Table
Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
8:55 am
Sitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 13th May (8.55 am) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 13th May (2.30 pm) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 15th May (8.55 am) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 15th May (2.30 pm) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 20th May (8.55 am) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 20th May (2.30 pm) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 22nd May (8.55 am) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. – 22nd May (2.30 pm) Clause 1, Schedule 1; Clause 2, Schedule 2; Clauses 3 to 25; Schedule 3; Clauses 26 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1. 5.00 pm 3rd June (10.30 am) Clause 36, Schedule 5; Clause 37, Schedule 6; Clause 38, Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 41; Clauses 43 to 65; Clauses 72 to 88; Clauses 99 to 105; Clauses 107 to 109; Clause 111; Clauses 113 to 128; Clauses 133 and 134; Schedule 8; Clauses 135 and 136. – 3rd June (4.30 pm) Clause 36, Schedule 5; Clause 37, Schedule 6; Clause 38, Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 41; Clauses 43 to 65; Clauses 72 to 88; Clauses 99 to 105; Clauses 107 to 109; Clause 111; Clauses 113 to 128; Clauses 133 and 134; Schedule 8; Clauses 135 and 136. – 5th June (8.55 am) Clause 36, Schedule 5; Clause 37, Schedule 6; Clause 38, Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 41; Clauses 43 to 65; Clauses 72 to 88; Clauses 99 to 105; Clauses 107 to 109; Clause 111; Clauses 113 to 128; Clauses 133 and 134; Schedule 8; Clauses 135 and 136. – 5th June (2.30 pm) Clause 36, Schedule 5; Clause 37, Schedule 6; Clause 38, Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 41; Clauses 43 to 65; Clauses 72 to 88; Clauses 99 to 105; Clauses 107 to 109; Clause 111; Clauses 113 to 128; Clauses 133 and 134; Schedule 8; Clauses 135 and 136. – 10th June (8.55 am) Clause 36, Schedule 5; Clause 37, Schedule 6; Clause 38, Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 41; Clauses 43 to 65; Clauses 72 to 88; Clauses 99 to 105; Clauses 107 to 109; Clause 111; Clauses 113 to 128; Clauses 133 and 134; Schedule 8; Clauses 135 and 136. – 10th June (2.30 pm) Clause 36, Schedule 5; Clause 37, Schedule 6; Clause 38, Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 41; Clauses 43 to 65; Clauses 72 to 88; Clauses 99 to 105; Clauses 107 to 109; Clause 111; Clauses 113 to 128; Clauses 133 to 134; Schedule 8; Clauses 135 to 136. 5.00 pm 12th June (8.55 am) Clause 42; Clauses 66 to 71; Clauses 89 to 98; Clause 106; Clause 110; Clause 112; Clauses 129 to 132; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2. 11.25 pm 12th June (2.30 pm) Clauses 167 and 168; Schedule 11; Clauses 169 to 171; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5. 5.00 pm 17th June (8.55 am) Clause 137, Schedule 9; Clauses 138 to 156; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3. – 17th June (2.30 pm) Clause 137, Schedule 9; Clauses 138 to 156; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3. – 19th June (8.55 am) Clauses 157 to 166; Schedule 10; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; Clauses 172 to 175, Schedule 12; Clauses 176 to 181; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill. – 19th June (2.30 pm) Clauses 157 to 166; Schedule 10; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; Clauses 172 to 175, Schedule 12; Clauses 176 to 181; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill. 5.00 pm
On behalf of all members of the Committee, Mr. Griffiths, I should like to say how much we look forward to serving under your watchful eye during proceedings on this important Bill. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I promise good behaviour, which I am sure will be reciprocated on both sides of the Committee. We also look forward to serving under the chairmanship of Mr. Atkinson, whom I hold in the
highest regard. He is the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which I lived before I was elected to the House. My family still lives in his constituency, but I cannot promise that they are ever likely to vote for him, although, of course, that might change.
We have drafted the programme motion in an attempt to be fair to both sides of the Committee. Hon. Members will know that parts of the Bill are controversial—particularly part 1—because they propose radical reforms in the national health service. We have devoted the lion's share of the Committee's time to the consideration of part 1, which has only 35 clauses, and I hope that hon. Members will find that an acceptable division.
It is sometimes difficult to be fair to all quarters in politics. One can end up with no credit whatever, and I suspect that that will become increasingly apparent during the course of this short debate. However, the motion is a fair and balanced attempt to ensure that the Committee has an appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the Bill effectively and thoroughly, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee will support the motion.
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
Under the Standing Order, the debate may continue for up to 30 minutes.
Mr Simon Burns (West Chelmsford, Conservative)
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I echo the Minister's sentiments in welcoming you, Mr. Griffiths, and your colleague on the Chairman's panel, Mr. Atkinson, to the chairmanship of our proceedings. Given the confusion of the proposals, we look forward not only to proceeding in this Committee in a spirit of good faith and good manners, but to pressing the Government hard on their exact intentions.
The Opposition do not oppose the programme motion per se, but I wish to highlight two points. The first concerns the sitting on 19 June, during which we will debate clauses 157 onwards, which deal with NHS dentistry. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), in his place because I want to seek an assurance from him at the outset and give him plenty of time to prepare for that sitting.
Many of the Government's proposals will be finalised through regulations. To ensure that the Government have left enough time to discuss dentistry and the other matters in the programme motion, I am concerned that, if they are able, at the earliest possible moment during our proceedings and long before 19 June, they should give the Committee the draft regulations in any shape or form, so that we know more about their intentions as we conduct our debate. If that is not feasible, in order to help us in our deliberations, can the Under-Secretary provide us with greater details of what he anticipates might be in the regulations?
The second matter is slightly more sensitive. I do not seek to criticise the Committee of Selection, because that would be totally out of order, but I am concerned about the impact of the composition of this Committee on its ability to debate fully and properly and to tease out of the Government their arguments on those parts of the Bill that are highly contentious.
Will there be enough time under this programme motion to do that? As you know, Mr. Griffiths, composition of Committees should reflect the will of the House of Commons. When one sees the list of Labour Members who have been selected for this Committee—apart from Ministers and the sprinkling of Under-Secretaries, who do not get paid but are, so to speak, on the payroll—one is concerned about the time allocated.
Some 65 Labour Members—15 per cent. of the Labour party—voted for what is known as the rebels' amendment, yet there is no true person on this list who actually—[Interruption.] It is worrying that the timetable may not allow enough time for a possible rebel to decide what action to take. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) had it both ways; he voted for the rebel amendment yet supported the Bill on Second Reading, to enable him to develop his arguments.
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
Order. I am confident that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be well able to put whatever argument he may wish to put in the Committee, so we do not need to discuss that subject any further.
Mr Simon Burns (West Chelmsford, Conservative)
I am grateful to you, Mr. Griffiths. I fully appreciate and accept what you say. However, may I, as a final word on the matter, through you, give the hon. Gentleman some advice? He should table his amendments to tease out his concerns about the Bill as soon as possible, so that they can be selected in time to be debated. That will ensure that he has his fair share of time under the programme motion, so that he can develop his arguments on why he is opposed to the Bill and yet supported it on Second Reading. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will heed my advice. Having said that, we have no objections in principle to the programme motion.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I, too, welcome you, Mr. Griffiths, to the Chair today, and also Mr. Atkinson, whom we will be seeing at other sittings. I hope that I speak for the Opposition Benches when I say that we hope to cause both of you as little trouble as possible. However, we cannot promise that we will cause no trouble whatever.
The Bill is exceedingly long. It has six parts, 181 clauses and 12 schedules, and it is an extremely complex piece of legislation, as has been evidenced by the tortuous route that it has taken to reach Committee.
The official Opposition are content with the programme motion at this stage, but that might not always be the case. Already, 186 amendments have been tabled without the benefit of any amendments on behalf of the 65 Labour rebels. It is sad that they may not have a voice, but I anticipate that there may be an opportunity for Members, such as the hon. Member for Ealing, North, to table some amendments. I want to ensure that we have time to discuss those amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) so ably said in his opening remarks on this programme motion.
Discussions have taken place through the usual channels, and I am gratified to know that the
Government are willing, at any stage during the Bill, as I understand it, to revisit the programme motion and consider the number of sittings that we have allocated for discussing the various parts of the Bill. We are pleased that 10 of the 20 sittings so far programmed are devoted to the important section on foundation hospitals, an issue on which there is so much dissent in the Labour party. However, I am also grateful to the Government that we are able to reserve the position and consider further sittings, even though that may involve Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Atkinson sitting for longer than they might have anticipated. I felt at this stage that it was fair to put that on the record, because we were so pleased that we had had such a generous offer from the Government, particularly as I feel sure that there will be more amendments representing the views of the 65 Labour rebels who voted for the amendment on Second Reading.
Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I, too, take the opportunity to welcome you, Mr. Griffiths, to the Chair, and I also welcome the Ministers who will be speaking to much of the Bill.
Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats voted against the programme motion, bearing in mind the scale of the Bill and the length of time that we will spend in Committee, rather than specific divisions. Many people have waited a long time for the Bill and now find that, despite the many clauses, the Government insist that it leave Committee on 19 June. It is unusual for a Bill with so many clauses to be dealt with so peremptorily in terms of the planned sittings. I welcome the Government's willingness to reconsider the number of sittings overall, particularly if progress is slow.
The concern that I have already raised informally is that there should be adequate time to debate matters specific to the social care inspectorate. The hope and expectation is that there will be, but I fear that there will be so much to say about the Commission for Health Improvement that discussion may be truncated. I hope that it will be possible to revisit the question of a knife protecting discussion of that business if the need arises.
I share the concern that the allocation of only two sittings at the end of our consideration for a discussion of dentistry, when there will be little or no room for manoeuvre for extra sittings to discuss the reorganisation of dentistry and all that that entails, does not allow the matter due consideration. I have asked the Minister on the Floor of the House—I received no reply, but I have since asked for an undertaking on the record—whether, if the general practitioners agree to the Government's plans while we are in Committee, the Government will introduce in Committee clauses, which we know they have already drafted, to implement that agreement. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, without prejudging the Government's view, if they have decided that that could happen by 19 June. We would certainly appreciate that.
My final point, which is really a point of order, is that the acoustics in this Room make it difficult to hear, particularly for those of us below the Gangway. We had no problem hearing the Member for West Chelmsford, but we did not hear some of the Minister's comments. Perhaps someone could examine the microphones.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
As you may expect, Mr. Griffiths, I have a brief contribution to make. I endorse the comments welcoming you to the Chair, and I look forward to this Committee stage because nothing is more important to our constituents than high-quality health care. It is becoming a matter of common ground that hospitals should have a more local decision-making capacity, and the Bill's final form will be of huge significance to our constituents.
I have two points on the programme motion. First, following the personal statement yesterday from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), have you, Mr. Griffiths, had an application from her to join the Committee? She made it clear that she has profound reservations about the way in which the Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
Order. That was a nice try, but we are not discussing the composition of the Committee, and that is not my job anyway. The hon. Member must go through the usual channels if he wants to make any changes.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Griffiths.
My second point is better. I am not against programme motions per se, whether in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, but I am genuinely concerned that one of the lacunas in our scrutiny of legislation is that important Bills go through Committee but receive adequate and proper scrutiny only when they return to the Floor of the House on Report. One reason why there is a problem is that the Government often produce amendments at the last minute.
I want to back up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and ask whether Committee members can have the regulations as soon as possible. May we also have Government amendments at the earliest possible stage so that we can consider them? We all know that amendments can transform a clause and a Bill, and we need adequate time to study them.
I do not know whether the Minister will respond to this brief debate, but it would be good to have an assurance that Ministers are aware that an abuse of House procedure often takes place during the Report stage of Bills such as this. May we also have an assurance that there will be adequate time to consider those last-minute amendments and issues with which we have not adequately dealt that may come from the House of Lords in due course?
I am happy with the time allocated for the initial stage of these Committee proceedings. However, we do not need surprises. We do not want tricks from the Government or massive amendments that can have a last-minute impact on the legislation. We must have proper time adequately to scrutinise what I suspect will
be one of the most important pieces of legislation in this entire Parliament. The legislation will set the scene for health care in this country for at least the next decade. It is a significant moment for us, and we want the Government to play ball and give us a fair opportunity to scrutinise the legislation.
Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow and Furness, Labour)
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford tantalisingly mentioned 19 June, and we all look forward to reaching that date. He made that comment in the context of his concerns about the clauses on dentistry. As I said to him in the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday—I am happy to confirm it again today—we will try as hard as we can to ensure that the Committee has all the relevant information, as and when it considers various parts of the Bill. I cannot say that we will have the draft regulations ready at that point, but I can assure the Committee that we will see what further information we can provide on our thinking about how those clauses will operate.
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
In that context, does the Minister accept that, as we begin to consider foundation trusts, it would be helpful to have information on the Government's conclusions about which trusts the Secretary of State will permit to apply to become foundation trusts? We might then begin to discern what criteria the Government are applying to that question.
Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow and Furness, Labour)
An answer to that question is likely soon, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to that. We set out the broad criteria in the guide to applying to be an NHS foundation trust, so there will not be any news for the hon. Gentleman in that regard.
Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
Before the Minister moves away from provision of further information, in the potentially unlikely event that the GPs approve the GP contract in the next few weeks, will he give the Committee an undertaking that, if the Government seek to introduce clauses implementing that contract, additional time will be provided to the Committee to consider them?
Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow and Furness, Labour)
I shall deal with the GP clauses in a minute. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) also has a problem with that matter, and I must say to him that the number of sittings that the House has allocated for consideration of the Bill in Committee are broadly proportionate. He is concerned that we will have only 20 sittings, but I think that that is a proportionate number of sittings.
I wish to make the obvious point, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) also sought to make, that the number of Committee sittings are fixed. If he or anyone else proposes an adjustment at some later point to the programme motion, which I hope we will approve in a minute, he will have to find give up time allocated to other matters to allow us to consider other clauses more extensively. All right hon. and hon. Members must be aware of that reality.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
That is not the understanding that I had. I understood that if we wished to spend more time scrutinising the Bill, there was the offer of sitting
on Wednesdays or late into the evening. Will the Minister to confirm that that is the case.
Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow and Furness, Labour)
That certainly is an option for the Committee. However, the Committee itself must address that. At the end of the day, the Bill must be out of the Committee on 19 June. It is for hon. Members to decide how they want to use their time within that available slot.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
The Minister said that Committee stage must be completed by 19 June, but surely that is only if the Committee agrees the programme motion. If that is not the case, perhaps he will explain the current procedure.
Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow and Furness, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has uncharacteristically failed to grasp an important element of parliamentary procedure. The House decided that the Bill will be reported on 19 June, and the Committee, as I understand it, does not have the locus or competence to change a decision of the House. If the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) or other hon. Members want to sit on extra days, evenings or mornings, a Programming Sub-Committee can investigate that. However, that is not my preference, and I am probably not alone in that regard.
Last week, I apologised to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for not responding when he raised the issue of GP clauses in the House. When hon. Members can debate the GP clauses will depend very much on when the British Medical Association starts the ballot on the proposed new general medical services contract, and it will also depend on the result of that ballot. That may or may not be within the time scale of the Committee's consideration of the Bill. I do not know the answer to that question. However, if the ballot produces a yes vote—which I hope will be the case because it is a good contract for GPs and patients in primary care—and GPs decide to endorse the contract, if there is sufficient time the necessary amendments will be tabled during the Committee stage. That is probably the strongest assurance that I can give, but I realise that it may not be as strong as the hon. Gentleman would like.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) raised a fair point about the amendments being tabled in sufficient time for the Committee to consider them properly, and I assure him that that will be the case. If he reads the amendment paper, he will realise that we tabled amendments last week to part 1 of the Bill, and the Committee has two weeks to consider them. We started fairly, and we will continue fairly.
I know that there are concerns about the timing and allocation of sittings, but my strongly held view is that a fair attempt has been made to ensure that the Committee has sufficient time to consider the various clauses and amendments. I hope that the Committee will now endorse the sittings selection.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
I remind Members that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of
which are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members to give adequate notice of amendments, because, as a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.