PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REPORT
TUESDAY 29 April 2003
Members present:
Mr David Hinchliffe, in the Chair
| Mr John Austin | Jim Dowd
|
| Andy Burnham | Siobhain McDonagh
|
| Julia Drown | Dr Doug Naysmith
|
| Sandra Gidley | Dr Richard Taylor
|
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (Foundation Trusts), proposed by the Chairman,
brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph
by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 25 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 26 read, as follows:
"The Government's proposals to limit the proportion of Foundation
Trusts' private patient income to 200304 levels have attracted
considerable media attention, and have been welcomed by the independent
healthcare sector. While Malcolm Stamp made clear to us that he
would not be seeking to increase the volume of private patients
as an income generator, he told us that this element of the proposals
felt "a bit like philosophical overdrive". However,
General Healthcare pointed out that despite these restrictions,
it was far from clear that Foundation Trusts would not be able
to reinvest NHS surpluses in developing other commercial enterprises,
for example offering occupational health services to businesses.
We believe that the Government's proposals, as they stand,
have the potential to get a greater proportion of the increasing
NHS funds going to Foundation Trusts, and we believe that limitations
on private work are appropriate and necessary to ensure that Foundation
Trusts' primary function remains the delivery of healthcare to
NHS patients."
Amendment proposed, in line 10, to leave out the words "get
a greater proportion of the increasing NHS funds going to"
and insert the words "generate extra resources for".
—(Siobhain McDonagh.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 4
Andy Burnham John Austin
Siobhain McDonagh Julia Drown
Dr Doug Naysmith Sandra Gidley
Dr Richard Taylor
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 27 to 105 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 106 read, as follows:
"We note the Government's commitment to piloting this
policy with a selected group of trusts rather than opting for
largescale 'big bang' implementation. We recommend that
consideration is given to establishing an additional pilot allowing
all trusts in a particular area to become Foundation Trusts, as
this would help to evaluate how the system would operate in the
long term. We do not think that the proposed very tight schedule
of annual waves of reform allows sufficient opportunity for the
advantages or disadvantages of Foundation status to be evaluated,
or for lessons to be learnt, good practice disseminated, and the
policy refined for further waves. In particular, we feel that
in the early years of this policy, the success of public involvement
measures, and the impact on wider health economies will
merit very close scrutiny. We recommend that the Government should
commission an independent evaluation specifically aimed at assessing
the impact on wider health economies and on public involvement,
and geared towards helping refine the policies for 'second wave'
Foundation Trusts, before announcing the second wave of trusts."
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from the word "implementation"
to the word "term" in line 5.—(Andy Burnham.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 4
Andy Burnham John Austin
Siobhain McDonagh Julia Drown
Dr Doug Naysmith Sandra Gidley
Dr Richard Taylor
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 107 to 163 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 164 read, as follows:
"We feel that the policy of Foundation Trusts as presented
in the Government's Guide needs changes in several areas
if it is to succeed. These include the rationalisation of regulation
arrangements, the introduction of clear national standards for
the membership and election of boards of governors, additional
assurances on the access of Foundation Trusts to the NHS's limited
budget, and clarification of the precise powers available to both
members of Foundation Trusts and their boards of governors. We
also think it is vital that PALS and ICAS are maintained within
Foundation Trusts, and that Foundation Trusts' non-executive directors
should be affiliated and accountable to the CPPIH. We also
recommend that the Government considers a wider democratic option
for trusts, including PCTs, to consider, with or without the freedoms
associated with the current Foundation model."
Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from the word "CPPPIH."
to the end of the paragraph.—(Siobhain McDonagh.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 2 Noes, 5
Andy Burnham John Austin
Siobhain McDonagh Julia Drown
Sandra Gidley
Dr Doug Naysmith
Dr Richard Taylor
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 165 to 171 read and agreed to.
An Annex (Background to Foundation Trusts)—(The Chairman.)-brought
up, read and agreed to.
Paragraph entitled Summary—(The Chairman)-brought
up, read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Second Report of the Committee
to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134
(Select Committees (Reports)) be applied to the Report.
Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.—(The
Chairman.)
Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
taken before the Committee be reported to the House.—(The
Chairman.)
[Adjourned till Tuesday 6 May at Two o'clock.
| 
