Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

Finally, I add one more thing, for which I hope I will be forgiven. I know that those who have been in the House for a long time are fully aware of this, but it may be helpful for those relatively new Peers who are not fully aware of it. If an issue is brought up in Committee and then voted on and voted down, it cannot come back again on Report or at any other stage of the proceedings on the Bill. That would be disastrous. It would mean that if any vote were carried, we could not then go back to trying to get broader and stronger agreement on Report. It would simply mean that the whole issue disappeared. This is far too important an issue to be allowed to disappear. Therefore, I plead with those who I fully understand passionately support my amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to allow their passions to be put to one side, temporarily at least, while we contemplate the absolute necessity of debating this more fully, trying to draw a consensus from it and accepting that we can go back to these matters on Report, when a vote would be appropriate, right and timely.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, in response to the obvious concern over the Secretary of State’s responsibilities, as narrated in the Bill, I attempted to find, from a completely impartial point of view, a solution that would commend itself to everyone. In due course, I came up with an amendment, which your Lordships have seen. My first action was to send a copy of it to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I hope that demonstrated that there was nothing partisan or anything of that sort about it. In trying to put the amendment together, I looked very closely at what the Constitution Committee had said. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and I demonstrated last time that we had considered these matters in some detail.

I also considered all that had been said about concerns on this matter in the Second Reading speeches, of which there were quite a few. I have endeavoured to meet these concerns in the amendment. As I say, I hoped that the House would find it acceptable but a number of questions have been raised and, as the noble Baroness said, lawyers are apt to disagree on these matters. On the other hand, lawyers are usually reasonably able to reach agreement when they set their minds to it. Therefore, I have no intention of moving my amendment today so there can be no question of its acceptance or otherwise today. An amendment to it has been proposed by my noble friend Lord Greaves. He told me that his idea was to find out what the meaning of “ultimate” was. Maybe I should briefly deal with that now. “Ultimare” is the Latin verb from which it comes, which means to come to the end—not always a comfortable position. The definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is:

“Lying beyond all others; forming the final aim or object”.

That is the sort of idea that I had—that it is the final responsibility of the Secretary of State; in other words, in ordinary language, “The buck stops here”. That was my object in using that phraseology.

During my researches in the Oxford English Dictionary I noticed that Dr Johnson said in 1758 that to be idle is the ultimate purpose of the busy. As I say, I have no intention of moving my amendment today. I hope that we can reach agreement on this matter in informal discussions outside the Chamber. A large number of important practical issues remain to be considered in subsequent Committee days. This sort of question, which is primarily rather theoretical but very important from the point of view of people’s attitude to the National Health Service, should be determined. However, it would be more conveniently determined in discussions between ourselves outside the Chamber. Certainly, I would be willing to participate in those discussions if the amendments before us today are not proceeded with.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, before we move further forward with our debate, I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful if I make a very brief intervention. I am aware that a number of noble Lords wish to speak and I have no wish to prevent that. The Committee must, of course, proceed as it sees fit. However, I felt it might be useful to those intending to speak if I indicated now rather than later what the Government’s preferred course is in relation to this group of amendments. Some noble Lords will be aware that the Government regard the amendment tabled in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, as having particular merit in the context of this debate. Notwithstanding that, and having spoken to a number of noble Lords during the past few days, including my noble and learned friend, it is my view that the best course for this Committee would be for none of the amendments in this group to be moved today, and instead for us to use the time between now and Report to reflect further on these matters in a spirit of co-operation. I shall, of course, say more when I wind up the debate but it may assist the Committee to know that that is the position that I shall be taking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I first want to ask a quick question to my noble friend Lady Hollins or the Minister. Would the words physical and mental include those people who have a drug and/or an alcohol problem? Would addiction come under “mental”? I do not want those people to fall through the net, as was said by the previous speaker.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I just wanted to say a word or two about the drafting involved in this. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, pointed out that the opening clause, which is the foundation of the health service, states:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

That is precisely the phrase that is the subject of the amendment, but it comes earlier in the Bill. I cannot believe that when the people who put the health service together in 1946 used that phrase, they did not have in mind that physical and mental health involved the idea that if there was illness, it could be either physical or mental. If we are to change an exactly similar phrase later in the Bill, consideration needs to be given as to whether we should do it at the beginning which is, after all, in many ways the most important place.

I have every sympathy with all that has been said, and I am sure that it is right that we take serious account of it. We must remember the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, about the need for integration of treatment for mental illness along with physical illness. Anything that separates them might not be conducive to progress. I have every sympathy with the proposal.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on bringing forward the amendments and all those who have spoken in what I think has been an extremely useful debate. All those months ago, we had all-Peers meetings about this and many other issues. I am sure that the quality and comprehensive nature of the amendments owes something not only to talent and expertise but also to the fact that the experts in the House have been working with many organisations over a long period. I congratulate everyone on the quality of the debate and the amendments.

The amendments approach the Bill holistically—I do not really like that word. They concern the Secretary of State's responsibilities, the duties of the Commissioning Board and the duties of the clinical commissioning group—the triggers, the levers that may make this a reality. Because of that, I am very attracted to them. It is also important that they express the expectation of parity of esteem between mental and physical health services. As has been said, my Government and this Government have certainly made progress on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, and I hope that he will find some way to recognise the support for the amendments across the House.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, it has been said that if you do not know where you have come from, you do not know where you are going. It is important for us to remember what we are talking about: a nationalised healthcare provision that arose originally because there were people who could access no healthcare. We have a situation in this country that is the envy of the world: if you are seriously ill, by and large you will get treated well and, most of the time, to standards of international excellence irrespective of who you are, your financial means, your social standing or anything. That does not apply in other parts of the world.

Those of us who have spent any time in the US will have seen what happens to some people who are not covered. I will never forget a young black man I saw with a terrible cardiac condition. All the money had run out and he was dying in a hospital because there was no further treatment. I was a medical student then and it made me resolve never to practise privately, which I never have, and to do all I could to further the principles of the NHS.

I suggest that there is much merit in considering a preamble, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has just outlined. This brief debate has shown that the wording of this preamble is not right—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will not be moving it today—but that there would be merit in taking it away and coming back to it at a later stage. Perhaps I am wrong and she intends to move it; I did not have that discussion with her beforehand. However, I suggest that there is much here to commend.

We have a country that is very worried about its NHS, which is much beloved because it is the universal insurance policy that everyone needs if things go terribly wrong and they lose their health. The NHS Constitution was universally welcomed because it set out simple principles. There is much merit in enshrining that at the front of the Bill partly because, as it is written now, it concurs with the NHS and the direction of travel, accepting lots of change, that we want to see. There is anxiety that this could be amended in future.

We have had scandals about bad patient care. We have heard about bad staff attitudes, things not being done properly and personal interest overriding the interests of the patient population. There is much to be said for looking at putting in the Bill the vocational role of patient care and the duty to the health of the nation for those who are well to prevent ill health where we can, maximise the potential of those who are ill and restore them as much as possible to quality living. In the delivery of that, everyone, wherever they are coming from, whether they are a state sector employee or a private commercial venture, should adhere to the Nolan principles. That very essence of how we care for each other in our society sets the moral tone for the whole of our society. The Nolan principles are, if you like, the minimum that we should require across the board.

There is the question of transparency and openness. Questions have already been raised during this debate about potential conflicts of interest for those commissioning who may also be providing. There is a need for transparency about financial transactions and other personal career interests that might be there—about family members working in different parts of the service, about where people’s thinking might be biased and distorted, and about where there may be a wish to cover up one thing or another for different motives but where transparency would serve the greater good better. Linked to that, of course, is openness.

There is much merit in stating up-front on the Bill where we want to go. Where the NHS has come from, starting before its foundation and then as it evolved, has served us better than the alternatives. We want to drive up care and we want to change. Much can be changed and made more efficient. Nobody is advocating fossilising the services we have, but the principles about what we are trying to do need to be in the Bill.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, in 1946, the then Government promoted the National Health Service. They did so in the National Health Service Act 1946. Section 1 of that Act states:

“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health (hereafter in this Act referred to as ‘the Minister’) to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with the following provisions of this Act”.

Section 1(2) states:

“The services so provided shall be free of charge, except where any provision of this Act expressly provides for the making and recovery of charges”.

These are plain, clear, concise words which completely incorporate the fundamental principles of the National Health Service, as they have done since 1946. What is more, these provisions are enforceable at law, as the decision quoted by the Constitution Committee shows. They are enforceable in law, clearly, easily, without difficulty.

The previous Labour Administration had many skilled Ministers in the Department of Health to my certain knowledge and I pay my warmest tribute to them. One of them was the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and during his watch in this House the National Health Service constitution was promoted. As some of my noble friends have said, that was agreed by all parties. The noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, declined to put that in a statute. I questioned that, because if we are dealing with the constitution of the service, one would think that it should go into the statute that is the fundamental part of setting up the service.

The Act of Parliament incorporated a duty such as referred to in the first part of this amendment, to have regard to the constitution. Everyone in the health service had to have regard to the constitution. The Government declined to put that into legislation. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, why that was, he explained that he did not wish the constitution of the NHS to become a plaything for lawyers.

Noble Lords will understand that that reason was not particularly attractive to me. On the other hand, the sense of what he was saying certainly was, and I accept that it was wise and is still wise. The obligation to have regard to the constitution is fundamental and remains. However, I do not believe that it is possible for us to provide a simpler, clearer and more effective preamble to the National Health Service Act at any time than that which was thought of by the founding fathers of the National Health Service in 1946.

I should point out that this is not strictly a preamble at all; it is a first clause in the Bill. However appropriate some of these sentiments may have been for a resolution at a party conference, they are not suitable for an Act of Parliament, in my respectful submission, because the provisions in an Act of Parliament should be enforceable. When we have such a clear constitution of the NHS and such a fine example in what was provided by the founding fathers, which is enforceable, I respectfully suggest that it is unwise to muddy the waters now. I embrace all the sentiments expressed in this draft amendment and hope that we will have them in mind as we go through our later deliberations. All the sentiments are very acceptable, with the exception of the one about the market, which I find a little difficult. However, I will not elaborate on that now.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hennessy and Lord Owen, for discussing this matter with me yesterday. I greatly profited from that discussion. It took me back to the beginning of 1946 when I was a second-year student at university. I remember that one of the difficulties envisaged in the founding of the health service was the fact that family doctors—GPs—did not wish to be employed by the Government. Therefore, the constitution provided that the Secretary of State had to provide the service—he did that from time to time at the beginning in hospitals and so on—or secure the provision of the service. “Secure the provision” was, of course, the one operative for GPs. That has served us well. As far as I am concerned, the proposed constitution, however one appreciates the principles that it expresses, is neither as clear or precise nor as readily enforceable as what we have. I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that she might wish to consider that aspect.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lady Thornton. I suffer from the disadvantage that it seems to me the amendments are totally clear and it is perfectly obvious what they are saying. I totally agree with them for one specific reason which noble Lords opposite will find extremely disagreeable; namely, that I believe that this Bill paves the way for the end of the National Health Service as it was founded and as we know it and have experienced it. The whole purpose of our deliberations in Committee is to try to save the National Health Service. I am not optimistic that we can do it, because the Government do not seem to be in listening mode on this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, puts his finger on the main question here, which is the ethos of the National Health Service. If someone does not understand the difference between a market ethos and, if you like, a public service ethos, they ought not to be taking part in these debates, as the two are completely different. The purpose of a market ethos is to make money and perhaps then do good as a result. I refer to the famous Adam Smith quotation regarding the baker and the butcher and why they provide their services. However, that is not the nature of the health service. Noble Lords opposite cannot wriggle out of that.

Noble Lords may also find it disagreeable that the only reason I am alive today and addressing them is because I have had marvellous service from the NHS over the past few years in my time of need. That service was as good as any that one could pay for. I, of course, paid for it though my taxes, but you cannot buy a better service. That is the fundamental point, and noble Lords opposite cannot wriggle out. If they support the Bill and do not like these amendments, they are paving the way for the end of the service as we know it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cotter]

I thank the Minister very much. As usual he was addressing the issues. I hope that by highlighting them again we will ensure that training is going to be really adequate for them to meet the requirements.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I support the view that this is an extremely important issue. It is also extremely difficult and there is a lot to be done to get this right. I am an honorary fellow of two Scottish medical colleges. The contribution of Scotland to the training of doctors and nurses has to be kept in mind, and many other parts of the world also contribute to our NHS training, particularly at the graduate stage. It makes it extremely difficult to know how to cater for all the possibilities and I wish my noble friend every success in coping with this problem.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, as this is the first day of a new stage of the Bill, I am required to start by declaring my interests. I am chair of the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, president of the Royal Society of Public Health, the Fluoridation Society and the Health Care Supply Association, consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections and member of the advisory council of Easy Care.

The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, put his finger on it when he spoke of concerns about the quality of nursing care in some parts of the NHS. This has led in the past few months to considerable debate about the quality of education and training of nurses and indeed healthcare assistants. We will, of course, be coming back to that issue later in Committee. However, it has served to illustrate the critical importance of education and training of the healthcare workforce, be they doctors, nurses, AHPs or indeed even psychotherapists.

My Amendments 6 and 44 seek to ensure that the Secretary of State exercises leadership and responsibility in this area. This is very important in the context of the Government’s intention to create a much more diverse and disparate healthcare system in the future. It is essential that we protect the integrity of a national approach to professional education and training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I will just respond to him before giving way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Indeed, I must not caricature the Government’s position; believe it or not, I do not want to do so. I want to reveal the Government’s position. I am trying to draw out the Government. We succeeded in doing that this afternoon; perhaps the latest intervention from the Minister is part of that. It was extremely useful, but I think it is clear that the Bill imposes certain duties on the Secretary of State and we have often heard, when it comes to the powers that he has, that it is not quite clear what the position is.

What I am particularly concerned about in the area of health education and training, but also in other areas, is, first, that the Secretary of State will be in a position to answer parliamentary Questions about anything to do, in this case, with health education and training. It might be on planning for numbers, public health or whatever, but there should be no sense in which he will simply say, “That is the responsibility of somebody else. I cannot answer that”.

Secondly, I am concerned about the actual powers that the Secretary of State will have to intervene—the ability he will have simply to give directions to one of these quangos, to override it in certain circumstances. The circumstances in which he would be able to override it need to be clearly defined. They should, of course, be defined already so we can look at them at the same time as we look at the new duties. However, they are not defined and we need to know that they will be. I will give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I did not intend to intervene; I was hoping that the noble Lord might have finished.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

That is a very tactful way of putting it. I do not intend to speak for very much longer, but I want to complete my remarks. I simply want to say that any self-respecting person—and I am sure that the Secretary of State is one—would not accept being given duties and responsibilities without being clear about the powers that he or she had to fulfil them. I would not do so. This is a very anomalous position, where we are told that future consideration will be given to what exactly the powers will be, that future Bills will define them. I do not think that is a satisfactory situation at all, if that is the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has raised in a very succinct and clear manner a doubt that has arisen in relation to the constitutional position of the Secretary of State. The word “provide”, that was in the original duty as an alternative to “securing the provision of”, has been deleted by the provisions of this Bill. The reason for that is that the Secretary of State has never had an obligation to provide services: he has had an obligation to provide the services or secure their provision. We mentioned earlier, for example, in the very early days of the Secretary of State’s initiation of the health service, the position of general practitioners who, on the whole, did not wish to be employed by the Secretary of State, but were willing to provide services. The arrangement was that the Secretary of State, under the statute, had an option.

At times during the existence of the health service, the Secretary of State exercised that option by providing, but in recent years, as I understand it, the only services have been provided by others and the Secretary of State’s operative duty has been to secure the provision of the services. I read out earlier, for those of your Lordships who were here then, the original wording in the 1946 Act. The first part of that has been completely retained in the present Bill. That is the provision that has been operated by the courts to control the activities of the Secretary of State in relation to the health service.

The reason that the word “provide” has been left out on this occasion is that the Secretary of State no longer in fact provides. I think that it is wise, if we are trying to modify the statutory structure, to do so in such a way that it conforms, to some extent anyway, with what is actually being done. Therefore, it is right to proceed on the basis that the Secretary of State will secure the provision of the services, as he has been under a duty to do as an alternative to provision from 1946 onwards.

The Constitution Committee studied this, and raised the question of whether that alteration damaged or altered the constitutional position of the Secretary of State. As your Lordships know, the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Hennessy, proposed that that was a matter that should go to a Select Committee. I opposed that, as your Lordships may or may not remember, and ultimately your Lordships decided that we would go along with the ordinary method of dealing with these matters. However, having made that suggestion to your Lordships in the debate, I felt I should do my best to try to solve the problem that the Constitution Committee had raised.

I had a very full consultation with the government advisers—the policy-makers and the lawyers—and I concluded that there was a possible way of solving that ambiguity by making it clear, as it has been, that the Secretary of State’s duty is to secure the provision of services. However, the nature of the health service and what has been the position in the past in relation to the responsibility of the Secretary of State have not depended on matters being provided, but it has been understood that the Secretary of State would be answerable in Parliament. Indeed, he is responsible for providing the budget for the health service. I thought that the way to resolve this ambiguity was to make it absolutely plain in English that all of us can understand that the ultimate responsibility to Parliament would rest with the Secretary of State. This resolves the ambiguity that the Constitution Committee raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

This is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee and I repeat my interest in this Bill as a member of a local authority. The noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 4 refers to the “ultimate responsibility” of the Secretary of State and, thereby, accountability to Parliament. At the moment, Members of Parliament and noble Lords can raised detailed issues relating to the NHS—for example, hospitals in MPs’ constituencies that might be under threat of closure or change. Would the noble and learned Lord’s amendment allow that practice to continue?

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

In my clear opinion, yes. The idea of ultimate responsibility being with the Secretary of State is that his is not the first line of action under the statute, assuming it all goes through. Indeed, such statutory bodies already exist in the health service. They have responsibilities, but the ultimate responsibility, and that which brings the Secretary of State to account to Parliament, is the one that we want to fix on. It certainly means that he and his Minister in this House must account for the provision. I use that word; although he does not have a legal responsibility to provide, he has a legal responsibility of accountability to Parliament.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who adequately and precisely précised much of the important part of the Select Committee on the Constitution’s report on this part of the Bill, to which other noble Lords have referred.

I still have some difficulty, although I realise that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is helpful in addressing the problem that we have all been concerned with about ultimate responsibility to Parliament—the accountability and political responsibility, particularly for the enormous budget of the health service. I take all the noble and learned Lord’s points about the fact that in real life the Secretary of State is not running clinics or bandaging people in road accidents. However, my concern remains over why, as the Constitution Committee said, the provision clause cannot simply be maintained in the Bill. Such a clause was included in the 2006 Act and in all previous legislation—as were the Secretary of State’s responsibilities. I understand that in real life the current words do not necessarily confront the true situation, but his constitutional and legal responsibility are derived through those words.

I apologise to the Committee for not being here for the debate on the previous amendment; I was unavoidably involved at another engagement in the Palace. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, spoke eloquently on Amendment 1 and repeated to the Committee the effective and powerful words in the 1946 Act. They were widely accepted all around the House as being a forceful example of how the principles behind the Act should be invoked. There was discussion on that amendment as to whether the words should be revisited if we were considering some clause of principles in the preamble to the Bill. I took note of the words that the noble and learned Lord referred to from the 1946 Act, including the words embraced by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, because they have been placed in every Act relating to the health service since 1946. That is why I still find it difficult to understand why the Government resist retaining these words—although the noble and learned Lord produced an eloquent argument about real life and maintaining responsibilities to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Of course the words could be retained, but the question is whether it is right to retain them when, in fact, part of the option has not been in use—it was only ever an option. You should take account of what is actually happening. The passage that I was quoting as indicating what the health service is for was the general passage preceding that. These powers were given to the Secretary of State in order to implement the grand idea that was so well expressed in Section 1 of the 1946 Act. When these powers were given, they were given as options. The Secretary of State did not have to provide, he could do so by securing the provision. That option has always been there. Therefore, there has never been a legal obligation to provide, apart from such an option. When the option that has been chosen in recent years is the second one, it seems only right that the law should proceed on the basis of what actually happens. People in my profession are not unknown for continuing to use expressions from years past, which no longer have real substance to them. I do not think that it is a very good idea for Parliament to do that. However, Parliament may have understood the provision to have been the one whereby the Secretary of State was responsible. Therefore, that is the basis on which I have put forward the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

I appreciate the noble and learned Lord’s intervention, which is very powerful. But the fact remains that as he said in relation to Amendment 1, those original words are both legally enforceable and very clear. That is in a sense our point. Although there is political capacity to put the points that he has put in his new Amendment 4, about making it ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he said himself on Amendment 1, the present wording is clear, legally enforceable and very straightforward.

Two things are legally difficult, apart from the political and constitutional relationship of the Secretary of State to Parliament and his accountability for the budget, which, again, the Constitution Committee drew attention to. This is in paragraph 9 of our report, which I may quote deliberately, because I would be very interested in the Minister and the noble and learned Lord’s reaction. Under the existing legislation, the words, which are the words in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are always read together with the capacity which is in Section 3(1) of the 2006 Act, replaced in this Bill by Clause 10, which enables that provision of services. We can discuss at greater length whether they are adequate in the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 8, and whether they are read together in the courts. Our paragraph 9 states that,

“the courts have made it clear that the Secretary of State’s duties in these sections are to be read together”.

In the leading case, which was R v North and East Devon Health Authority, colloquially known as the Coughlan case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, when he was Master of the Rolls, appeared in the Court of Appeal. He ruled that, for example, the Secretary of State in Section 1,

“has the duty to continue to promote a comprehensive free health service and he must never, in making a decision under section 3, disregard that duty”.

The two are to be read together. You cannot dissociate the responsibility which has been in all of the Acts since 1946 from that duty to provide. In that sense, there is a question to both the Minister and the noble and learned Lord how they would resolve that problem, even if the wording in the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 4 does cover some of the questions about responsibility to Parliament.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s question is this. The quotation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is from the first part—the duty is to promote a comprehensive health service for the reasons given. He does not—and could not, in the nature of things—refer to provision in the last part of that as a foundation for his judgment in Coughlan, because the provision was made by others. The question was whether it should be charged. So it is only the first part, not the second part. That is why I regard the first part as extremely important as the introduction to the statute—it is enforceable, and we have an example of it actually being enforced in Coughlan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I seek clarification. I am very sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. To remove a key word without good reason causes anxiety and I am not convinced by the reason given for removing it. Perhaps I could ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to clarify whether his amendment would ensure that the obligations required as a result of the Coughlan case would still be protected.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Yes, precisely; I tried to say that when I referred to the 2006 Act. The passage in the 1946 Act on which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf relied as Master of the Rolls in Coughlan was the first part—that is, the duty to promote a comprehensive health service, free at the point of need. That was its function. It was in the nature of a preamble: the first part of the first provision of the Act. That was what my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf regarded as enforceable. In relation to Amendment 1, I said that that section had been demonstrated to be enforceable in law, which one could not say for sure about the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, promoted as the first clause of this Bill. Of course, the provision referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf is maintained in the Bill.

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield]

My Lords, at Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated that he wished to put the constitutional position and accountability to Parliament of the Secretary of State beyond doubt. In his letter to your Lordships of 20 October, he repeated his commitment, writing that:

“We are willing to listen and to consider the concerns that have been raised, and make any necessary amendment to put it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State remains responsible and accountable for a comprehensive health service, which we all want to see”.

Perhaps the simplest way of achieving this is to sustain the requirements of the National Health Service Act 2006, as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, seeks to do.

If successful, this amendment would certainly extend the legislative DNA captured in the pioneering National Health Service Act 1946. However, it can be argued—as it has been by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others—that the reality of the Secretary of State’s position since the late 1980s requires a reworking of the accountability of the Secretary of State that reflects the fact that successive incumbents have not been direct providers of services for over 20 years. For that reason, a differently crafted amendment, such as the one in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would be more fitting.

As the Minister has said, the test is the need for this Bill to be unambiguous in capturing the Secretary of State’s core constitutional position and accountabilities at the very apex of the NHS, where policy, administration and money meet. I have great sympathy with the impulses behind the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but I also think that subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, make the Secretary of State’s accountabilities unambiguous. Therefore, I profoundly hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as Parliament’s instrument for genuinely putting the matter beyond doubt.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I should declare a non-financial interest as an honorary fellow of three of the royal medical colleges associated with the health service. One of my earliest clients was the Scottish branch of the BMA, and the first time I appeared as a counsel in this House—when the House had jurisdiction to deal with these matters—was as counsel for the Medical and Dental Defence Union. So I have had a fairly long interest in health matters, including the health service, up to the present time.

We have all had a good deal of correspondence about the profit motive in relation to the health service. It is worth reminding ourselves that the main suppliers to the health service, both of drugs and equipment, are powerful industries in the private sector, and therefore the health service has to be able to deal with these in an effective manner. But the main issue for me is that raised by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. Its report, as we have come to expect, is clear, comprehensive and concise, and the Government have given a full response. What are required now are decisions.

The principal issue is the effect of deleting from the statutory duties of the Secretary of State the first part of the provision in Section 1(2) of the NHS Act 2006 that:

“The Secretary of State must for that purpose provide or secure the provision of services in accordance with this Act”.

It is the taking out of the word “provide” that is a small but extremely important amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Hennessy, that this is a vital matter. The committee referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Coughlan in which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, then Master of the Rolls, said that the Secretary of State,

“has the duty to continue to promote a comprehensive free health service and he must never, in making a decision under section 3”—

which was an issue in that case—

“disregard that duty”.

What is important is that that duty in these terms does in fact remain in the present Bill. The Constitution Committee, which includes distinguished parliamentarians and very distinguished lawyers, has put that question in clear terms to us all. I do not believe, although I have the greatest possible respect for the great range of talent in this House, that any other committee could have put it better, more succinctly or more comprehensively.

Yesterday, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to this as a “foundational” matter. I agree with that, and the sooner it is resolved, the better. The problem with the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Hennessy, is that, while I agree entirely with its importance, is the method by which it should be resolved. If, in truth, this is a foundational matter, it is very unusual to leave the consideration of the foundation to the end of the consideration of the structure, and that is what is going to be involved here. My submission to your Lordships is that the sooner the sting and toxicity coming out of this issue is removed from the consideration of the Bill, the better. I have every confidence that a full debate in an ordinary Committee of the Whole House will resolve it at the beginning rather than at the end of the process. However, according to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, the rest of the Bill is to be considered without a decision on this point. But that decision is bound to affect all of the rest of the Bill, so consideration of the rest of the Bill is subject to a condition about its foundation, which cannot be effective. Noble Lords do not need to listen to the whole of the debate, although I have listened to a substantial part of it, to know that very important issues need to be debated in order to improve the Bill. Certainly I would like to see it improved to the best possible standard because the health service is the most precious system in our country. I personally am highly devoted to it and have now used it for long enough to have become one of the ageing population which is threatening to be a rather serious burden, although I hope that I will not be too burdensome.

The right way for this House to deal with this matter, in accordance with its ordinary methods, is at the proper place in the Bill. Whatever wrongs the Secretary of State has done—people are finding fault with all sorts of different aspects—at least this point arises at the beginning, the foundation, of the Bill. Surely this House should not lose the opportunity of dealing with it in its place, in accordance with the full and comprehensive issue put before us by our own committee.

I do not want to say anything about the issue itself at this stage, just simply that it is one of great importance which should be decided at the beginning, not the end, of the process. I hope that we will be able to decide it in Committee. It is always open to come to a conclusion in Committee, although many conclusions are reached on Report. But I would like to see this issue decided at the beginning of the Committee stage because it has the capacity to draw out a lot of the toxicity that is affecting consideration of the Bill. A lot of people have written saying that the whole of the health service is going to be damaged, lost and so on. We need to consider that and see what we can do to deal with it. I think that the Government have indicated in the other place that they would be willing to put this beyond legal doubt. The Committee has given us one way of doing that; namely, to go back to the way it was, in which case the legal doubt is resolved. But there may be reasons for not doing it which the Committee will have to consider, one of which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff; namely, that it is highly desirable to prevent the National Health Service becoming a political football.

I have a sad recollection of a general election in which the ear of a particular patient of the National Health Service was a political football for days. That does no good for any of us. Indeed, it denigrates our health service. I am not saying that this Bill would eliminate that for certain, but the object of this change in the early part of the Bill is to try at least to reduce the risk. Your Lordships will want to consider that, but I suggest that we do so as a matter of priority at the very earliest stage in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Owen]

I shall try to be as brief as I can, but it is worth reminding the House that the procedure which I am advocating is not without precedent. On 8 March 2004 on the Constitutional Reform Bill, a Motion was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to leave out after,

“a Committee of the Whole House”,

and insert “a Select Committee”. I cannot avoid a little teasing by saying that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, voted for the Motion. Indeed, before he starts laughing, so did the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a man I have the utmost respect for and who has given a very compelling speech, voted for it too.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

If I may say so, that was about committing the whole Bill to a Committee of the whole House and it is not, I think, a precedent for what the noble Lord is advocating now. It was quite different.

[Lord Owen]

I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, to escape either. Let me deal with that question. If we had moved this amendment regarding the whole Bill, everybody would have said that it was a blocking mechanism. Everybody would have said that we were effectively voting against Second Reading. It will not, I hope, have escaped the notice of noble Lords that I did not vote against Second Reading. Were I ever to vote against a Bill in this House, it would be after we had examined it and it is that examination which is now the question. Can we improve the Bill? So we entered into discussions to find a new way of dealing with it—it was done by my noble friend Lord Hennessy—and, to cut it very short, we reached a basic agreement on Wednesday night. We were asked to let the Government take this into consideration and we waited. In retrospect, we should probably have put the Motion down on Wednesday night.

We met again with the Leader of the House at 3 o’clock on Monday. The Leader of the House said, perfectly reasonably, that he could go along with this as long as he knew that the Bill would not be delayed. My noble friend and I said we thought it was absolutely reasonable that to protect the business of the House they wanted this Bill before the new Session. We had already made it clear that this would have to be reported out from Select Committee by 19 December, and that was acceptable. The clerks tell me they have to report it out. They may say they want more time but there has to be a report. So I think we have dealt with one of the problems.

The other problem was that we were not able to commit the House to the other date, which was when it would come out of the House. The shadow Leader of the House has made it very clear that if this Select Committee procedure went through, this Bill would finish its processes and come out by the middle of January. She was also generous enough to say that she would go along with a timetabling Motion that would not detract from the days given to debate on this. As far as possible, I thought it was understood that it would not detract from the days that were overall given to this House. It is for her to say, of course, because these are not matters that a Cross-Bencher can or should be involved in. However, it is reasonable for this House to explain that it needs a lot of consultation and a lot of time for this Bill. I am not going to get into the timing directly—maybe the shadow Leader would like to.

I would like to explain a little bit more about the thinking of my amendment and deal with the point about it being exceptional. When that Constitutional Reform Bill was referred, parliamentary counsel was made available to it. That is why in this Motion, and again it was discussed, we ask—because we can only make a request, but the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made it pretty clear that he would support it—that the services of parliamentary counsel would be made available.

Let me deal with the question of whether this is a better procedure than just leaving it to the normal procedures of the House, on the Floor. The most reverend Primate was correct when he argued why a Select Committee procedure would be the best way. A number of amendments need to be made to the Secretary of State’s powers and they have to be connected. It is a very complex and very long Bill. It is worth saying that this needs very careful study.

Now, what is this issue? The third leader in the Times today is entitled:

“The Bedpan Problem: Who’s in charge of the NHS?”

We all know the famous remark made by Aneurin Bevan that if a bedpan is dropped in a hospital corridor the reverberations should echo around Whitehall. We all know that this is an issue that has long faced the NHS, since 1948, and we all know that increasingly, with its complexity, size and the changes in medicine, the Secretary of State for Health could never manage the health service. I have made it clear that I think this problem has to be dealt with and some adjustment of what is said, even in the 2006 Act, might not be unreasonable, but it would have to be coherent; it would have to be put together by parliamentary draftsmen who know the Bill. I think that would cut down the amount of time we might wish to spend on the Floor of the House on this particular issue. Goodness knows, there are a number of other issues that will need a lot of time to give this full coverage.

Those noble Lords who genuinely think that they will get more out of a procedure on the Floor of the House should look at what happened to the amendments that were moved in Committee in the House of Commons on this question. Not a single one was accepted in the initial stages; it was only when the pause took place. That is already unprecedented. I agree there should not be delay but a matter of a week or two is a little rich coming from a Government who are responsible for taking it out of Committee in the House and having a long consultation. I praise the work of the forum.

The medical profession has had a good go at this Bill and I am not complaining about that. I do not want to be on the Select Committee myself. The work should be carried out by people with a legal frame of mind and a constitutional frame of mind who are used to looking at a Bill as a whole and trying to bring some coherence to it. That is what lay behind the thinking of myself and my noble friend Lord Hennessy.

This is not a delaying measure. If I was opposing the amendment, I would be saying that it was a delaying measure but it is clearly not. Two dates have been agreed. If it goes to a Select Committee, it has to report back by 19 December and if it goes to the Floor of the House simultaneously that will not cause delay. The shadow Leader of the House has given her word that in those circumstances—she stressed “in those circumstances”—the Bill would come out by the middle of January. There is no delay so let us not have that argument. It is a perfectly fair argument for people who wish to spend time on the Bill purely on the Floor of the House. I believe that this proposal would supplement the scrutiny of this Bill.

There is another issue I wish to draw attention to, particularly for those who have not been in the debate. We need to remember that an all-party Select Committee of this House unanimously reported to this House its concerns about this Bill. Those words and its concerns are reflected in my amendment. They are not my words—they come directly from the Constitution Committee. We also had on the morning of the debate a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which should be read by those who think that by using normal procedures changes will be made on this issue. He said about the Bill,

“the Government does not believe that this in any way diminishes ultimate ministerial accountability or responsibility for the NHS. Indeed we believe the measures set out in it strengthen and make accountability and responsibility clearer than it has ever been. We do not consider any amendments necessary to put this matter ‘beyond legal doubt’”.

You have to be a super-optimist if you think that you are going to get great changes. Only the weight of an all-party and probably unanimous Select Committee will give the weight to make this change.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and as the person who had the privilege of introducing to this House the Bill that ultimately became the Act which has been referred to more than once. As a parent of such a body, it would be strange if I wanted to see it dissolved altogether. On the other hand, a parent who is interested in his child is glad to see him or her develop and possibly make unions with others who seem to be suitable for them. I had the honour of serving on the Joint Committee looking at the recent Bill in this area under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough. I strongly supported the decision taken by that committee to recommend against the proposed union between the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, may have done a slight injustice to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that he had recommended against it to the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister accepted it immediately, but eventually it was accepted by the corresponding Minister.

The matters that were the subject of the Bill which I had the privilege of introducing are certainly among the most important areas of modern scientific and medical work. But science and medicine have moved on very fast and far since that Bill was introduced and the developments dealt with in the most recent Act show that. That Act moves out of pure human embryology to the transition towards hybrids and, at the extreme end, towards the animal end of embryology. It shows that science has developed in such a way that the distinct field carved out in the original Bill has been altered by progress, if you like to think of it in that way, and I hope that that is what it is. There is a great deal to be said for the view that modern scientific and medical research is very difficult to split up. The embryo is important, but there are other important aspects of that research. I can therefore see a very strong argument for having a research body which has overall responsibility in this area.

There are of course other functions in HFEA which are important, particularly the control of IVF. When the body was originally set up, the practice of IVF was exceptional and a complete novelty, but a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then and it has become much more of a standard clinical procedure. It is true that developments have taken place there, but they have taken place also in other branches of medicine. It is not only embryology or IVF that have moved forward; fortunately, a great number of developments have taken place in the practice and application of medicine and surgery. It strikes me as extremely logical to have a body that would have overall responsibility for that.

If that be right, there is a good deal to be said for the view that the time has come to review the position in regard to the two health bodies that we are discussing and see whether a more integrated approach to research on the one hand and clinical practice on the other could be furthered by having bodies responsible for the whole of the first and the whole of the second. I agree that a good deal of detail needs to be filled in, but I remind myself that we are not deciding today whether this should happen. We are talking about a power for a Minister to decide what to do in the light of the further consultation provided for in the amendments moved by the Government since the Bill has been in Committee. It is a valuable opportunity for these matters to be considered. I can understand a lot of what has been said on the other side of this argument, but I should like to see retained in the Bill the power to deal with these issues in a way that reflects the developments that have taken place in the research and practice of medicine since the original Act came into force.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Warner has declared support for the Minister sitting on the Front Bench; I suspect that I might in the next few minutes give him even greater support.

We have to understand that research in these areas has now gone way beyond embryology. There was a time when people were very concerned about the status of the embryo, when embryo research was relatively novel. I should like to correct a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who very kindly referred to work on pre-implantation diagnosis. That work produced pregnancies before the establishment of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and people like me were greatly exercised to establish regulation. In spite of what has been said in this Chamber, we were very much in favour of regulation. Since there was no government regulation, we started a voluntary licensing authority which became a model in time—obviously, a very imperfect model—for the body set up under the splendid Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

Stem cell biology covers every aspect of human disease, from cancer to brain research, from human consciousness to the replacement of organs and transplantation, and a whole range of other areas. It is really—forgive the pun—inconceivable that this could be dealt with by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority properly under its present form or any future form. I would argue that with the advent of epigenetics, the recognition that now the environment in which cells are placed in culture and elsewhere is such a universal issue in medicine there has to be a much more global look at this kind of research. I feel that there is a strong case for suggesting that we have to accept that research ethics are universal and that they tend to have the same sorts of problems, whether it is patient consent, the end or beginning of life, or a whole range of other issues. In fact, the end and beginning of life have some very similar moral issues which need to be debated by ethics committees. The noble and learned Lord was right to point out that trying to look at these issues in a new form would be absolutely apposite. I for one am certainly not in favour of a free-for-all. I am not quite certain who in the medical profession is. I do not think that that is true.

The regulation of clinical treatment has been in many examples woefully inadequate. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out that while she was sitting on the Bench she had the most terrible case of a woman who had the wrong embryo transferred. That was done, of course, under the auspices of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. No regulatory authority, no matter how perfect or how good, can regulate against every human error. We should have a set of principles in laboratories which keep those mistakes to a minimum, and the regulation of medical practice must also enforce that.

I do not think that there is any evidence from what has happened that the HFEA has done a particularly good job or a particularly bad job. In some areas it has not been very powerful. For example, many things are forbidden under regulation in this country. Patients actively seek fertility tourism in other countries where they can get, for example, donor eggs and perhaps come back pregnant. Very often clinics in this country, although it may be against regulations, refer these patients outside. Of course the HFEA, not unreasonably, is powerless to deal with that sort of problem.

It is also true that the fees charged to patients are often extremely exploitative. I have no doubt that we will come back to this when we come to the pending health Bill, because this is a much bigger issue in terms of how we finance the health service. At the moment, IVF, whether it is done in the private sector or in my view in the National Health Service, is charged on the basis not of what it costs but rather of what the market will bear. That is a very big issue which we will need to discuss, because I suspect that that may apply to a lot of medical practice. It is an issue to which I am sure this House will want to return. Costing the procedure is very important.

Someone mentioned follow-up: one sad thing about the opportunity in 1990 was that we did not—even though we had records of IVF pregnancies, and IVF successes and failures—make any attempt to follow up babies after this procedure for the long term. There have been many reasons why that was difficult, such as data protection. But this lost opportunity means that some of the procedures often in routine use may have unforeseen consequences in children when they are adults. We now know from David Barker’s work, for example, that babies who are born underweight and premature are much more likely at the age of 50 or 60, as the Minister knows, to suffer from heart disease, stroke, hypertension and possibly osteoporosis as well as diabetes and one or two other diseases as well. Of course, we may see more diseases which are likely to be epigenetic due to those early influences.

I have to say that, although it is claimed that the HFEA gives out information to patients, six years after I retired from clinical practice running a very large IVF service, I am bombarded daily with e-mails—I have had several today—from patients who want information about IVF and do not feel that they are getting the information they should from the statutory authority. That remains a problem.

The clinical regulation of non-evidence-based practices has been poor. For example, there is no evidence that the preimplantation and genetic screening of embryos designed “to improve pregnancy rate” works. Yet several clinics charge large fees for doing this under regulation even though there is not a base for justifying its use. That also applies to costly immune therapy, which is highly controversial. Again, this is used in women who sometimes fail to get pregnant, under licence from the HFEA. This is an example of how in fact regulation is really quite limited in clinical practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Perhaps I may just indicate briefly that, although I said slightly flippantly that I had not had a chance to look at all the other amendments, I had a glance through them. I had some of the same reservations about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just adumbrated. The two that I found myself most drawn to were that you cannot have an omnibus order but must deal with things one by one, which seems well worth considering, and this business about hybridity. If there was manifestly something that picked out an individual interest and treated it differently from other interests—if I might do my non-lawyer’s translation of the hybridity problem—that would be a real question to be considered in certain circumstances. I hope that my noble friend will at least be able to reflect on these points.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there is a question of a chilling factor in relation to bodies or organisations once they are named in a Bill. There is something to be said for having a closure in respect of bodies named now but also, if we get the Bill through in a satisfactory way, for it being a model for future reviews of these public bodies. One difficulty has been to provide a definition of what is meant by a public body. If the Bill passes into law as a sound piece of review legislation then, after, for example, the end of this Parliament and the beginning of the next one, there is a good deal to be said for the next Government coming forward with a list of bodies that would be suggested as amendments to this Bill, which would then possibly be subject to review under the powers that we have stipulated in the Bill.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not suppose that the Committee would have chosen to debate this important group of amendments at this time of night. I do not really want to rush but I am mindful of the time. It is interesting that the amendments contain the workplace of me and the Bill team. This is certainly an area in which we are and have been much engaged. I hope that all noble Lords will understand that it is rarely possible to deliver everything. There are some areas where the Government have to draw a line but there are others—I think that I can indicate these in the debate this evening—where further consideration is justified and where I would hope to come back with amendments before Report, after discussions with noble Lords. I say that by way of preface.

The whole group of amendments relates to the procedures that Ministers must follow. These issues have had substantial discussion in Committee. I thank noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions. As I seek to respond to each amendment, I ask noble Lords to contextualise the debate against the changes that we have already announced in the Bill, notably the removal of Schedule 7 and our ongoing commitment to work with noble Lords on a variety of related issues.

I begin with Amendment 106A in the name of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. This amendment would add the objectives of,

“fairness, openness, transparency and justice”,

to the list to which the Minister must have regard when considering making an order under Sections 1 to 6. I thank him for his amendment and reassure the Committee that these objectives underpin the Government’s rationale for reforming public bodies and, of course, the Government’s programme as a whole. It is good that my noble friend carries the coalition agreement in his inside pocket, close to his heart. I am reassured by that and always value his contributions, even when they are not necessarily supportive of everything that I am seeking to do with this Bill. The only points where I fear we disagree concern whether this amendment would work in practice and whether such wording is necessary on the face of the Bill. The Government believe that such a requirement in legislative terms would be ambiguous and could, as drafted, be quite difficult to measure or assess. However, it is an area in Clause 8 that we have committed to look at.

Amendment 114A returns us to the question of consultation, which was originally debated on our first day in Committee on this Bill. It would amend government Amendment 114 by introducing a specific requirement to consult the public before laying an order using the main powers in the Bill. The Government have accepted the principle that Ministers should be required to consult on their proposals to reform public bodies before using these powers. The Government also accept that in some cases it is completely appropriate to consult the public in relation to such proposals. For example, I can confirm to the Committee that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills intends to consult this year on its proposed changes to competition bodies. We discussed that earlier this evening. It will be a public consultation. The Government Equalities Office will soon publish its consultation document on reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Later this year, Defra will issue a public consultation on its plans to replace British Waterways with a charitable body.

However, I take issue with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as it would apply without due regard to proportionality to any proposed reform. Such an approach runs contrary not only to the policy of this Government but also to the existing code of practice on consultation, which was issued in June 2008 by the Government of whom the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was a part. The introduction to the code of practice is clear:

“Ministers retain their existing discretion not to conduct formal consultation exercises under the terms of the Code. At times, a formal, written, public consultation will not be the most effective or proportionate way of seeking input from interested parties”.

I do not quote from this document to seek to absolve Ministers of responsibility. Subsection (1)(b) in Amendment 114 specifically requires a Minister to consult persons whom he or she considers,

“to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal”.

This provision clearly could include the public. The Minister must therefore expect to be held accountable for his or her decisions in relation to this provision. However, the proper requirement that Ministers should consider whether to consult the public does not lead to the conclusion that it will prove necessary or proportionate in all cases. For example, is it proportionate to require a full public consultation on the statutory abolition of Food From Britain, a body that, to all intents, has been defunct since 2009, or on the proposal to use Schedule 2 to merge the Pensions Ombudsman with the ombudsman for the board of the Pension Protection Fund? These two bodies already share services to a great extent and those functions will not change.

As with other cases in the Bill where the public will rightfully expect to be consulted, undoubtedly they will, but the Bill as drafted allows for that possibility and the Government accept their responsibility to ensure that that occurs when necessary. By contrast, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will remove the ability of Ministers to conduct a more targeted consultation when that is appropriate. While I have sympathy with the sentiment behind Amendment 114A, the Government do not believe that the public will welcome a proposal that would add unnecessary bureaucracy to the order-making process and with it, in effect, the process of reform.

The question of proportionality is also pertinent to Amendments 118A and 118B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which concern the parliamentary procedure that should apply to orders made under this Bill. In responding to these amendments, I should clarify for your Lordships’ House that we have substituted government Amendment 118 with a new version that makes it explicit that the enhanced procedure can be activated by a recommendation of a committee of either House. This clarification responds to paragraph 24(a) of the sixth report of the Delegated Powers Committee—that is, the committee’s second report on this Bill. I am happy to clarify the Government’s intentions in response.

Amendment 118A seeks to make it explicit that a Minister wishing to make an order following a period of consultation must lay before Parliament a draft order and explanatory document. I agree with the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I do not consider it necessary. While the current drafting of subsection (1) in government Amendment 118 states that a Minister,

“may lay … a draft order, and … an explanatory document”,

it would in practice not be possible to make an order without following this procedure. Our current drafting simply reflects the fact that, following a period of consultation under Amendment 114, the Minister is not obliged to proceed with the proposal.

Amendment 118B would introduce a wholly new parliamentary procedure for these orders, giving a committee of either House the opportunity not only to reject but also to amend an order, or to recommend that the proposals be taken forward only through primary legislation. As I argued when we debated this issue on the first day in Committee, the Government cannot support that proposal for a number of reasons. First, I maintain my position that the noble Lord’s amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill in seeking to effect a fundamental shift in how this House deals with secondary legislation. Secondly, I do not accept that the powers of the Bill, especially in the light of the removal of Schedule 7 and the additional safeguards that the Government are now proposing, justify the use of such a restrictive parliamentary procedure. It is now the case that no body can be subject to the powers of the Bill unless Parliament has consented through primary legislation to its inclusion in the Bill’s schedules. The waiting room of Schedule 7 has gone. Therefore, the scope of the powers in this Bill has been significantly narrowed. On this basis, to continue to suggest that the Bill requires a more restrictive scrutiny procedure than, for example, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act appears a disproportionate response, particularly in the light of the additional safeguards that we have introduced and continued to work towards and the fact that the proposed procedure would apply to each and every order made under this Bill.

I do not intend to quote a list of examples of such reforms. Suffice it to say that I do not consider that the opposition amendment represents a proportionate procedure for an order to abolish a body that is already defunct. Our approach, by contrast, gives Parliament the flexibility to select and enhance procedure while maintaining for the Government the reasonable ability to act to implement their programme. It is for this reason that I cannot accept Amendment 118B or Amendment 117.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I have been privileged to put my name to the amendment and of course I support it wholeheartedly. It makes clear the legal framework within which the ministerial powers under the Bill may be exercised. I thank my right honourable friend Francis Maude for seeing me on this matter and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that the consultation right across Whitehall was necessary. That is perhaps one of the reasons why we were not quite as early with this as some of us might have liked. I thank members of the Bill team very much for the patience that they exhibited in listening to me preaching to them about this, in a manner to which your Lordships are accustomed.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that if he continues to table amendments of this quality he will be very welcome to move them after midnight, day after day. I, too, thank him, as this is an important amendment. It provides considerable reassurance to noble Lords about how the Bill will operate when enacted. I am grateful to him; it goes right back to that first vote on day one in Committee, which seems a little time ago. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his great assistance, and the Bill team and the Minister. This is a very positive outcome.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority/Human Tissue Authority

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate at this time; it is perhaps an important interval, which we might not have expected to have but for other activities in the House. As your Lordships will know, I had the privilege of introducing the HFEA legislation all those years ago, so I feel a certain parental responsibility towards the authority that prevents me from wanting to see it perish. However, as children grow up, the needs surrounding them can change and it may well be asked whether all that the HFEA was set up to do needs to be done in quite that way now. For example, when it was set up, IVF was comparatively rare and it would be fair to say that people were somewhat afraid of it. We had the benefit of the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggesting what should happen.

Since that time, IVF has become a much more regularly occurring clinical process. Undoubtedly, there have been questions—for example, about the number of embryos to implant—but these processes take place in other areas as well; there are important risks in many clinical processes and we have authorities that are responsible for monitoring them. There may well be a case, therefore, for considering whether the control of the practice of IVF should continue with the HFEA. Research, too, happens in many areas. It involves important ethical issues, even in other branches of medicine and scientific research. I think that the HFEA was set up primarily from the point of view of that research and its control. Although there may be room for modification, that should continue.

I have had no direct concern with the Human Tissue Authority—I am glad to see its chair taking part in our debate—but I had the privilege of sitting on the Select Committee that looked at the draft Bill. Many questions relating to the Human Tissue Act were raised there. The answer of the then Government was: “If these are mistakes, it is too early to correct them”. I have always thought that the sooner you correct a mistake that you have made, the better. I have no particular concern about the Human Tissue Authority. Our Joint Committee raised the possibility of a degree of co-operation between the two authorities that had not until then existed, although the situation may well have improved since we completed our deliberations. However, it is absolutely clear that the committee found no basis on which these two authorities could properly be put together as a single authority. We were absolutely unanimous and strongly of that view.

Carers

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, would my noble friend say—

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Can the noble Lord say whether it is appropriate that carers for those who are disabled on account of substance abuse should be subject to the same disability, as it were, as the person for whom they care?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this is a complex question and one that my noble and learned friend will, I hope, know that we are bearing closely in mind. Those often young people who look after disabled parents are in special need, as I have said, but we recognise, too, the huge responsibility placed on parents who care for a disabled child and who often bear particular burdens. On that score, while noble Lords will be aware that the child trust fund has been abolished, the changes that we introduced in so doing include provision for more than £20 million a year, starting next year, to be spent on providing additional respite breaks for carers of severely disabled children. In passing, I pay tribute to the work of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers.