Select Committee on Health First Report


Extent to which systematic structure is in place for meeting the indicative tasks listed, and response of the department

16. The Committee would itself determine whether or not to examine any draft bill. Again, we repeat our plea of last year to the Department that maximum notice is essential to allow us to incorporate legislative scrutiny within our programme.

Examination of expenditure

17. Since 1991, the Health Committee has conducted its annual scrutiny of Department of Health expenditure based on a detailed questionnaire submitted to the Department each summer, the PEQ cited above. This forms a retrospective analysis of the Department's expenditure over the previous financial year. Oral evidence is then taken, first from officials then from the Secretary of State.

18. Whilst we constantly refine the questionnaire, much of the information sought remains unchanged from year to year, in order to provide consistency of data for the many research institutions which make use of this material.

EXTENT TO WHICH SYSTEMATIC STRUCTURE IS IN PLACE FOR MEETING THE INDICATIVE TASKS LISTED, AND RESPONSE OF THE DEPARTMENT

19. The Department devotes much time and effort to completing the questionnaire for which we are most grateful. This year, as has often been the case, they failed to meet our requested deadlines, limiting the time that we could spend in analysing the material before officials came before the Committee.

Examination of Public Service Agreements

20. Some 55 PSA[7] targets set since 1998 are currently monitored by the Department so clearly it is not feasible for us systematically to examine all agreements. Focusing on simply the 2002 targets, most of the 12 categories are covered in the annual expenditure review (which does specifically address several PSA targets), notably those relating to waiting times (Targets 1 to 3), and that requiring improvements in value for money brought about by increased efficiency (Target 12). Target 6, which seeks a substantial reduction from the major killer diseases by 2010, is being addressed in our current Obesity inquiry. Target 11, seeking to reduce health inequalities by 10% by 2010 was a matter we considered in our second Maternity Report which focused on health inequalities, but is also pertinent in the context of our inquiries into Obesity, and more markedly, Sexual health, where there are major health inequalities.

Innovations in working methods

21. On a visit to Manchester in December 2002 during the course of our Sexual Health inquiry we met informally with a number of school age children on Manchester Young People's councils. We found their views so compelling that we decided to take formal, oral evidence at Westminster from a group of young people aged 15 to 21.

22. The Health Committee had taken informal evidence from young people before, notably in the context of its inquiry into children in care. But we decided that it was important to have their views on the record for this inquiry. In January 2003 we invited four representatives from the Wakefield Peer Group Research Project, two Members of the National Youth Parliament, two representatives from the Swindon Young Mums-to-be project and four members of the Wigan Borough-wide Youth Council. We went to great pains to make the process as relaxed as possible for them and to create an atmosphere where they could talk frankly to us. They performed superbly and our final Report is greatly indebted to their views. What was reprehensible was the reporting of this session by the diary columnists of several newspapers whose aim was solely to trivialise and ridicule this evidence.

23. Our inquiries into The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK and into Public Expenditure were heavily indebted to the work of the Scrutiny Unit of the Clerk's Department and we should like to record our thanks to them. We also made use of the Scrutiny Unit in a number of other inquiries and we very much value the additional rigour their work can bring to ours, notably in respect of the scrutiny of expenditure.

24. The major innovation in our work this year lay in the creation of our first sub-committee. This met once a week most sitting weeks between March and June 2003, while meetings of the main Committee continued as normal. The fact that Members were asked to sit at least twice a week placed a considerable burden both on Members and staff. While we feel that much useful work was achieved we are not convinced that a sub-committee can be sustained over a long period with a Main Committee membership of only eleven. An additional problem we are facing arises from the degree of necessary absenteeism we are experiencing as a result of many of our Members being placed on Standing Committees. We believe there is a case for expanding this membership so as to allow the creation of more sub-committees, thus allowing us to cover a broader range of subjects, affording a level of scrutiny more appropriate for the Department of Health given its size and expenditure.

Impact of the work of the Committee

25. Measuring the impact of the work of any select committee is a difficult task. A simple measure is to look at the number of recommendations it makes that are accepted by Government. Limiting ourselves to this we can record a number of notable successes. We are especially pleased that the Government has accepted our demands for a 48 hour waiting time target for GUM clinics, has acknowledged the need to replace the outdated chlamydia test, and has made additional funding available to achieve this. We are not satisfied, however, that it has adequately addressed the current deficiencies in sex and relationships education, or that funding and access to treatment for those suffering from HIV/AIDS will be sufficient, that enough consultants will be in post to meet demand, or that premises will be brought up to date within the reasonable future.

26. We are pleased that the Government clearly took careful stock of our Report in drawing up its own response to the OFT proposals on The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK and has reached broadly similar conclusions to ours.

27. We are in no position to say what the Government's response has been to our three maternity Reports since none has yet been forthcoming. We can see the logic of the Department issuing a single reply to three interlinked Reports. But the first of these Reports was published seven months ago and the last six months ago. So we are taking the opportunity that this Report provides to register our irritation at this shoddy treatment by the Department which we regard as wholly unacceptable.

28. The impact of a Committee, however, goes beyond an analysis of number of recommendations accepted. We believe our Report on Foundation Trusts did much to stimulate debate on the subject and brought a lot of material into the public domain that otherwise would have remained undisclosed. Similarly, that into Patient and Public involvement in the NHS has informed our own later inquiries and has been beneficial to those taking part in debates relating to NHS reform. Finally, even though we have yet to report on Obesity, nobody can have failed to observe the extent to which this subject has become a major public concern in recent months, with thousands of articles and programmes appearing on it. We believe we have been a major catalyst in that debate and we take seriously our responsibilities in drawing up what will be a major Report.


7   Public Service Agreements set goals for key service improvements across Government. Those relating to the Department of Health appear in its Departmental Report 2003, pp.11-22. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 28 January 2004