Clause 24 - Declaration of financial interests, gifts, etc
Health and Social Care Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, in view of the events that have occurred, the fact of expectation is material and relevant. If a general practitioner stands to benefit financially from the demise of a patient, that fact should be brought to the notice of a responsible body—the health authority, in this case—if not placed within the public domain. It is a relevant fact that should be recorded somewhere. However, we will hear what the Minister says about that amendment before we continue our debate.
The third purpose behind the amendments is to set the value threshold by reference not to a specific monetary amount but to the threshold for declaration of gifts by Ministers of the Crown. That seems entirely equitable and reasonable. That threshold is £125. No doubt the Minister would argue—and I would not disagree with him—that Ministers of the Crown would not be likely to be influenced by receiving a gift, certainly not a gift with a monetary value of less than £125, and are mature enough to be able to accept small gifts without it distorting their powers of judgment.
One is entitled to ask why medical practitioners are not assumed to be similarly discriminatory and able to receive small gifts without being unduly or inappropriately influenced by them. The case in logic for linking the monetary threshold to the monetary threshold that is applied to politicians is unanswerable. It would be grossly insulting to doctors to suggest that they are of a different calibre when it comes to making moral judgments about financial gifts or incentives that they are offered.
I emphasise that the amendment does not require the threshold to be set at the same level as for Ministers of the Crown, but merely by reference to it. It could be twice the level for Ministers of the Crown or half the level. The amendment would also have the singular advantage that, as the ministerial code levels were adjusted over time, there would be an automatic updating to take account of inflation and/or society's changing perception of the corruptibility or otherwise of those in positions of office. I think that has benefits.
I acknowledge that this group of amendments is not technically perfect. Indeed, due to nothing other than laziness on my part, they address only general medical services and general dental services; I could not bear the thought of writing out the same amendments twice again in order to cover ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. I hope the Minister will take them as pointing in that direction. We would like to hear his views, and if he believes the amendments have any merit, we could perhaps return to them at a later stage in the Bill's progress and make sure that they are technically perfected.