Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in

schedule 1, page 9, line 8, leave out 'the prescribed number of' and insert 'twelve'.

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 16, in

schedule 1, page 9, line 9, leave out 'the prescribed number of' and insert 'six'.

No. 17, in

schedule 1, page 9, line 23, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

Schedule 1 is quite a big schedule. It sets out in some detail the way in which the Health Protection Agency will be structured—how it will run, how it will be financed, and so on. We clearly need to get it right. To return for one moment to the Minister's

previous remarks, I fear that she may be setting herself up as a hostage to fortune. I shall look carefully at the Bill as it goes through its various stages, particularly in the light of the review expected next month, to see whether any changes are required following the expected abolition of some bodies. We shall see.

With this group of amendments, I am trying to address the latitude that the schedule gives on a number of counts. Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are probing amendments. I suggest that the Bill should specify the number of the categories of the agency's members detailed in paragraphs 1(1)(c) and (d). That is not because I think that there should necessarily be 12 non-executive members or six executive members, but we need to know what sort of size the Minister envisages for such an important body. That is why I have suggested inserting 12 and six and deleting ''the prescribed number'', which is such a number as the Secretary of State prescribes by regulation.

Regulations are tricky little numbers and we should give them to Secretaries of State sparingly. [Interruption.]

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

Order. I call the Minister.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I do not think that the hon. Member for Westbury had finished what he had to say before the phone intervention.

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

Can we ensure that everyone has their mobile phones switched off and pagers on silent?

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The Minister is very kind—saved by the bell. I was coming to the end of my remarks anyway, although it would have been nice for them not to have been terminated by a mobile phone. I think that my meaning is quite clear. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the consequences of the amendment.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams, and look forward to participating in the scrutiny of the Bill.

I support the amendments for the intended purpose, which is to probe the Government's views. To be clear, how will the prescribed number of non-executive members be arrived at? Although I would not wish the Bill to specify numbers, there is a case to be answered. What will the mechanism be? Will the arm's-length body exercise a good deal of discretion? Will the Government take an accommodating view about the composition of the board or do they have a clear view? If the Government's view is clear, it should be expressed, so that we know what the outline of the new organisation's governance arrangements will be. If their view is not clear, it will be useful to know what mechanism will be used for coming to a view. What will the balance be between the organisation expressing its opinion about the composition of its board of governors and the Government position?

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I am grateful to hon. Members for their probing comments. Paragraph 1(6) gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe in regulations the number of non-executive and executive members of the agency. Paragraph 1(7) provides that, before making the regulations, he needs to consult the

devolved Administrations. Under paragraph 29, those regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that provide for a number, or a range of numbers, of members. That is a standard feature of the legislation for many bodies, including the Health Protection Agency special health authority. The flexibility that the approach allows is valuable. For example, if the powers in clauses 2 and 3 are used to give the agency additional functions, it will be possible to increase the size of the board without changing primary legislation, if that is desirable to reflect those additional responsibilities.

The three amendments would remove such valuable flexibility. Instead, the Bill would specify that the number of non-executives should be 12, and the number of executives six. The amendment should therefore be rejected. However, I understand that the hon. Member for Westbury is arguing not that 12 and six are necessarily the right numbers, but that we should make it clear how we intend to use the regulation-making power. I am happy to provide such an indication of our thinking.

As we have explained in our memorandum to the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we expect to make broadly similar provisions for the number of executive and non-executive members as apply at present to the special health authority. The Health Protection Agency (Yr Asiantaeth Diogelu Iechyd) (Establishment) Order 2003, which created the agency as a special health authority, provides a power to appoint not fewer than 10 and not more than 25 non-executive members, and not fewer than three and not more than eight members who are officers of the agency. In practice, 11 non-executive members, in addition to the chairman, have been appointed by the Secretary of State, and seven officer members, in addition to the chief executive, have been appointed by the board. What we envisage is in line with current practice and, indeed, with the sorts of numbers that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Regulations that are made under the schedule will be subject to negative resolution; so there will be an element of scrutiny by the House.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for that clarification, which was helpful. We now have an idea of the size of the board of the agency. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in

schedule 1, page 10, line 31, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (b).

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 19, in

schedule 1, page 11, leave out lines 9 to 14.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The first of these two small amendments arose because the mention of gratuities

on page 10 caught my attention. I understand gratuities to be tips. I remember, as a waiter during my summer holidays, that when I was feeling posh I used to refer to my tips as gratuities. I was surprised to see tips mentioned in connection with such an august body; I have never seen that before.

The individuals will be paid allowances and will receive proper remuneration. I am concerned that having the power to grant gratuities would give the Secretary of State a certain leverage over individuals who might receive them. Given that, in my experience, that is a departure from the norm, I wish to quiz the Minister on the thinking behind giving that power to the Secretary of State—hence amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 19 concerns disqualification for appointment. Again, the provision came as a surprise to me. Recently, I have been involved with the Human Tissue Bill and the setting up of the Human Tissue Authority, and I recall debating in Committee the criteria for disqualification. Bankruptcy and an undischarged criminal record, for example, were specified as reasons for exclusion. I remember debating whether that was appropriate, and I formed no fixed view. However, I am surprised that we do not specify the criteria for disqualification to serve on the agency, and under what circumstances the Secretary of State might choose to disqualify somebody.

The matter is important because, although we trust the Ministry implicitly, we have to guard against the possibility that other Governments might not be so benign and might exclude people on the basis of their political views—political with a big P or a small p. In the context of the Bill, that might affect people such as pro-lifers, whether or not one agrees with their view. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister let me know her thinking on gratuities, and what manner of people she would envisage disqualifying under paragraph 10. Why does that part of the Bill differ from other Bills that set up similar bodies?

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

It gives me pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman's points. I must admit that I initially had some sympathy with his point about amendment No. 18, because ''gratuities'' does seem an odd term. Of course, we could give the hon. Gentleman many tips, but we do not propose to do so at the moment. That aside, the term is standard in this context, and its omission should be resisted because it might cause difficulties. I am told that the term is included to take account of Cabinet Office guidance on creating new non-departmental public bodies. Paragraph 30, on page 85 of the NDPB guide, states:

''The enabling powers need to provide for the NDPB to pay or make provision for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities for members and their dependants.''

That is why the term ''gratuities'' is included in the Bill and in the standard terms for several other NDPBs. I agree that the term is curious, but I shall resist efforts to remove it, because we are acting in line with central guidance.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The form of words that the Minister is using suggests that she is referring to terminal gratuities, which apply where someone comes to the end of their term of office, rather than to a yearly bonus or a reward for a job well done. Is that her understanding?

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I have nothing further to add as regards my understanding of the issue, although I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that no payments are currently envisaged under the gratuities arrangements.

Amendment No. 19 would remove the power of the Secretary of State, after consulting the devolved Administrations, to make regulations on the circumstances in which people could be disqualified from being the chairman or a non-executive member of the agency. Again, a power to provide that certain categories of person should be disqualified from appointment to public bodies is a standard feature of the legislation for many such bodies. For example, the Health Protection Agency (Yr Asiantaeth Diogelu Iechyd) (Establishment) Order 2003 and the Health Protection Agency (Yr Asiantaeth Diogelu Iechyd) Regulations 2003, which established the HPA as a special health authority, and which we debated last year, identify certain categories of person who are disqualified from appointment. They include bankrupts and those who have been convicted of a criminal offence or disqualified from being company directors.

The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee will agree that disqualifying such persons from appointment is sensible when we are considering appointments to the board of a body that is responsible for spending large sums of public money. Indeed, the 2002 consultation paper included a proposal that the legislation establishing the agency provide for certain classes of people to be disqualified from membership of the board, and none of the responses took exception to that. It is true that disqualification provisions are included in the Human Tissue Bill, but that is a relatively unusual approach, which takes account of the particular ethical functions involved rather than of operational matters, which might be much more of an issue with the HPA.

It might be helpful if I explain what use we expect to make of the power to make regulations on disqualifications. As the Government made clear when we put our memorandum to the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we expect the provisions on disqualification to be broadly similar to those that already apply to the special health authority. There will be some adjustments to take account of additional appointing authorities, and we are likely to omit the provision that disqualifies persons who have a paid appointment with a strategic health authority, a local health board, an NHS trust or a primary care trust, because it is too restrictive.

The provision on the disqualification of bankrupts will also need to be slightly different, to take account of the bankruptcy provisions in the Enterprise Act 2002, with which I was also involved. As made clear in paragraph 29 of schedule 1, the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure, so hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise which categories of person are proposed for disqualification from appointment to the agency.

On the point about politicians, paragraphs 6 and 7 of schedule 3 amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 so that members of those bodies will not be able to be the chairman or a non-executive member of the agency's board. It is normal to make similar provision in relation to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales by means of secondary legislation. I understand that Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly have every intention of doing so when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for her assurances. As the matter of gratuities was established under previous legislation, and it seems to be in line with what applies to other bodies, I am not minded to press amendment No. 18.

The Minister has partially reassured me on amendment No. 19. I am not entirely convinced by her thesis that there are ethical issues concerning the Human Tissue Authority that do not apply to the Health Protection Agency. I could make a similar argument for ethical issues that might affect the Health Protection Agency.

Having said that I do not object, on reflection, to the gratuities under paragraph 8, because the approach in that case is consistent with what happens in other organisations, attention needs to be given to the inconsistency that paragraph 10 introduces. Perhaps the Minister would like to give the matter further thought and double check that paragraph 10 is consistent with the approach to other, not dissimilar, organisations. I hope that she will bear my thoughts in mind, but I am not minded to press amendment No. 19 to a vote.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in

schedule 1, page 12, line 31, leave out from 'Ministers' to end of line 32 and insert

'shall pay sums to the Agency in accordance with an itemised account presented by the Secretary of State for work carried out on their behalf.'.

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 21, in

schedule 1, page 12, line 34, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 35 and insert

'shall pay sums to the Agency in accordance with an itemised account presented by the Secretary of State for work carried out on behalf of the Department.'.

Amendment No. 22, in

schedule 1, page 12, line 36, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 37 and insert

'shall pay sums to the Agency in accordance with an itemised account presented by the Secretary of State for work carried out on behalf of the Assembly.'.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The amendments deal with the arrangements that will be made for a devolved Parliament or Assembly to pay the Health Protection Agency for work that is done. A grey area exists in the

financing of the Health Protection Agency, and I believe that a Government amendment has been tabled to deal with that. On Second Reading concern was expressed about the funding of the agency, which will be mixed.

The agency will partly be funded by moneys that it generates itself. I mentioned on Second Reading the excellent work being done at Porton Down and the possibility that in the future the work done there could be expanded so as to bring in considerable receipts for the Health Protection Agency. I am sure that that is just scratching the surface of the possibilities of income generation for the organisation; that is to be welcomed.

The other element of funding will come from central Government—the Westminster Government. We expect the devolved bodies to chip in to the pot in some way, and allowance is made for that in the Bill. However, if the devolved Administrations are to expect the agency to do work on their behalf—and they will be—they need to understand that they will be required to fund items of that, and that an itemised set of accounts for work that is done, and for whom, is necessary in a properly run organisation of that kind. That needs to be provided to the organisations and bodies on whose behalf the agency carries out work in the expectation that that work will be funded.

I am a little concerned at the moment that a devolved Parliament or Assembly may ask the agency to do work on its behalf and that that will not be funded. The funder, of course, will be a vote given to the agency by the Westminster Parliament. That seems to be a rather opaque way of operating. My amendments will make transparent to everyone the costs that the devolved bodies in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will be expected to pay to the agency for work carried out on their behalf. That is the intention of my amendments; I hope that they will be considered carefully by the Minister.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

I support the amendments, which give us a useful opportunity to explore how HPA resources will be accounted for. I particularly want to ask the Minister about sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of paragraph 19: are they intended to pertain to the devolved authorities' ability to give additional tasks to the HPA, to deal with the funding of the HPA's general work, or both? If they are intended simply to deal with the additional functions that the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly choose to ask the HPA to undertake, it makes sense to have a mechanism by which those additional costs are borne by the block of expenditure allocated to the Scottish Executive or Welsh Assembly, rather than by the general taxpayer. However, if the measures are intended to reflect expenditure incurred as part of the overall UK-wide remit, it is not clear why that money would be devolved to those bodies in the first place. Presumably that function, which is and always has been regarded as a non-delegated function, was retained by Parliament, so the money should never have gone to Scotland or Wales. Will the Minister clarify that?

My other point relates specifically to the amendments. Even if there were itemised accounts—I dare say such detail would be forthcoming anyway if necessary—they would not overcome concern that there does not appear to be a mechanism by which a Scottish Minister acting as the appropriate authority and allocating a function to the HPA would be automatically obliged to divvy up the money to pay for that service. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the mechanism for a dispute about the cost of providing a particular piece of work on behalf of one of the devolved authorities? How would it be resolved? Who would be the final arbiter? Would it be resolved by a UK Minister, or through some other form of arbitration? I hope that the Minister can respond to those questions.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

We would share the concerns of the hon. Member for Westbury and, to some degree, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) if what they envisaged could occur, but I reassure them that it cannot. I shall explain why there is zero risk of those concerns being realised.

Paragraph 19 allows the agency to settle with each devolved Administration what services it will provide in return for the funds that they allocate. That is an eminently sensible approach, which recognises that responsibility for decisions about funding for devolved functions lies with the devolved Administrations. Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 would replace that with an extraordinary tripartite arrangement under which the Secretary of State would be required to present an itemised account to the devolved Administrations for work carried out by the agency on their behalf for which they would be under a duty to pay.

There are two problems of principle with that. First, it would give the Secretary of State a new job of producing itemised accounts on the agency's expenditure, although that probably is not an intended consequence. Manifestly, the job of producing accounts about the agency's expenditure should rest with the agency. I trust that we are all committed to reducing bureaucracy in Government. Creating a new accounting duty for the Secretary of State—

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister give way?

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I give way to the hon. Member for Westbury.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I suspect that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to intervene on the same point. My amendments would place a duty on the agency to provide itemised accounts for the authorities to pay, not the other way around.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about his intention, but I have to tell him of the legal standing of the amendments, and of parliamentary counsel's view.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

My point is about a different duty. The Minister referred to the duty on devolved bodies to pay. Will she draw the Committee's attention to that provision in the Bill? I cannot see such a provision in paragraph 19.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I am coming to that. I have not yet finished.

First, the amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce itemised accounts; that is obviously not the intention, but it would be the effect. Secondly, it is unclear where the responsibility lies for determining service levels in relation to devolved functions. Is the responsibility with the devolved Administration, as it should be? If so, why should the Secretary of State be involved? If not, does the responsibility lie with the agency or the Secretary of State? That would not be acceptable to the devolved Administrations. After all, which of us would be happy to allow someone else the right to run up bills that we would have to meet?

The hon. Member for Westbury is concerned that paragraph 19 might require the Secretary of State to subsidise the devolved Administrations—that fundamental point was made by both hon. Gentlemen—but that is not what it does. The provision requires the Secretary of State to take account of all funds received by the agency from other sources when coming to a decision on what funding he should provide. However, that does not require him to make up any shortfall in funding; nor does it necessarily require him to reduce the funding that he provides if income from other sources is higher than expected. It is a way of ensuring that, in allocating taxpayers' money to the agency, the Secretary of State takes account of the agency's general financial position.

In answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, if the funds that the agency receives from a devolved Administration are not adequate to provide a particular level of service, the agency will need to agree with that Administration what level of service should be provided for the funding in question. It is not for the Secretary of State to substitute his judgment for that of a devolved Administration. The amendment must therefore be resisted.

The hon. Member for Westbury asked about Government amendment No. 7. The amendment simply removes the Lords privilege provision of clause 13(2). It does not relate to the point under discussion.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked what services the agency will provide and what the devolved Administrations will pay. The services that the agency provides for the devolved Administrations will obviously not include services that are UK-wide, which will be purchased by the Government.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The Minister has not reassured me, and I am wondering what to do about it. If she accepts my point in principle but has been told by parliamentary counsel that the wording is wrong—

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I did not say that I accept his point in principle. I said that were they to be true, I would have exactly the same concerns as he. However, they are not.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I am grateful for that clarification. Nevertheless, the Minister is saying that the words used in the amendment would have a different

meaning in law to the meaning that I have described. If that is the case, but she accepts that there is something in what I have said, I will be more than happy for an amendment to be drafted that complies with the advice of parliamentary counsel and that prosecutes the meaning that I am trying to put across.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

Would it be helpful if I wrote to both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam between now and Report to set out why paragraph 19 does the job that it does? We do not believe that a further amendment is necessary. We do not intend to table one; nor, as I understand, are we likely to accept one. However, I am happy to put something in writing for both hon. Gentlemen on that point.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

Yes, I look forward to the Minister's letter very much.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps that letter could contain further amplification of other aspects of schedules 1 and 2, as the explanatory notes for the Bill do not provide any such information.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say in the stand part debate on those matters. I accept entirely that the explanatory notes leave a lot to be desired and do not make clear the Government's intentions.

I am still not entirely sure that the HPA's accounts will be transparent, that the sources of money will be clear and that people will pay for what they receive. I hope that the Minister agrees that the agency's complex financial arrangements should be laid out transparently. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) made similar remarks to the Minister as the Human Tissue Bill proceeded through Committee, but recanted on Report. In the same way, I suspect we may later be presented with a raft of amendments to clarify such murky areas, although not, I hope, the 99 amendments to the Human Tissue Bill that we considered in the House yesterday.

It is important that the devolved Administrations pay for what they get. They should not just chip in or contribute, but pay in a clear and transparent way for the services that they receive. That will become all the more important as arm's length bodies are abolished, which will almost certainly happen following next month's review, and the HPA acquires more functions. The implication is that its finances will expand even further. There will therefore be an even greater need for transparency and clarity about where the money is coming from.

The HPA has very difficult financial arrangements indeed. Resources come from all sorts of places. On Second Reading, we were concerned about the ratchet effect of the income that the HPA may receive and about the potential that that gives the Secretary of State to reduce the amount of core funding with which it is provided. That is of some concern, because income can go up and down, according to markets and so on. However, the HPA's function is vital, as I am sure my

hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will say in due course. It is crucial that the HPA should work properly, but to do so it must have a guaranteed income stream. Given how the HPA is constituted, however, we have serious concerns that the income stream will not be guaranteed, unless the source of funding from all those who contribute to the pot on which it will rely is crystal clear. I am afraid that the Minister has given me no confidence that that is the case.

Nevertheless, on reflection, I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that the Minister will consider my points and propose amendments to clarify the situation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

I want briefly to repeat the point that I made in an intervention on the hon. Gentleman. In parts, the Bill's explanatory notes are helpful and illuminating, but in other parts they shed precious little light and, on the schedules, they shed no light. The intentions behind some aspects of the schedule are blindingly obvious. That is not the case with paragraph 19 or other parts of the schedule.

Perhaps the Minister could provide more explanatory notes to help to further our expeditious scrutiny of the Bill. I am sure that the Department will have in its possession amplification of the purposes.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could say precisely what he does not understand, because the schedule contains quite a lot of detail, much of which is very straightforward. I am not sure what extra clarification he wants. It would, of course, be possible to write out the schedule in ordinaryspeak rather than legalspeak, but I take it that that is not what he has in mind.

Mr Paul Burstow (Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Health; Sutton & Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

I certainly do not want the schedule to be put into plain English, although translating the legalese in which the legislation is by necessity written can be an aid to debate. Will the Minister further explain the reporting responsibilities set out on pages 13 and 14, as well as give an account of the section on finance on pages 12 and 13? That would address my main concerns, and I would be happy for the schedule to stand part of the Bill.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and see what we can do to help him. Again, there is quite a lot of detail on reporting on pages 13 and 14, but I shall discuss with my officials whether we can do anything that is not simply a translation into more everyday speech, which I do not believe the hon. Gentleman needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.