The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Ainger,
Nick
(Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire)
(Lab)
Banks,
Gordon
(Ochil and South Perthshire)
(Lab)
Baron,
Mr. John
(Billericay)
(Con)
David,
Mr. Wayne
(Caerphilly)
(Lab)
George,
Mr. Bruce
(Walsall, South)
(Lab)
Griffiths,
Nigel
(Edinburgh, South)
(Lab)
Havard,
Mr. Dai
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
(Lab)
Irranca-Davies,
Huw
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Wales)Jenkin,
Mr. Bernard
(North Essex)
(Con)
Jones,
Mr. David
(Clwyd, West)
(Con)
Kirkbride,
Miss Julie
(Bromsgrove)
(Con)
Moon,
Mrs. Madeleine
(Bridgend)
(Lab)
Morden,
Jessica
(Newport, East)
(Lab)
Moss,
Mr. Malcolm
(North-East Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
Price,
Adam
(Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr)
(PC)
Touhig,
Mr. Don
(Islwyn)
(Lab/Co-op)
Williams,
Mark
(Ceredigion)
(LD)
Mr. Mike Clark,
Committee Clerk
attended
the Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday
3 June
2008
[John
Cummings in the
Chair]
Draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) Order 2008
10.30
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Huw
Irranca-Davies): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer of
Functions) Order
2008.
I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr Cummings, and I welcome all right hon. and
hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I would like to begin by
informing the Committee that these are two separate matters, under two
separate UK Health Acts: section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and
section 259 of and schedule 21 to the National Health Service Act 2006.
The Wales Office has obtained formal agreement from the Department of
Health, the Ministry of Justice and, of course, the Welsh Ministers,
for the provisions of this order.
The first
transfer of functions effected by this order relates to functions under
section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which applies to patients
detained under part 2 and part 3 of that Act. The relevant powers under
section 86 of the 1983 Act apply to patients detained under part 2 and
part 3 of the Act who are not British, EU or Commonwealth citizens with
the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The powers in section 86 are
to remove such a person from a hospital in England or Wales.
Right hon.
and hon. Members may recall from our deliberations on the Mental Health
Act 2007 last year that part 3 of the 1983 Act relates to patients
concerned in criminal proceedings or under sentence, while part 2
relates to patients who are often referred to as civil
patients, that is patients whose detention in hospital is a
process that does not involve the courts.
Responsibilities
for some mental health matters were devolved to the
National Assembly for Wales under the Government of Wales Act 1998.
That included responsibility for patients detained under the Mental
Health Act 1983 except for patients subject to restrictions under part
3 of the Act; relevant functions in relation to them remained the
responsibility of the Home Office. At the time of the original transfer
of functionsthe National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of
Functions) Order 1999which covered the Mental Health Act
powers, section 86 remained the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
These have subsequently been transferred to the Secretary of State for
Health, in respect of unrestricted patients, and to the Secretary of
State for Justice, in respect of restricted patients, by the machinery
of government changes that took place in 2007.
The proposed
transfer of functions under section 86 will set right the anomaly which
exists in the way that powers under the 1983 Act have been transferred
to the
Welsh Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
Healths decision will also be based on the advice and agreement
to the use of the power first being considered by a mental health
review tribunal. The tribunal is an independent judicial body that is
concerned with determining whether a patient continues to meet the
criteria of detention under the Act. It has the power to discharge a
person from detention. This procedure will continue under Welsh
Ministers if the order is approved today.
Given the
nature of such a power of removal, the relevant Welsh Minister must
first be satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been made to
ensure that the patient in Wales receives proper care and treatment
when transferred to the other country. Section 86 powers cannot be
exercised before it has first been established that it would be in a
patients best interests to be removed to the other country. The
general principle remains the same, but these functions are transferred
to Welsh Ministers.
At present,
Welsh Ministers are dependent on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Health to exercise the powers of removing a patient who is
receiving treatment for a mental illness from Wales to a country
abroad. Given that the health service falls within the executive
competence of Welsh Ministers and my right hon. Friend has no statutory
control over NHS Wales, it would be wholly appropriate for Welsh
Ministers to exercise section 86 functions.
What does
that mean for hospital managers in Wales? For hospital managers in
Wales, the transfer of section 86 powers would also provide a
consistency with the exercise of other functions within the 1983 Act,
which are exercised by Welsh Ministers. The draft order makes it clear
that the functions relating to section 86 for patients who are subject
to a restriction order or direction under section 41 or section 49 of
the 1983 Act, or a hospital and limitation direction under section 45A
of that Act, will remain with the Secretary of State for Justice, who
will exercise those functions in relation to both England and Wales.
That reflects the current settlements and the arrangements regarding
such patients. The Welsh Ministers are not seeking to change those
arrangements and neither are we
today.
With
Members good will, let me turn briefly to the issue of
goodwill. If it pleases right hon. and hon. Members, I will move on to
the second matter under section 259 and schedule 21 of the National
Health Service Act 2006, which relates to the sale of goodwill of
medical practices. The transfer of functions would give the Welsh
Ministers the responsibility and power to grant certificates stating
that no goodwill had been sold. I will explain further. Subject to
specified exemptions, the sale of goodwill of medical practices is
prohibited under section 259 of the 2006 Act. Schedule 21 makes it an
offence to sell goodwill contrary to section 259, which provides that
any person proposing to be a party to a transaction that they think
might amount to the sale of goodwill of a medical practice has to ask
the Secretary of State for Health for a certificate confirming that the
transaction does not give valuable consideration in respect of the
goodwill. That function is currently exercised by the national health
service litigation appeal authority unit on behalf of the Secretary of
State for Health for both England and Wales.
No issue
arises regarding cross-border practices. It is the premises that are
being sold and not the patients who are registered at the practice. If
the premises are physically in England, the national health service
litigation appeal authority unit would continue to be responsible for
issuing a certificate confirming that no goodwill has been sold. The
transfer of functions order would make the Welsh Assembly Government
responsible for issuing the same certificates to GP practices in Wales.
The proposed transfer of functions under section 86 of the 1983 Act and
section 259 and schedule 21 of the National Health Service Act 2006
have the approval and support of UK and Welsh Ministers. I commend the
draft order to the
House
10.38
am
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Cummings. I am sure that the Committee, and the
Minister in particular, will be pleased to hear that I have no
observations on the first element of the proposed order. It appears to
be a logical measure given the current status of the devolution
settlement. However, I am afraid that I have a few queries about the
second element of the order, which I am sure the Minister will be able
to help me with.
As the
Minister explained, at present, the national health service litigation
appeal authority unit is responsible for the issue of certificates
under section 259 of the National Health Service Act 2006 in respect of
the sale of the assets of medical practices in both England and Wales.
The Minister has explained that the issue and sale of goodwill is
specifically prohibited by that section. That Act was enacted after the
establishment of the Welsh Assembly and also at a time when the
Government of Wales Act 2006 was in full contemplation. I, therefore,
take it that the issue of devolution was taken fully into account at
that time by the Government when they decided to implement the current
procedure under section 259. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the
decision has been taken at this particular time to transfer the
relevant function to the Welsh Ministers.
It would also
be of assistance if the Minister could indicate the order of magnitude
that we are talking about. How many certificates are applied for per
annum in Wales and how many are granted? What does the consideration of
an application for a certificate involve, in terms of manpower and
time? How many staff are employed by the appeal authority unit, and how
many members of that staff are dedicated to considering Welsh
applications? Would he also indicate the current cost of operating the
certification procedure in respect of
Wales?
Can
the Minister also give some indication of the estimated cost to the
Welsh Assembly of assuming the responsibility for the issue of
certificates in Wales? Another matter concerns me: it is clear that the
appeal authority unit must have a significant degree of expertise in
considering applications such as this, which has presumably been
developed over the years. What proposals are there for the Welsh
Ministers to create a similar level of expertise within their own
establishment? Finally, I make what may appear to be a rather
straightforward point: has any consideration been given simply to
shifting the responsibility within the appeal authority unit, so that
in respect of Welsh applications, it is accountable to the Welsh
Ministers, and, in respect of English
applications, to the Secretary of State for Health? That would probably
be the simplest procedure to adopt, and probably the most
cost-effective.
10.41
am
Mark
Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): I welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Cummings, and I approach the order in the spirit of
inquiry rather than with any criticism, because the general principle
of ensuring that we transfer functions that are part of the devolution
settlement is a sound one, and in that sense it is a logical and
consistent tidying-up order. However, I should like to probe the
Minister a little further on a couple of
things.
My
understanding is that the abortive Mental Health Bill of 2004 made
provision for those section 86 powers under the Mental Health Act 1983,
and conferred them on Welsh Ministers. Can the Minister confirm that
that was the case, and explain why those provisions were not included
in the 2007 legislation? I know that individual circumstances at that
time do not necessarily dictate that every function can be included in
legislation as it goes through the House, but some explanation as to
why that was not replaced in 2007 would be
helpful.
There
is also the issue of the cost of repatriation. Can the Minister clarify
that as it affects the Welsh Assembly Government, that would be
helpful, as well as the number of cases that he envisages, or has in
the past precedents for, on the National Assembly Government?
The final
point lies very much in the context of the Welsh Affairs
Committees inquiry into cross-border issues: the criteria used
in certain individual cases to determine whether this would be a matter
for the Secretary of State for Health in London, or the Welsh Health
Minister. Would this be done on the basis of residence, the location of
the hospital undertaking the treatment, or any other factors? There
will obviously be quite complex procedures for dealing with where the
ministerial responsibility lies, but one can envisage a situation where
a patient is living within Wales, but is proceeding with the treatment
across the border. Again, the cost issue there is quite
relevant.
We support
the order, although I regret that it was not in the 2007 legislation.
That would have saved us a morning, not least when the Welsh Affairs
Committee is meeting along the corridor. None the less, we welcome the
order.
10.44
am
Mr.
Don Touhig (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): I add my comments to
those of other colleagues and welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Cummings; I know that our proceedings will be in safe hands with you
guiding us this morning. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister, for
his explanation and for the useful explanatory notes that he has
provided for us. However, I have a number of questions that maybe he
can clarify for
me.
I
see from the explanatory notes that this is the first
instrument to be made under section 58 of the Government of Wales Act
2006. Whenever we are asked to transfer powers from Parliament in
London to the National Assembly in Cardiff, I ask one simple question:
how will this benefit the people of Wales? Perhaps my hon. Friend can
tell me when he responds, because it seems that paragraph 7.7 in the
explanatory notes is all about tidying up and avoiding confusion. It
seems to me that a
bunch of bureaucrats in Cardiff have said to their Ministers,
Oh, this is rather confusing for us, Minister; shouldnt
you get some change? Then they have come forward with
todays instrument. What difference will transferring power from
London to Cardiff make to mental health patients being
movedwhat difference at
all?
Paragraph
7.3 of the explanatory notes refers to part 3 of the Mental Health Act
1983 and mentions patients concerned in criminal procedures or under
sentence. I was not clear when the Minister opened our debate this
morning precisely how that would impact on the responsibilities of the
Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Justice. For instance, if
there is a proposal to transfer someone from Wales to a country abroad
and the Home Secretary or Justice Secretary were concerned for that
persons welfarethat persons life might be at
risk or that person might be subject to ill treatmentwould
Welsh Ministers have the power to overrule any concerns expressed by
the Government? Section 86 and part 6 in general of the Mental Health
Act 1983 are about moving mental health patients abroad and out of UK
jurisdiction. If the order is approved and the powers are passed to
Ministers in Cardiff, who will be responsible for seeking assurances
from that third or foreign country that the patient being transferred
will be well treated, that their interests and well-being will be cared
for and that proper medical attention will be given? There is an
overlap with the responsibilities of the Foreign Office. It may be that
there is some sort of memorandum of understanding planned, by which the
power can be exercised in a sensible and positive way, but we need some
assurances, so that we can fully understand what we are being asked to
do
today.
10.46
am
Adam
Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): It is a
pleasure to serve under you, Mr. Cummings, in the Committee
this
morning.
The
difference between me and the right hon. Member for Islwyn is that when
I see a power transferred from this place to where that power should
restwith the democratically elected representatives of the
people of Wales in our national legislature, the National
AssemblyI see that as a cause for
celebration.