Proceeding contribution from Earl Howe (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
My Lords, first, I welcome very warmly the Minister’s change of heart on the issue of the gatekeeper role for the health and social care regulators. I am certain that that is a positive step, for all the reasons that we debated in Committee, and I thank her for the thought and sympathy that she has given to the arguments put forward. On government Amendment No. 210, I am not sure that I totally accept the Minister’s explanation. Subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c)—and I should have made it clear that I was talking about those subsections earlier—seem to afford ample scope already for achieving the kinds of things that she was talking about. Nevertheless, I must take her answer at face value. Should the regulations turn out to be more restrictive than we expect, there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to challenge them. I am sorry that the Minister does not see merit in my amendments. She referred to Clause 229(4)(a), which refers to the purpose underlying the viewing or observation carried out by LINks while on the premises of services providers. I accept the point that the purpose of any viewing or observation carried out by LINks needs to be the carrying on of the activities in Clause 226(2). Incidentally, I take issue with the Minister for using the word ““power”” as regards the activities listed in Clause 226(2); that clause does not contain a power—indeed, that is one of the bones of contention that has divided us. But while the LINks representatives may have this as their purpose, there is no duty on the part of the services provider to facilitate the fulfilment of that purpose beyond allowing LINks to enter, view or observe. If LINks were to be denied the ability to ask questions of staff and service users, it would be no use LINks protesting that their purpose would be frustrated unless they did so; at the moment, the services provider would just be able to turn round and say, ““I am sorry, that’s not our concern—we don’t have to allow you to do this””. As for private providers, how many existing contracts with private and independent providers allow for patients’ forums to enter and view premises? I have a worry about this side of LINks’ activities. What confidence does the Minister have that LINks will be afforded the ability to enter and view private providers’ premises, given that we are constantly assured that the contracts with private providers are the means by which this facility will be afforded to them? I am not sure whether the Minister can answer that question now; if she cannot, I shall happily accept a letter from her.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 695 c582-3
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Disability Disclosure of information Councillors Convictions Byelaws Housing Health services Legislative competence Functions Ethics Local government Misconduct Public participation Local government executive NHS foundation trusts Standards Social rented housing Social services Unitary councils Overview and scrutiny committees Patients' forums Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health Local strategic partnerships Local area agreements Local involvement networks
- Legislation
- Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:38:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417034
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417034
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_417034