Clause
57
Inspections
carried out for registration
purposes
Sandra
Gidley:
I beg to move amendment No. 239, in
clause 57, page 28, line 23, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
This
is a simple probing amendment. As the Bill
stands,
“The
Commission may publish a report prepared under subsection
(2).”
I am curious about
the circumstances under which a report would not be published. To my
way of thinking, the more information in the public domain the better
and the greater the transparency of any organisation, the greater the
public trust in it. All reports should be published. However,
subsection (3) seems to give some flexibility. I am not sure why that
is needed. I seek an example from the Minister of where it would not be
necessary to publish a report. It would be helpful to know why the word
“may” was
chosen.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
This is a point on which I may at last be able
to offer the hon. Lady some satisfaction. Although, under existing
legislation, the CSCI and the Healthcare Commission are not explicitly
obliged to publish inspections reports, in practice they do. However,
they are careful at times about some details: we talked earlier about
children and vulnerable adults. I agree that it is essential that the
public should have access to the commission’s inspection
findings: a concern also raised by Dame Denise Platt in her evidence to
the Committee. We are therefore looking at whether there is an argument
for strengthening the language in that
regard.
Sandra
Gidley:
I am reassured by the Minister and have no desire
to have an amendment achieved in my name. If the Government want to
bring something forward that achieves that aim on a future occasion, I
will be more than delighted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
57 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
58 to 59 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
60
Power
to require documents and information
etc.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
O'Brien:
The clause deals with the power of the commission
to require documents and information. I want to ask the Minister, in
the light of events across Government that are both topical and recent,
what guarantees he can give that data collected under the powers in the
clause will be kept securely and is the Secretary of State ultimately
liable?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
No, the hon. Gentleman will know that health
managers are statutorily responsible for complying with data protection
laws. I am sure that he follows these issues closely and will know that
the data protection rules governing health data, because of their
sensitive nature, are much stronger and more securely held and, indeed,
have sometimes been criticised for being too difficult to access. That
will remain the case under the
clause.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 60
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 61
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
62
Interaction
with other
authorities
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take
Government new clause 13— Avoidance of unreasonable burdens in
exercise of regulatory
powers.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The new clause and the amendments that we
debated earlier were requested by Welsh Ministers in relation to care
provided in Wales registered under the Care Standards Act 2000, which
will not fall under the scope of the new Care Quality Commission
because it will only operate in England. Welsh Ministers wanted to take
the opportunity to introduce enforcement powers for Wales that mirror
many of those that the Bill proposed for the Care Quality Commission in
England and said that they wanted a little more time to consider the
full implications of that. That is why I regret having to bring in the
new clause now. Having done so, they have asked me to put forward this
new
clause.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I can see that the Minister has had precious
little in the way of options if the discussions with Welsh Ministers
are on that time track. This is the first of the Government amendments
that we have reached during the course of the Committee’s
considerations and is one of some 60 amendments. Clearly, anything to
mitigate the burden of regulation would, in principle, have my support.
It would be helpful, however, at this first outing, when there are
implications for Welsh Ministers and the progress of discussions with
Welsh Ministers, if he could tell us
whether those discussions have concluded or are ongoing, so that we can
have full knowledge of what to expect concerning that in Government
amendments and new clauses. I am sure that he would accept that we have
not had the dovetailing we might have hoped
for.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 62 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4 agreed
to.
Clauses 63
to 67 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
68
Arrangements
with northern ireland
ministers
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
3.30
pm
Mr.
O'Brien:
The clause will enable Northern Ireland Ministers
to make use of the CQC and inspection on agreed terms, and it would be
helpful for us to understand the income that the Minister
envisages the CQC deriving from such arrangements. If he does not have
the answer in his briefing, I am sure that the Committee will be happy
to see it later.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman
about that.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 68
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
69
Inquiries
Mr.
O'Brien:
I beg to move amendment No. 42, in
clause 69, page 33, line 27, leave
out subsection
(6).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 43, in clause 69, page 33, line 28, at end
add—
‘(7) In such cases as
the inquiry is held in private under subsections (2) or (3), the
Secretary of State shall make a statement to
Parliament.
(8) In such cases
as the Secretary of State deems publication inappropriate under
subsection (5), he shall make a statement to
Parliament.’.
Mr.
O'Brien:
The amendments would remove from the Secretary of
State the decision on the appropriateness of publication, and ensure
that Parliament was informed in cases where inquiries are held in
private or publication is withheld. It would aid the Committee if the
Minister gave examples of when the Secretary of State would direct that
an inquiry be held in private, or when publication might be
inappropriate. I note that being prejudicial to an ongoing criminal
investigation is an example, but in that case, the power should be to
delay rather than to prevent publication. Perhaps the Minister will
clarify
that, in that case, “delay” might have been a more
judicious word than “prevent”, which seeks not to have an
out-date, as it were.
There are no checks or balances
if the Secretary of State chooses to use the power to suppress
inquiries that might carry political unpleasantness. Although I make no
aspersions on that count, the issue must be raised, because as a matter
of scrutiny in Committee, we should take every opportunity to ensure
that we do not leave loopholes of which neither I nor the Minister
would be proud.
Greg
Mulholland:
Last time, I was caught out by the brevity of
the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, so I am on my toes this time.
He seemed to get through at an excellent pace, and it was a very brief
contribution.
Subsection (6) includes the
phrase,
“in such manner
as the Secretary of State considers
appropriate,”
which sends
shivers down the spines of many of us who believe in proper scrutiny.
It could mean anything, and it is inappropriate to include such a
woolly phrase in the Bill. The purpose of the amendments, which the
Liberal Democrats fully support, is to include in the Bill appropriate
occasions of parliamentary scrutiny, when the Secretary of State shall
make a statement. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. The
phrase that I have quoted is inappropriate, which is why we support
amendment No. 42. The clear and succinct inclusion in the Bill of the
occasions when a statement should be made to Parliament would be
appropriate.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The subsection mirrors the provision in existing
legislation for the Healthcare Commission and CSCI. The hon. Member for
Eddisbury has already alluded to examples of why it might be necessary
for an inquiry to be held in private, such as to ensure that a
police investigation or criminal proceedings are not hindered or
jeopardised.
On the
hon. Gentleman’s question about checks and balances, a decision
by the CQC to use publicity if it is concerned that something is being
undesirably suppressed will be a fairly powerful check and balance.
Hitherto, that has not happened and I do not see why it should, but if
it did, the CQC will be in a position to cause extreme embarrassment to
anyone who is in government at the time.
Mr.
O'Brien:
The Minister envisages that the CQC’s
power to make public its concerns—effectively, it has the power
to embarrass—will be a very good sanction, and I agree that it
is a powerful one. He did not address the issue of whether
“delay” is a better word than “prevent”,
but that point is on the record and we can think about it in future. It
certainly does not merit pressing the amendment to a Division, so I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
69 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
70 to 73 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
74
Code
of practice on confidential personal
information
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
O'Brien:
Yet again we are dealing with confidential
personal information. In response to the previous point made on that
issue, the Minister sought to pray in aid the fact that the controls
over highly sensitive personal health information were even more
stringent than in other areas. I simply seek reassurances and
guarantees that when information is in the hands of the Government,
Government agencies or related bodies, they recognise and take
responsibility for its security, given recent events.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 74
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
75
Publication
of programme of reviews
etc.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 75, page 37, line 6, at
end add—
‘(5) Subsection (2)
does not confer on the Secretary of State the power to prevent the
Commission conducting
reviews.’.
Under
clause 75, the
commission
“must...prepare
and publish a document setting out”
the reviews it proposes to undertake.
Subsection (2) provides
that
“the Commission must
consult...the Secretary of
State”
on the document.
The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from using the
consultation as an opportunity to block certain
reviews.
The clause
highlights the privileged position of the Secretary of State in
relation to the commission. It must be patent by now that we have
sought to remove the Secretary of State’s powers in order to
make the CQC a genuinely and transparently independent body. I have
just one question for the Minister: what is the purpose of
consultations under subsection (2), and could the clause be used by the
Secretary of State to block reviews, however necessary people feel them
to be?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I simply reiterate what I said earlier. The CQC
will be completely unfettered in its decisions to undertake reviews in
the circumstances that I described.
The amendment would not have
any practical effect, because the Secretary of State has no power to
prevent the commission from conducting reviews. The amendment seems to
refer to the requirement for the CQC to publish in advance its work
programme for the more general reviews that it intends to undertake
during a specific period. That is a sensible requirement, not least
because that way, the organisations concerned will have some idea about
the CQC’s work programme. It can formalise its business planning
processes—an exercise that already takes place under the
existing system to help managers administer burdens of regulation on
front-line service providers. The requirement to consult will also
ensure dialogue between the commission and the Secretary of State.
However and as I have made absolutely clear, important, urgent
reviews—or those that the CQC considers urgent in fulfilling its
duty on quality and safety—would be completely unfettered and
could be undertaken without consultation with
anyone.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I am happy to rely on what the Minister has said
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
75 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
76 to 78 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
