Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen O'Brien (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 15 July 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.


Health and Social Care Bill

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the practical difficulty, although I do not think it is an impossibility. After all, the NHS funds infertility treatment. That has quite an extensive scientific base. It involves diagnosis, and the assessment of people on the grounds of their wish to start a family, at the pre-conception stage. It is, however, more important for us to recognise that—as the hon. Gentleman also said—it is vital for good-quality assistance and advice to be given to women who seek to become or have just become pregnant, and who are abusing alcohol or drugs either on binges or on a regular basis. Nutritional impetus is crucial at that stage, because it may just provide an opportunity for the surmounting of what could otherwise be a much more serious health hurdle for both mother and unborn child. The Treasury has repeatedly refused to provide me with the evidence that I requested, despite the raft of parliamentary questions to which I have referred, and the Department too has provided no evidence that nutrition is most important during the later stages of pregnancy. The Minister admitted that during the oral evidence session. Given those policy shifts, I hope that the Minister will now explain exactly what stake Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions have in the grant. In view of HMRC's recent record on data handling, I am surprised that the Government are presenting any proposals that would help it to share data. That seems to be adding fuel to the fire, given its recent reputation and performance. What guarantees can the Minister give that this is not simply a power to allow tax inspectors and the DWP's spies—that may sound pejorative, so I shall say its operatives—to harass pregnant women and new mothers? We need to be very careful that people do not feel oppressed by requests for information at what is often a sensitive and vulnerable time in their lives. Lords amendments Nos. 50, 63, 64, 65, 90 and 91 make the nationally negotiated elements of the pharmacy contract—about which the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) knows a great deal on the basis of experience—subject to regulations rather than local determination. They result from an amendment tabled by Earl Howe on Report, and they will give pharmacists business confidence. I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us how she feels that the proposals can be reconciled with the need for a more devolved NHS, particularly in relation to pharmaceutical services.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
479 c179-80 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Complaints Care homes Doctors Hearing impairment Health Health services Human rights EU law Health professions Infectious diseases Local government NHS Qualifications Ministerial powers Public sector Pharmacy Older people Primary care trusts Nutrition Public participation Quarantine Pregnancy Migrant workers Registration Standards Social services Human remains Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence Hearing Aid Council Care Quality Commission Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator Local involvement networks
Legislation
Health and Social Care Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk