Clause 1 - English health authorities: change of name
NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
11:00 am
Mr Simon Burns (West Chelmsford, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from `(1)' to `Health' and insert `From 1st April 2003'.
The first amendment is very straightforward. If accepted by the Government, it would change subsection (1) by saying that the proposed change of name of the health authority would have the knock-on effect of postponing implementation of the wide-ranging changes to 1 April 2003.
In ``Shifting the Balance'' the Government outlined a time scale for changes to PCTs, for the creation of strategic health authorities and for the abolition, in effect, of health authorities in England. According to that document, consultation on the proposed strategic health authorities will last from September to November, and the chairmen and chief executives designate will be appointed in November. That is cutting things fine. One presumes that the consultation period has been established so that the Government can properly analyse, assess and digest the results, but their intention to appoint the chairmen and chief executives in the same month as it ends—should they keep to the proposed time scale—adds to our fears that the measure is being rushed. I genuinely believe that a deadline of November 2001 for designated appointments and one of April 2002 for the establishment of the new strategic health authorities and the disestablishment of existing health authorities leaves too short a time.
With that in mind, the purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, it is designed to find out whether the Government are indeed keeping to the time scale outlined in ``Shifting the Balance'', what progress they are making in terms of the April 2002 target date, the way in which interested parties responded to the consultation process, and what consideration the Government have given to those responses. Apart from probing, the amendment has a second and more defined purpose, which is to advise the Government to think again about rushing in, and to accept the amendment so that strategic health authorities will not be set up until a year this April.
If the amendment were accepted, there would be a knock-on effect on consistency, clarity and the way in which the system works. I appreciate that the Government have put together a package and that therefore many elements rely on others. If the introduction of SHAs is postponed for 12 months to April 2003, it is logical to postpone changes to the functions and establishment of 100 per cent. of PCTs. They come as a package, and the one cannot work without the other. I accept, therefore, that however innocuous and helpful to the Government the amendment might be, it would have a wide-ranging knock-on effect on the first five clauses.
I urge the Minister not to reject the amendment out of hand. As I have said, it is intended to be helpful. It is not the Minister's intention to introduce botched or rushed legislation; he, like any other hon. Member—or, in his case, right hon. Member—wants the best possible legislation. On that basis, I anticipate his appreciating the fact that we are doing the Government a service by tabling an amendment that errs on the side of caution to ensure that there is no headlong rush that will cause considerable confusion and might destabilise the position.
There are approximately 104 health authorities in England and Wales. When the SHAs are set up, they will reduce dramatically the number of bodies at what is, for all intents and purposes, the health authority level of the NHS: fewer SHAs will cover larger areas and populations. In the context of the Government's aims, I understand the logic of their proposals. However, health authorities are currently the purchasers of health care for our constituents.