Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Cumberlege (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Health and Social Care Bill.


Health and Social Care Bill

I support my noble friend. I fear that I am boring for Britain on the subject of the independence of these bodies. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State seems so keen on controlling all these independent regulators. I am beginning to wonder whether he has enough to do. Does he feel underemployed? Is he anxious that he may be made redundant? Knowing the Secretary of State, I think that that is extremely unlikely. His workload is probably horrendous, so here is an opportunity to give him a little more time to enjoy himself and have a day out with the family and perhaps not be quite so involved in all these different regulators. As my noble friend said, proposed new Section 26(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct. That undermines the CHRE’s independence and is unnecessary. One point not made overtly by my noble friend is that, as the regulator covers all the countries in the United Kingdom, this provision, which refers only to England and Wales, creates an imbalance with the devolved Administrations, which could be subject to conflicting requirements. At present, the Secretary of State requests the regulator to do some work. Although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is anxious to abolish this regulator, it seems to me that it is an important part of the regulatory jigsaw. We know it to be a reasonable body; it has never refused a request from the Secretary of State. Independence allows some practical negotiation on the scope, timing and use of available resources. I understand that the CHRE is doing some extra work investigating the NMC at the request of the Secretary of State. It is also doing additional work on pharmacy and has been asked to advise the Northern Ireland Office. The clause is not necessary and it undermines the independence of the CHRE. I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I remember many years ago when the General Medical Council was very slow at hearing cases. As the noble Baroness ably said, that was part of the problem of the lack of trust that grew with the GMC. Her suggestion that it should be monitored and a report made to Parliament would keep the GMC on its toes. I know that recently it has done much better but we do not know what the future will hold, so this would be a good measure.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
701 c547-8GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Dental services Criminal proceedings Civil proceedings Cooperation Dentistry General Medical Council Health services Fees and charges Health professions HIV/AIDS General practitioners Misconduct NHS Magistrates' courts Non-departmental public bodies Registration Standards Regulation Social workers Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence General Dental Council Hearing Aid Council Statutory instruments
Legislation
Health and Social Care Bill 2007-08
National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2006
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk