Clause 178 - Healthwatch England

Part of Health and Social Care (Re-Committed) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:15 pm on 14 July 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tom Blenkinsop Tom Blenkinsop Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 2:15, 14 July 2011

Sorry, Mr Gale. We welcome amendment 199 as a positive amendment, because it places a statutory duty on the CQC to inform HealthWatch of its response or proposed response to HealthWatch’s  advice. The amendment also fully delivers on the Government’s promise, on page 38 of their response to the NHS Future Forum report, to

“introduce a new requirement for the Care Quality Commission to respond to advice from its HealthWatch England subcommittee”.

I would go so far as to say that I wish the Opposition had written the amendment—that is how upbeat I am. I have good reason to be upbeat, because when reading the Hansard of the original Bill Committee, I came across our debate on Opposition amendment 348, which bears an amazing resemblance to Government amendment 199, even after the expensive listening exercise.

I assume that the Minister’s attitude is as positive as mine, so I shall read out his response to amendment 348 to check whether he still agrees with what he said then:

“Opposition amendment 348 would require the CQC to respond in writing to advice and information that it receives from HealthWatch England committee. I sympathise with the point the Opposition are trying to make on behalf the Patients Association, with the intention of ensuring that HealthWatch England is able to have its own distinct identity within the CQC. However, the amendment could work against the building of effective working relationships between HealthWatch England and the CQC. Staff working for the committee and the wider commission should be having an open and ongoing dialogue about their work. Formalising that as the amendment proposes would give the impression that communication between the committee, with its independent role, and the CQC should be conducted by means of correspondence rather than open and ongoing dialogue. For that reason, we do not support that approach to prescribing the nature of that relationship.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Bill Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2011; c. 610.]

After an excruciatingly expensive listening exercise, the Government have finally been able to recognise that the measure makes good sense.

Given that the number of quangos in the NHS is set to explode as a result of the Bill, is it not entirely possible that HealthWatch could be swamped by the sheer number of bodies that it needs to check on and deal with? What guaranteed, recognised time would HealthWatch have to raise its concerns? Does the Minister feel that HealthWatch’s impact will need to be increased or diminished, when the board will have to listen to an ever-increasing number of clinical networks? Will he comment on whether HealthWatch’s day-to-day influence will not be marginalised?

Essentially, for the average patient to be satisfied in the environment that the Bill creates, the Government must be clear about where HealthWatch’s advice will sit. Where will I, as a patient, take my case locally? What opportunities will I, as a patient, have for input? What will the general structure be? Will there be different structures at local level, or similar structures? Will those local structures be constitutionally different or similar? The proposals have obvious implications for transient populations and could lead to inequalities of opportunity for those who wish to seek redress in different localities. Furthermore, varying structures lead to varying levels of remuneration.

How will I as a patient know where to go? What is the budget for local, regional and national advertising to spread knowledge of HealthWatch and how will patients be consistently consulted?