Clause
30
Offences
relating to suspension or cancellation of
registration
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I am unclear from the drafting of the clause
whether an individual, rather than a corporate person, could be held
liable under it. Can the Minister clarify that
point?
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 30
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 31 to 33 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause
34
Provision
of copies of
registers
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
O'Brien:
In what circumstances might the register not be
made public? Which parts of the register might be hidden through
regulations under subsection (3)? I note that the memorandum on
delegated powers gives the example of a list of children’s
homes. As I am sure we are all aware, the regulations here are under
negative procedure, but it would be helpful if the Minister clarified
what those circumstances are and gave examples, particularly those that
might not be made public under subsection
(3).
Sandra
Gidley:
I have couple of general concerns about the
clause. Subsection (1) states that copies of registers must be
kept
“available at its
offices for inspection at all reasonable times by any
person”,
and there is a
charge if anybody wants any information from the register. However, in
these days of the internet, should not the registers, in the greater
public interest, be more publicly available, so that people can access
the information when they want to? Doing that would remove a level of
bureaucracy. Will the Minister give some thought to
that?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I entirely agree. We are leaving it up to the
commission to determine how it should make the registers publicly
available; it should consider the hon. Lady’s suggestion
carefully.
On the
question raised by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, we are talking about
some particularly sensitive services for children and vulnerable adults
that it would not be appropriate publicly to give details about.
However, we will set out the circumstances where information should not
be provided in the regulations. That will give us a chance to explore
the matter in a little more
detail.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 34
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
35
Bodies
required to be notified of certain
matters
Mr.
O'Brien:
I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
clause 35, page 17, line 35, at
end insert—
‘(aa) to the
relevant Local Involvement Network and cooperative group of Local
Involvement
Networks,’.
In
my desperate attempt to ensure that we kill the left-hand column of the
selection list by the time we have to close, I should mention that
amendment No. 27 would include LINks in the list of bodies to be
notified of certain matters. Although that is no doubt possible under
subsection (1)(d), it would be useful for it to be included in the
Bill. I remind the Committee of the debate on LINks, but I will
explicitly mention now CSCI, which in its submission at paragraph 43
stated:
“It
would be useful if there were an explicit expectation that the new care
provision had a relationship with local involvement
networks.”
In the event
that the Minister rejects this amendment—I sincerely hope that
he will not feel that he needs to or should—I hope that he will
add it to his great big box of issues to be reflected on, and come back
to the Committee at a later stage with clearer thinking on
it.
Greg
Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): We have already
expressed our concern at the lack of public involvement enshrined in
the Bill. Although local involvement networks may or may not be the
best way to achieve that, at the moment they are pretty much the only
show in town, so we support the intention behind the Bill. I look
forward to the Minister’s
comments.
Mr.
Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): The Minister and I are
both aware of the fact that circumstances change over time. Although I
may have some sympathy with looking at local involvement, I would not
want to prescribe which group is to be involved, in case it ceases to
exist during the lifetime of the
Bill.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
They have only just been born, so give them a
chance! As I said, I have sympathy with the motivation behind the
amendment. However, I go back to the point that we have made on a
number of occasions throughout our deliberations about how prescriptive
we are regarding the actions of the new regulator. Although
I have stated that LINks will have a valid interest in the work that is
done, I fully expect the Care Quality Commission to work closely with
LINks—not for exactly the same reasons that Members have been
mentioned, but for some of
them.
It is not
necessarily a good idea to prescribe in the Bill that a particular
organisation should be involved in and pre-warned of all the actions
that the commission is taking, particularly early on in proceedings
before fault or guilt has been found. As I indicated in response to
discussion on another clause, there certain issues that may have to be
handled sensitively, in respect of which it would not be appropriate to
inform LINks or anyone else of the commission’s
activities.
Although I
sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, the Bill as it stands
strikes the right
balance between keeping the public and LINks informed, while allowing
the commission to carry out its work fairly and
appropriately.
Mr.
O'Brien:
In the light of the Minister’s expressing
sympathy but not accepting the amendment, I take that as a
“yes” to the matter going into the “I will
reflect” box. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
I am afraid that we cannot deal with amendment
No. 233 because it is 10.25 and I must suspend the sitting.
It being twenty-five minutes
past Ten o’clock,
The Chairman
adjourned the Committee with Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
