Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)

I wish to address subsection (3). What assurance can the Minister give that the Secretary of State will ensure that those who will be consulted will include

“patients, staff, members of the public and other persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be affected by the proposed revision”?

I am not aware of how that will be done objectively. At the worst end, a whole load of yes-men would be selected, who might give the answer that the Secretary of State first devised, and at the other, it would be a completely random unrepresentative body of people. If we are going to have other revisions, it is important that the consultation process is seen to access not only stakeholders and appropriate patient groups. Given the other discussions that we have had in relation to LINks and those in the list in clause 3(3)(a), it is important that some assurance is given, even if only by placing on the record at this point that the selection is intended to be objective, and that there is no possibility of either cronyism or of trying to select the people to consult in order to produce the first answer thought of by the Secretary of State.

Mike O'Brien (Minister of State (Health Services), Department of Health; North Warwickshire, Labour)

The appropriate word in subsection (3) is “include”. There is a non-exhaustive list of those who need to be consulted. Particular attention is drawn the requirement to consult those who are directly affected by the revisions. However, there are others who are generally consulted on revisions who would also need to be consulted. The list is not exhaustive; on the contrary, it merely draws attention to the obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that those directly affected are directly consulted.

Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)

I am grateful for that perfectly fair response. I dare say that the Minister will be aware of others in addition to LINks and patients having a voice, which we have discussed. For instance, on the Health and Social Care Bill we took evidence, because it was not a Bill generated in the House of Lords, from, among others, institutions such as Which?, and consumers who might have a patient’s view. That is an interesting point and could therefore be included.

The other point relates to where formal staff representational positions are in place. I am sure that the Minister is as aware as I am—those of us from the north-west, Mr. O’Hara, are particularly aware of this—that the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel continues to rail against the fact that it is never consulted. There has always been a great turf war between various effective union representations of ambulance staff, and the association continues to fail to be represented. That is an example of how a real effect could be achieved. Therefore if the association were to be included it  would be extremely pleased, as that would be an improvement in its position that it has sought for many years.

Mike O'Brien (Minister of State (Health Services), Department of Health; North Warwickshire, Labour)

I hesitate to get involved in turf wars. We intend to undertake the appropriate broad-based consultation and ensure, in particular, that those who are directly affected are consulted.