Proceeding contribution from Baroness Cumberlege (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.
Health and Social Care Bill
My Lords, it is very difficult to get this right without sounding like a creep and being patronising, but I want to thank Ministers for the consideration that they have given to this Bill—it is about 300 amendments that we have collectively put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, described the eight days in Grand Committee as group work. She is right. There is something deliciously awful about being banged up in the Moses Room for eight days, but it brought us together and engendered great respect between us. In addition, we have had our rewards, which would not have been possible if we had not had such responsive and thoughtful Ministers. I am delighted to see the group of amendments proposed by the Minister as well as the new clause, ““Statement on user involvement””, which follows in the next group. I think that this Bill was unwanted and unloved in its conception. It has been hard to find a group in the country that supports it. Usually with legislation there are a few champions, but apart from the architect, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, it has been hard to unearth them. However, because of how Ministers have conducted the Bill, many of the most recent briefings I have received start with the word ““Welcome””. The warmest welcomes have come for the objectives set out in these amendments. It is very difficult to understand the resistance that there was in the other place. That may be because they do not have the right Ministers—it may be because they see amendments as a challenge to their virility. We, on the other hand, are past it, so I suppose we do not fight in quite the same way. I think that these objectives and the matters for which the commission must have regard are about right. I could quibble with one or two words, but I think that that would be churlish. I congratulate the wordsmiths who have fashioned such a good result. They have encapsulated most of what we have sought. I am pleased to see retained in subsection (1)(e) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 12 that the concept of action by the commission should be ““proportionate to the risks”” involved, and that it should target its actions only where there is need. I notice in new subsection (2) that: "““In performing its functions the Commission must also have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct””." I fought that battle. I have lost it, and now I gracefully retire. I am not disappointed. I think that the gains we have acquired through the Committee stage outweigh the losses. I support the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 702 c872-3
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Carers Agency nurses Hospitals Health services Families Human rights Disease control Employment agencies Infectious diseases General Social Care Council NHS Patients Managers Public participation Mental Health Act Commission MRSA Registration Temporary employment Regulation Social services Healthcare Commission Commission for Social Care Inspection Care Quality Commission Local involvement networks
- Legislation
- Health and Social Care Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:40:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482121
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482121
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482121