Clause 9 - Variation of authorisation
Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
9:15 am
Mr Simon Burns (West Chelmsford, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 139, in
clause 9, page 4, line 20, leave out 'is to' and insert 'must'.
Subsection (2) of clause 9 states:
''In deciding whether or not to vary an authorisation the regulator is to have regard (among other things) to—''
the overview and scrutiny committee of local authorities and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Both of those proposals are eminently reasonable.
However, I am concerned about the use of the words ''is to''. They are ambiguous, and I should like to toughen up the wording to ''must''. That would make clear that if there were variations of authorisation, the regulator ''must'' have regard to any recommendations that have been made to those two bodies, rather than ''is to'' have regard, which is a weaker and more lax instruction.
The use of the word ''must'' would impose an absolute duty, but if ''is to'' were used, some safeguards that one had assumed were implemented might not be—because of the variation of authorisation—particularly with regard to the provision of a trust's core services. One such example is the Royal College of Midwives. I am sure that Ministers are aware of a recent article in The Times concerning the provision of midwifery services throughout the country, and that maternity services are a core function of the NHS. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) is certainly aware of that, because he is quoted in Hansard of 7 May 2003 as making that point. The figures certainly back that up. Approximately 555,000 babies were delivered in England in the most recent year for which figures are available.