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

I beg to move amendment 31, in schedule 3, page 48, line 10, leave out from ‘so’ to the end of line 12.

I am pleased to be back under your chairmanship, Mr. Key. We will try to make as much progress as we managed this morning, when we rattled along.

Amendment 31 again refers to the suspension of Monitor’s executives. The Secretary of State will not be obliged to undertake a review of suspensions until three months have elapsed from the time of suspension, and the amendment would remove that obligatory delay while preserving the opportunity for review. Why was that apparently arbitrary period chosen? Given, as I have said before, that suspended non-executives are unlikely to have recourse to the courts, surely they should be allowed a review as soon as is practicably possible.

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

We wanted to allow reasonable time for investigations to take place; it is as simple as that. Investigations may be concluded more quickly, but, depending on the circumstances, they make take longer. The Secretary of State would not want to be in a position whereby he was unable properly and fairly to conduct a review of the suspension if requested to do so in an unrealistically short time.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment 184, in schedule 3, page 49, line 36, at end insert—

‘(2) The amendments made by this Schedule apply to a condition occurring at any time in the person’s appointment which satisfies the Secretary of State as a condition for suspension.’.

Here we arrive at the exciting point about paragraph 19, establishing that the changes here are retrospective in that they impact on anyone appointed at the time the Act comes into force, regardless of when they were appointed. This is a probing amendment to find out whether the legislation will operate retrospectively on grounds for a suspension that may have arisen in the past but may no longer be present, or will suspension be an option only on grounds for suspension that arise  after this legislation comes into force? The related question is whether the Minister currently has any non-executives in his sights for when the provision comes into force.

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

The transitional provision in paragraph 19 as drafted ensures that the measures will apply to persons appointed at any time. This already enables us to investigate any issues or allegations about events that happened in relation to persons appointed at any time prior to the Act coming into force. In answer to the final question, I have no one in my sights at the moment.

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

That clears up the question about the retrospective provisions, and clearly there is nobody in the Minister’s sights. The slight question that survives, which perhaps the Minister could pick up at a later point, is whether the actual grounds for suspension need to have arisen before the legislation in order not to be caught or whether they can be caught retrospectively. Does the Minister want to intervene on that point?

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

My understanding is that this enables us to deal with any issue that arises at any stage, whether retrospective or not. That seems to be the basis on which we are proceeding. If there is anything different, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

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

I am most grateful. I think the important point on the record is that there is a degree of retrospection that needs to be well understood by everybody who might be affected by it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.