Clause 11
Health Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)
Good morning, Mr. Key. Somewhat to our surprise, but great pleasure, we find ourselves serving under your chairmanship. Thank you for stepping into the breach to ensure that we have a continuing, uninterrupted consideration of the Bill. We look forward to making good progress.
Amendment 16 aims to protect individuals from the unwarranted removal of money from them by the Secretary of State. We have seen how the Government are not beneath top-slicing PCTs to bring them into line, both financially and politically, to generate a central war chest. I am concerned that this provision could be used to do the same to those with direct payments, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that.
Amendment 190 comes in the light of the Government’s tax credit and other fiascos. Will the Minister confirm that if overpayments are accidentally made, the Government will bear responsibility and not the individual, and, above all, that the individual will not be at risk of the cost for such error, inadvertency, incompetence or plain negligence?
Amendment 191 questions what plans the Government have for surpluses in the direct payment. Will the patient be able to transfer some of it for personal use? That might reward and incentivise the efficient use of resources. Would it roll over to the next year, or would it be clawed back by the PCT or the Department? If so, how would efficiency be incentivised? The Minister half covered that, somewhat affirmatively, in the reply he gave last week. So I look forward to his confirming and amplifying that.
I am concerned by paragraph 136 in the explanatory notes, which states that new section 12B(2)(h) means that the Secretary of State
“may or must require all or part of direct payments to be repaid, for example, when a significant surplus has accumulated.”
No cause is given for that, just the fact of accumulation. What does the Minister classify as significant? Surely the circumstances in which the surplus accumulated should be taken into account. The reverse is, of course, when there is not enough money in the tin; in the other place, Baroness Masham pointed out that it had happened to her in social care. I hope the Minister bears that in mind when he responds.