Clause 90
Health and Social Care Bill
4:30 pm
Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)
I express my gratitude to Committee members because we are staying slightly later than intended. However, I hope that it is accepted that we have made pretty good cantering progress. If we can get through this clause we will be able to conclude part 1, which is a sensible aim.
I hope to reassure Committee members because amendment No. 66, which for their convenience appears rather late on in the whites—the amendment paper—is extraordinarily long. However, I would not want anyone to take fright, because the principle is clear and simple, and in our drafting of that amendment we have attempted to ensure that we are consistent.
Amendment No. 47 makes every resolution in part 1 affirmative. Amendment No. 66 would do the same for the whole of the Bill by amending clause 150. If, during our deliberations, Committee members notice any imperfections in that drafting, I am sure that if we establish the principle the detail can be tidied up and sorted out. However, we should seek to establish the principle of what we are trying to achieve.
In sum, a quarter of the clauses in the Bill are dependent on regulations, which is a very high proportion. First, we have to set that in the context of how that fits with the Prime Minister’s intention to strengthen Parliament, given that regulations inevitably tend to receive rather less detailed scrutiny than we can give to primary legislation. The linking aspects of the Bill make the amendments and the clause particularly relevant, because the effect of, for example, clause 39 is to make every clause in chapter 2 a Henry VIII clause—primary legislation that can be amended by regulation. By every test, it is a genuinely colossal power to put in the hands of the Secretary of State. We have had several discussions about the impact of regulations on the functions, which, if we remember, equates to the duties, as opposed to the guidance and the code, of the CQC. The ability to approve legislation by the affirmative procedure becomes all the more apt and relevant—not least to our accountability as Members.
Clause 4 is one of the few clauses that are already subject to the affirmative procedure, but I hope that on Report the Minister does not have his own clause IV moment and decide to change it, because that would be disastrous. It is important therefore to recognise that, through clause 4, the Bill contains a precedent for the affirmative procedure. The amendment is important because it is procedural, and therefore always that much more difficult to get one’s arms around. It is also important because we are trying to make the attitude of the Bill consistent. It helps that clause 4 has set that precedent.
We have also had a long discussion on the regulations and codes of practice on health care associated infections. I hope that those discussions will be reflected in the legislation. The ability to do that is very much assisted by adopting the scheme set out in these lengthy but straightforward amendments.
Amendment No. 66 stretches beyond part 1. I forewarn the Minister, in case he is not aware of it, that the Conservatives have been seeking to ensure that we put true independence in place within both the bodies being created and the regulation of health and social care professionals. I have grown used to the idea that I may live in fear and trepidation that he will, yet again, not give me the wonderful, unexpected joy of accepting my amendment, but I hope that he does. If he does not accept the merit of what I have just put forward, I need to reserve the right to attempt to bring back specific regulatory powers and provisions in the Bill, although it might have to be through separate amendments at a later stage as it passes through our House and another place. I commend the amendments to the Committee.