill, as originally drafted, will strengthen the integrity of the Assembly’s electoral system and the legitimacy of regional Assembly Members. They will put the voters in charge by enabling them to reject a candidate who can currently get in through the back door despite being rejected by the voters in a constituency.
I appreciate that this issue has aroused strong feelings on both sides of the House and concerns have been expressed, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the views of Lord Elis-Thomas on this matter, the Presiding Officer of the Assembly since its establishment in 1999 and Plaid Cymru’s former parliamentary leader. When asked recently by the BBC about his views on the dual candidacy ban, he said:
“every party has selected under the system which is in the Bill and that, to me, signals a bit of an hypocrisy to carry on fighting old battles, I find that quite boring. So my main battle now is to try and get the structure of the National Assembly under the new constitution and new bill in place for 2007 because I don’t want people wasting time, whoever the Government is after 2007, by not being able to get things done.”
“the debate and the arguments have been lost.”
That is a significant statement. He continued:
“The politics has been lost. What I’m saying is that the big picture now is to get the Assembly established, and a new constitution, because what we have to do is to make it clear to the people of Wales that we have a new democratic opportunity. That is the most important way to challenge the Labour Party or any other party.”
I would be the first to admit that I have not always agreed with the views of Lord Elis-Thomas in the past—and I do not necessarily agree with every word of that quotation— but I believe that on this occasion he was speaking with the best interests of the National Assembly and of Wales at heart. He was speaking in a non-partisan way. I know that he was not a supporter of the ban on dual candidacy, but he has moved on and it is important that the House also moves on.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): I agree entirely with what the Secretary of State said about the manifesto commitment and the fact that we are talking about something that the House of Commons has passed on numerous occasions. Does he agree that Lord Elis-Thomas is, of course, a member of the House of Lords and that he accepts, and his party accepts, in the House of Lords, that the supremacy remains in this Chamber and in the House of Commons?
Mr. Hain: Indeed, although I am not seeking to deny that there have been real improvements to the Bill as a result of debates and arguments in the Lords and the amendments that have been moved there. There has been a constructive exchange, which has partly resulted in some of the important compromises that we have offered—not on dual candidacy, because that is a manifesto commitment. In line with the Salisbury convention, I hope that the House of Lords will respect that, because it is fundamental to the Bill and to the integrity of a new electoral system for the Assembly.
Lord Elis-Thomas knows better
than many the work and the preparation that needs to be done to enable
the Assembly to make a smooth transition next May to the new
arrangements, with a separate Executive and legislature. He does not
want that essential work to be
delayed by arguments over what his fellow Assembly Member, the Liberal
Democrat Peter Black, has described as a
“distraction from the real issues in the Bill.”
The real issues in the Bill are, of course, primarily concerned with giving extra powers to the Assembly and also with making sure that it acts as a proper legislature with an Executive who are accountable to that legislature—rather than a rather amorphous corporate body that has not really stood the test of time.
Royal Assent before the recess is vital and I am grateful that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) have recognised the importance of that. The key immovable deadline that we face is the Assembly elections next May. Considerable consequential work is needed following Royal Assent and before the purdah period before the elections. That includes elections and disqualification orders, which need to be made in good time to set out clearly the basis on which all parties and candidates need to organise themselves and to allow adequate time for proper consultation with the Electoral Commission. The Bill includes a power for the Assembly to promote participation in and awareness of the elections—meeting an Electoral Commission recommendation. Clearly, there has got to be sufficient time for that.
Schedule 7 outlines the Assembly’s ability to make primary legislation if there were to be a successful referendum. A key commitment is to fine tune that and to bring forward an amendment order to ensure that it is complete and accurate before the elections next May so that everybody is clear what the new footing is on which the Assembly will start. A considerable number of further orders are required—about 14—many of which are fundamental to the separation and include provisions for financing and staffing arrangements. They are critical when it comes to delivering the policy in the Bill and have to be completed in good time before the next elections.
I hope that I have not taken too many liberties in explaining to the House the importance of getting Royal Assent by next Tuesday. If devolution is to continue to be a success, and the Assembly to help to improve the quality of people’s lives in Wales, we need to move on—to go forward, not back. I urge Members to reject the Lords amendment and to disagree with the Lords on this matter.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): First, may I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box? It may be the hottest day of the year both here and in Wales, but he always looks as though he has been out in the sun rather a lot when he comes to the House to grace us with his presence, so it is obviously weather that he enjoys.
Mr. Hain: Having a permatan does not prevent one from getting a cold.
Mrs.
Gillan: The Secretary of State took the words out of my
mouth. He appears to be suffering. I am sorry that he is having so much
aggravation with his legislation, both here and in another place. Of
course,
it is not just this Bill that he is having a little local difficulty
with. I understand that there are negotiations on the Northern Ireland
legislation, which must be preoccupying him a great deal. We all
sympathised with him earlier in the year when he had to pull the
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It must always cause a great deal of
difficulty in the office of the Secretaryof State when
legislation has to be withdrawn. [ Interruption. ]
It was a pleasure to withdraw that piece of legislation—good, I
am glad to hear that. We might be able to agree on that, but there is
no doubt that we are not going to reach an agreement on dual candidacy.
Notwithstanding any backroom deals that might have been done with other
parties, we will continue to register our objections by opposing the
provisions in principle. I think neither that the matter is boring, nor
that it is something that we can just
ignore.
5.45 pm
It was always apparent from the way in which this aspect of the Bill was approached that a deal had been done—it was a deal between Cardiff and Whitehall—to keep Labour Assembly Members happy and dilute what they perceived to be real competition. In truth, it is competition that Labour Assembly Members cannot stand. The Secretary of State is quite right that various justificatory arguments for changing the electoral arrangements in Wales have been laid out by him, the Under-Secretary and Lord Davies of Oldham. However, it is worth having a look at them because I would not want to admit for one moment that the argument is lost. I think rather that the argument has been won, but that the Government have rolled on regardless.
First, we were told that the provision was a manifesto commitment. A manifesto commitment is a statement of intent, or even a wish. A party that was faced with the need to cling on to power by forming an alliance with another party—the Liberal Democrats, for example—would need to compromise on its manifesto commitments. Indeed, I believe that that has happened in Scotland.
The Labour party in Wales does not even need to enter into a coalition to give up on its manifesto commitments. Page 5 of its 2003 manifesto, “Working together for Wales”, said that in the next Welsh Assembly term Labour would
“Scrap Home Care charges for disabled people”.
However, on 15 February 2006, Dr. Gibbons, the Labour Minister for Health and Social Services, said:
“in view of all that we now know, it is clear that we cannot put in place our original plans equitably and affordably.”
There we have a manifesto commitment that was easily put aside.
That was not even a one-off. “Ambitions for Wales”, the Labour party’s 2001 manifesto document, said:
“We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them.”
Of course, Labour broke that manifesto promise. It was only the Conservatives who forced the Labour party to remove those charges from Welsh students attending Welsh universities. The claim that manifesto pledges cannot be broken really does not hold water as a cohesive argument. Such pledges can be broken when it suits the Labour party.
Secondly, we are told that the system is confusing to the electorate and that we do not want losers to become winners. What nonsense is that? If the Labour party does not want losers to become winners, why has it admitted Baroness Jones of Whitchurch to the House of Lords today? If I remember correctly, she was the losing candidate in the Blaenau Gwent constituency in the general election. Labour Members say that they want losers to be losers and not to become winners, but I am afraid that that rings pretty hollow today. If the Labour party did not want losers to become winners, why did it introduce a list system at all? On the death or resignation of a sitting Member, the next person on the list—most arguably a loser—automatically moves into an elected position. The claim is paramount nonsense.
The electorate are confused not about dual candidacy provisions, but the multiplicity of the voting systems that the Labour Government have introduced since 1997. We have the supplementary vote system for the London mayoral election, the proportional representation list system for European elections—except in Northern Ireland, where there is a different system—and indeed the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland. I do not think that I need to go on. The multiplicity of the systems is confusing voters who have been used to first past the post. However, another change is proposed for Wales after only a short time.
What is the basis for the change? If it were based on fact, investigation, consultation or popular demand, I could understand it, but that is not the case. The only research that has been prayed in aid of the change is that of the Bevan Foundation. Despite the foundation’s excellent credentials, that work was hardly its finest piece of research. Such a small, isolated, Labour-purchased report should hardly form the basis for electoral change. I have to tell the Secretary of State that I have received no letters from people demanding a change. I have heard no public outcry and have received no letters supporting the changes that he wants to make.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) rose—
Mrs. Gillan: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who sponsored the research.
Mr. David: The hon. Lady has questioned the objective credentials of the Bevan Foundation on numerous occasions, but does she agree that it is significant that the Leader of the Opposition has contributed to its current review?
Mrs. Gillan: I was not casting aspersions on the Bevan Foundation—I was just saying that I doubt that it is happy, either with that small, imperfect piece of research or for it to be cited as the sole support for electoral change in Wales. The foundation has some excellent credentials, but that research is slightly lacking in my view and, I believe, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, given his admission.
To
justify the changes, the Secretary of State said that there is
widespread, systematic abuse by regional Assembly Members. I have
challenged him to produce evidence, as has Nick Bourne, the leader of
the Conservative group in the Assembly. In a debate on this
subject on 27 February, I asked the Secretary of State whether he had
replied to letters that Nick Bourne had sent him on 4 November and 27
January. Since then, another letter was sent on 20 March. Of course,
there is no evidence of abuse, which is why, I assume, the Secretary of
State has not had the courtesy to respond to those letters. I am happy
to give way to him if he would like to explain why he has not done so.
Those letters are perfectly polite—if he would like to look at
them, I have copies with me. It appears, however, that the allegations
of abuse are another fabrication to try to justify the self-serving
provision in the Bill.
There is a great deal of opinion against the introduction of such a system, which operates successfully only in Ukraine. The Electoral Commission was not convinced of the need for change. In its submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee, it concluded:
“In light of the need to encourage voter participation at the Assembly election in 2007, we would caution against any change that is perceived to be partisan and could add to a prevailing distrust of politicians.
On the evidence available to the Commission...we do not believe that the case for change has been made out.”
The Electoral Society Reform said:
“We urge the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made.”
During the Bill’s passage through the House, we heard from the Arbuthnott Commission which, after 18 months of deliberation and discussion, following the submission of evidence, including verbal evidence, from a range of bodies and elected representatives at all levels, concluded that there was no evidence that dual candidacy was problematic for voters. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott said:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |