Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I had hoped that the merits of such an amendment might be seen as self-evident, not just for the sake of businesses and voluntary organisations, important as they are, but for the good of the NHS. I take absolutely the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth; the impact of CHAI and CSCI should not be measured purely in negative terms. On the contrary, I am the first to recognise that they will be a force for good. There is an issue about burdens, but I shall not press the point. I am glad that it has been registered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 127 [Reports: CSCI]:

[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]

10 Nov 2003 : Column 1196

Clause 128 [Duty to have regard to government policy: CHAI]:

[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]

Clause 129 [Duty to have regard to government policy: CSCI]:

[Amendment No. 380 not moved.]

Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 381 and 382:


    After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—


"CODE OF PRACTICE: CHAI
(1) The CHAI must prepare and publish a code in respect of the practice it proposes to follow in relation to confidential personal information.
(2) The code must in particular make provision about the CHAI's obtaining, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information.
(3) Before publishing the code, the CHAI must consult such persons as it considers appropriate.
(4) The CHAI must keep the code under review and, if it considers it appropriate, from time to time publish a revised code (and references in this section to the code include any revised code).
(5) For the purposes of this section "confidential personal information" means information which—
(a) is obtained by the CHAI on terms or in circumstances requiring it to be held in confidence; and
(b) relates to and identifies an individual." After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—


"CODE OF PRACTICE: CSCI
(1) The CSCI must prepare and publish a code in respect of the practice it proposes to follow in relation to confidential personal information.
(2) The code must in particular make provision about the CSCI's obtaining, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information.
(3) Before publishing the code, the CSCI must consult such persons as it considers appropriate.
(4) The CSCI must keep the code under review and, if it considers it appropriate, from time to time publish a revised code (and references in this section to the code include any revised code).
(5) For the purposes of this section "confidential personal information" means information which—
(a) is obtained by the CSCI on terms or in circumstances requiring it to be held in confidence; and
(b) relates to and identifies an individual."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 383:


    Before Clause 146, insert the following new clause—


"REGULATIONS UNDER PART 3
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 191(5), the first regulations under this Part shall be made in a draft of the regulations laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the consequential amendment to Clause 191. As I forecast at the time, we have learnt quite a lot more about the Government's proposal to extend the scheme for the NHS treatment cost element of successful motor insurance claims to employers' liability, personal liability and product

10 Nov 2003 : Column 1197

liability. As we learned it at a time when most sensible people were tucked up in bed, we were perhaps not quite as responsive as we might have been.

We know well how the current scheme operates. So far as concerns this amendment, we now know two things about the new scheme. It will take not one but nine different statutory instruments to operate it. When I spoke in Committee, it was eight, but the Government in their wisdom—I accept their wisdom—will very shortly add an extra set of regulations in Clause 189, under Amendments Nos. 385D and 385F.

We know that the provisions will not come into effect until after the Department for Work and Pensions has completed its review of employers' liability. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, that will be in the autumn. Armistice Day is upon us, and by my calendar, he has just three weeks to deliver. Given that it has taken four years just to agree with the Law Commission that the extended scheme is justified, the prognosis cannot be good. Even if the Department for Work and Pensions report is produced soon, it will take time for the department to consider it and then to draft the orders. Most importantly, the longer the operation takes, the more need there will be to scrutinise the orders properly. As we all know well, praying against them is a hit-and-miss affair, especially as noble Lords' attention will naturally be elsewhere after the Gracious Speech.

When the Bill arrived here, all eight orders were to be made by negative resolution. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform commented adversely on two of them, and the Government graciously conceded. They moved amendments in Committee to say that the Secretary of State may not alter the exempted payments in Schedule 10 without laying an affirmative instrument—one of the things that I called for in an amendment in Committee. When I asked for all the eight regulations to be affirmative, not surprisingly, given that my proposal was overkill, I got a dusty answer from the Minister. That said, he opened the door just a chink for this amendment by moving that the first regulations made under Clause 149(2), which covers the information required in the certificates needed to operate the new scheme, would be made by affirmative resolution.

So far, so good—but not good enough. Regulations are to govern the appeals procedure under Clauses 153, 154 and 155. Regulations are to govern the provision of information under Clause 156. Regulations are to be made regarding the method of payment to individual hospitals or ambulance trusts, under Clause 158. More are to be made covering lump sums, periodical payments and so forth. Yet more are to be made to limit the liability of insurers.

As if that were not enough, regulations are to be made regarding treatment at non-health service hospitals. According to evidence given to the Select Committee, this last is likely to come on stream long after the others. Now there are regulations to govern qualifying claims under the new subsection. How can

10 Nov 2003 : Column 1198

the Minister say that they all exist? I also challenge him to say that those that exist now will not differ by virtue of extending the scheme. I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the fact that we were able to offer what seemed to the Government to be a pragmatic response to the concerns of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform about Clauses 146(12) and 149(2) does not mean that we conceded anything in any way with regard to the regulation-making powers elsewhere in Part 3.

The Select Committee was concerned about two specific issues. One was that the powers in Clause 146(12) could expand the scope of the scheme, and the other was that the powers in Clause 149(2) included setting the tariffs for the new scheme. The Select Committee felt that those issues merited the closer scrutiny attached to the affirmative resolution procedure, and the Government were content to offer a compromise solution in response to those concerns.

With hardly any exceptions, the other regulation-making powers in Part 3 simply reflect powers that already exist in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. Regulations made under that Act are all subject to the negative resolution procedure. I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord feels that that is inappropriate to this Bill, given the exceptions on which we have already made concessions.

I see no reason why this House and the other place need to get involved in debates on the technical details of such a scheme. We would be spending time not on matters of principle but on the minutiae of the scheme's operation—arrangements that, in many cases, have already been thought through in relation to the road traffic scheme and operate perfectly well. Noble Lords opposite always complain about the Government micromanaging the NHS—a suggestion that we refute. Now, they seem to want to bring Parliament into the micromanagement business.

The Government have recognised the legitimate concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee and have responded to them. If the Select Committee is content for the majority of powers in Part 3 to remain subject to annulment procedures, I can see no reason why that should not also be good enough for the rest of your Lordships.

I have already given the reasons why the Government do not accept Amendment No. 383. It would also be illogical to accept Amendment No. 409. To do so would be to backtrack on our commitment to the Delegated Powers Committee on Clause 149(2). We cannot accept either of the amendments.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it seems to have escaped the Minister's notice that the reason we are suspicious is that the scheme is being changed. The

10 Nov 2003 : Column 1199

Minister was good enough just now to say that, by virtue of the change, many of the nuts and bolts, I think he said—


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page