 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Health and Social Care Bill |
Health and Social Care Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Celia Blacklock,
Committee Clerks
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 22 January 2008(Morning)[Mr. Jim Hood in the Chair]Health and Social Care BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseH&SC 29 General
Optical
Council
10.30
am
Clause 91
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6The
Office of the Health Professions
Adjudicator
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): I beg to move amendment
No. 213, in
schedule 6, page 132, line 4, leave
out ‘If the Secretary of State so
determines’.
No. 214,
in
schedule 6, page 132, line 6, leave
out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
‘OHPA’.
No.
215, in
schedule 6, page 132, line 13, leave
out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
‘OHPA’.
No.
218, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 16, leave
out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
‘OHPA’.
No.
220, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 19, leave
out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert
‘OHPA’.
No.
221, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 23, leave
out ‘such period’ and insert ‘six
months’.
No.
222, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 24, leave
out from ‘relate’ to end of
line.
Mr.
O'Brien:
Welcome to another day of our
deliberations; it continues to be a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I believe that we have copies of the
Official Report of last Tuesday, when we debated the Ways and
Means resolution on the Floor of the House, which relates to this group
of amendments. Those hon. Members who are anxious to see the full
detail of the arguments should apprise themselves of the record, which
will save some time. The amendments seek to secure the operational
independence of the office of the health professions adjudicator. As I
speak, copies of the Official Report are arriving, and I refer
hon. Members to column 796 of the Official Report, 15 January
2008, when we dealt with the Health and Social Care Bill Ways and Means
resolution on the Floor of the
House.
For
the amendments to be complete and effective, the Committee should bear
in mind that an amendment removing the Secretary of State’s
responsibility for setting levels of remuneration and allowances for
the chair and members of the OHPA is also required. With
that
caveat at the outset, amendment No. 213 would give the OHPA, rather than
the Secretary of State, the power to determine whether, how and to what
extent it pays or makes provision for the payment of pensions,
allowances and gratuities to current or former chairs, or members of
the OHPA.
Amendment
No. 215 would allow the OHPA to determine the compensation that it
would need to award. If the Minister were to smile upon the principle
of the amendments—I hope that he has a sunny disposition this
morning—an amendment would be needed to line 8 to give the OHPA
the power to determine when it is right for a person ceasing to hold
office as the chair of the OHPA to receive such compensation.
Amendments Nos. 218 and 220
would remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct the form in
which the OHPA keeps its accounts and prepares its annual accounts. I
note that amendments Nos. 217 and 219 are grouped for debate
immediately after this group. They have a bearing here, and if the
Chairman would like me briefly to mention them now, I will do
so.
No. 217,
in
schedule 6, page 133, line 16, after
‘keep’, insert ‘auditable’.
No. 219, in
schedule 6, page 133, line 20, after
second ‘the’, insert
‘auditable’.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I am grateful. As my points on
amendments Nos. 217 and 219 are brief, I will tack them on to my
comments on the larger group of amendments under discussion. Amendments
Nos. 217 and 219 are consequent to the removal of the Secretary of
State’s power over the form of the accounts—I can see why
they were in a separate group, as their effect might depend on a vote.
I am extraordinarily hopeful that the Minister will smile upon the
amendments and therefore this grouping makes sense. The amendments are
to ensure that the OHPA keeps auditable accounts.
Amendment No.
221 would make the OHPA produce copies of its annual report within six
months of the end of the year. There seems no reason for the period not
to be enshrined here, other than to recognise that if the OHPA were
unable, for good reason, to produce accounts within the specified
period, its remedy would be, first, the force of law, and secondly,
applying to have the publication of accounts postponed, although only
for a short period. I cannot see why it is not appropriate to put a
realistic time on the face of the Bill, as it would rightly reduce the
Secretary of State’s power in the area and provide for clearer
expectations. Amendment No. 222 would remove the power and discretion
of the Secretary of State in the
matter.
The General
Medical Council is currently independent from
Government, and the Government are seeking to remove its adjudication
function. While we have discussed whether that is necessary for any
reason other than public perception, the amendments deal with a
different issue. If the OHPA is to be established, it should be on
similar terms to the GMC in order to give it the confidence of the
profession and the public. As the Bill is drafted, while the OHPA is
independent of Government in, for example, regulating its own
procedure—delineated in
paragraph 11 of schedule 6—and while those appointments which it
does not make itself are overseen by the Privy Council, it should be
noted that in terms of its finances it has a duty to report to the
Secretary of State. The Committee will remember that in her oral
evidence on 8 January 2008, Official Report, column
38, Lady Justice Smith noted that she was “sympathetic”
to the GMC’s point.
This measure
makes even less sense given that the professions, through fees levied
on the GMC and the General Optical Council, will foot the Bill, yet
they will have no power over the operational effectiveness and value
for money delivered by the OHPA. It is unfortunate that other than my
hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, who, I am pleased to say,
were all present, the Minister and the Government Whip, there were no
members of the Committee present for the debate on the Floor of the
House last Tuesday on the Ways and Means resolution that made this levy
possible. I note that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on health, who is
not a member of this Committee, was there. I hope that the Committee
has had a chance to catch up with the proceedings that took place on
that occasion, and I hope that after that debate and these questions
the Minister will reflect that the amendments are both appropriate and
timely. We need to ensure that we underpin independence and put
motivations and incentives in place for the OHPA not only to wish to
take responsibility, but to have the chance to deliver on its
responsibility in running an independent, but appropriate,
organisation.
In addressing
the amendments, I hope that the Minister will make it clear why the
Bill states that this body should report to the Secretary of State, and
I hope that he will also take the chance to explain the revelation made
by the GMC during the oral evidence, that it was only in late November
last year that the OHPA’s lack of independence was suggested by
the Department in negotiations with the
GMC.
Sandra
Gidley (Romsey) (LD): I will be brief in the hope that I
have a voice left at the end of the day.
I understand
the spirit in which amendments Nos. 213 to 215 and 221 to 222 have been
tabled, and concerns have been raised about the independence of the
OHPA from the Secretary of State. I have slightly less sympathy with
amendments Nos. 218 and 220, which deal with the form that the accounts
will be kept in. Presumably, some public money is involved in the
organisation, and it is entirely right for the Government to have some
direction over the clarity with which accounts are presented. I realise
that amendments Nos. 217 and 219 were tabled to ensure the accounts
will be auditable, which was an attempt to achieve clarity in another
way, but it is right that, through the Secretary of State, Parliament
has a chance to scrutinise the matter.
The
Minister of State, Department of Health
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
As the
subject will probably take up much of this morning’s
proceedings, as well as addressing the points raised by the amendments
tabled by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, I want to make a few general
remarks about the independence of the OHPA, which is a theme that runs
though this morning’s clauses, schedules and
amendments.
It is
important that the Committee remembers that the status of such
organisations is not defined by their name or definition, but by the
powers given to them by
Parliament. As a result of the powers that we intend to give the OHPA in
the Bill, it is likely that the OHPA will be defined by the Office for
National Statistics as an executive non-departmental public body, which
is a type of arm’s length body. The GMC’s powers and the
proposed powers for the OHPA are similar in many respects—for
example, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, both bodies have the
power to make rules that are then subject to approval by Privy Council
negative resolution procedure.
What does
that mean in terms of independence? An ENDPB does not have to refer any
of its professional judgments back to the sponsoring Department; it
does not have its professional decisions overturned by the Department
or Ministers; it does not have to explain to the Department why it has
made any professional decision; and it does not have to give the
Department details of its professional decisions. The key aspect of the
independence of the OHPA is its panels and their independence of
judgment. There is total independence in the panels’
professional decisions, and Ministers will have no power to interfere
in any adjudication decision made by them.
As the hon.
Member for Romsey has mentioned, however, the OHPA is a public body
that will be set up with public money. Although it will mostly be
funded by the professionals who use it, it is likely to receive some
ongoing public money, which means that clear lines of accountability to
Ministers and Parliament are important. The Committee and the GMC have
expressed concerns, which were raised in the debate on the Ways and
Means resolution, about having proper controls over the OHPA’s
costs. That is precisely why we expect the OHPA to be an ENDPB, which
is a tried and tested model that will allow the OHPA complete
independence from Government in every aspect of the adjudication
function and the Secretary of State and the Treasury to ensure that the
fees charged are
reasonable.
We
could refer to plenty of models of successfully operating
ENDPBs—for example, the Independent Police Complaints Commission
and the Financial Services Authority. In the area of health, other
examples include Monitor, the Appointments Commission, the Council for
Healthcare Regulatory Excellence and the Healthcare Commission itself.
All those bodies have demonstrated their independence from sponsoring
Departments in decision-making processes.
The Secretary
of State will have the power to make directions in a limited sphere and
only with regard to payments and loans made to the OHPA by the
Secretary of State. Let me state this clearly because it is one of the
assurances that the leaders of the GMC sought: that is the only power
of direction in the Bill that the Secretary of State has with regards
to the OHPA; they will not be given a general power of direction, and
the power to direct in schedule 6 is strictly limited to making
payments and loans to the OHPA. As recently as last week, I had
detailed discussions with the leaders of the GMC, who were reassured by
that. The hon. Member for Eddisbury has referred to Lady Justice
Smith’s support for the expressions of concern about
independence, but I recall that when we asked what alternative Lady
Justice Smith favoured, she did not suggest one, which was also true of
the GMC in its evidence.
10.45
am
On
appointments, GMC lay members are appointed by the Privy Council,
although in practice, that is delegated to the Appointments Commission.
As recommended in our White Paper, “Trust, Assurance and
Safety”, that is being altered, so that all members of the GMC
are appointed by the Privy Council. The Bill provides for the Privy
Council to appoint the chair, the non-executive members and the first
executive members, and it is expected that the Privy Council will make
use of the Appointments Commission for those positions. In that
respect, there will be no difference between the appointment of GMC
members and the OHPA members. I hope that that is the reassurance that
hon. Members are seeking on the independence of the appointments
system.
The
amendments seek to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make
determinations on remuneration and allowances for chairs and members,
pensions and the form of the OHPA’s accounts. For the reasons
that I have just described, it is important that the Secretary of State
has those powers. In the debate on the Ways and Means resolution,
Opposition Members emphasised the importance of proper financial
oversight, and one of the main concerns at the GMC was that the level
of fees would not simply
escalate.
Amendments
Nos. 221 and 222 specify the time scale with which the accounts should
be laid, but we do not think that the independence of the OHPA should
be fettered in that regard. Amendments Nos. 217 and 219 concern
auditability. We recognise that there needs to be proper financial
propriety and accountability, but the accounts of public bodies are
auditable simply by the virtue of their existence. In addition, one of
the mechanisms by which that is guaranteed by the Bill is the role of
the Comptroller and Auditor General in carrying out an audit of the
annual accounts. That means that all the OHPA’s financial
affairs will be subject to audit, and nothing will be exempt from that
requirement. We do not think that the amendment is necessary, so I ask
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw
it.
Mr.
O'Brien:
It is interesting to have the report on the
further discussions that the Minister had with the GMC. I am glad that
he had them, not least in the light of the comments made by Lady
Justice Smith during the oral evidence session. I fully accept his
general statement of principle that the name of a body does not
describe whether it is independent—it is the powers granted to
it, and the accountabilities and authorities that are contained within
its strategic and operational procedures. I also accept that nobody is
arguing for an alternative model and that the issue concerns the
current framework.
Once one
accepts that the OHPA will come into existence and that it will be
carved out of the current GMC, it becomes important as a matter of
principle to decide, having established that model, the expectations of
its true ability to be unfettered. Regardless of how unfettered such a
body might be, if public money is used, there must be accountability,
not least towards moneys, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman addressed
two of the amendments on that basis.
I am
disappointed that the Minister has decided that amendment No. 221,
which would make the OHPA produce copies of its annual accounts within
six months
of the year end, is over-fettering. That seems to be the one area where
one should lay out the expectations on being accountable for public
money and put an expectation of time upon that. In many ways, that
gives the cover for all the rest to be much more independent, because
one would have an approximate time period between the operations and
the accountability by ensuring that accounts were produced and
presented within six months, which is a really tight time frame in
accounting terms.
I am
therefore not persuaded that the Minister has demonstrated that there
is a true prescription for independence from Government. We should not
underestimate how much the GMC has delivered on success. That is a
different approach with the OHPA than has hitherto been the case, and
it has come about not because the GMC was regarded as having failed,
but to retain the best parts of what it has been able to deliver in
this area, including independence from Government. There is an
opportunity to maintain trust with the public and to retain the
confidence of the profession. It is vital that we have that
complementariness in the process. On that basis, I will put the
amendments to the test, including amendments Nos. 217 and 219 if that
is acceptable, by seeking to divide the Committee on amendment No.
213.
The
Chairman:
I have already indicated that it is permissible
to discuss amendments Nos. 217 and 219 with this group of
amendments.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
7
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
This is a
probing amendment, so I shall not trouble the Committee with a
Division. It is useful to note that members of the OHPA can be members
of the civil service pension scheme, which further highlights the
closeness of the OHPA to the Government. I am also concerned that the
Government are voting yet another liability on the civil service
pension scheme. As the Committee will be aware, the Chief Secretary to
the Treasury is still too embarrassed to reveal to the House the
state’s liability for public sector pensions. The estimate is a
year overdue, but actuarial firm Watson Wyatt estimates that the
liability today could be as high as £960 billion. Given the size
of the liability, I am concerned that the Bill puts no limit on the sum
that the Minister for the Civil Service might determine.
As I noted in
the debate on the Ways and Means resolution, the OHPA is effectively a
tax-generating body through the combination of its fee structure and
its dependence on the Government. In it, we see doctors, opticians and
associated professionals funding a Government body directly. Not only
are there no effective checks and balances on how the OHPA spends its
money—the Committee is effectively examining a blank cheque that
the Government are writing but which the professionals will have to
pick up—but what is there to prevent the Minister for the Civil
Service from squeezing extra money out of the OHPA, and consequently
doctors, to pour into the public sector pensions black
hole?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is
custom and practice for executive non-departmental public bodies to be
able to join the civil service pension scheme, which does not mean that
their employees become civil servants. The problem with the amendment
is that it removes the requirement for the OHPA to make payments to the
Minister for the Civil Service, although it would be able to receive
benefits from the civil service pension scheme, which it could join by
virtue of paragraph 15 without being required to make a payment into
it. In our view, the amendment is flawed, and it is perfectly normal
for people who work for ENDPBs to be eligible to join the civil service
pension scheme.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I have said that the amendment is probing, and
the point is on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
‘(c) The
regulatory
bodies.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 224, in schedule 6, page 134,
line 5, after ‘Council’, insert ‘and
health
regulators’.
Mr.
O'Brien:
Amendment No. 223 seeks to include the regulatory
bodies in the list of persons to whom the OHPA must send copies of its
annual accounts. Amendment No. 224 gives the regulatory bodies, in
addition to the Privy Council, the power to direct the OHPA as to
matters dealt with in the report. The amendments do not establish what
we are truly seeking—effective control of the operating costs of
the OHPA by the bodies, and ultimately the professions, which fund it.
It would be wrong of the Committee to propose a cap on OHPA spending,
because it must have the resources to adjudicate fitness-to-practise
cases in a timely and effective manner. Having said that, there need to
be more effective checks and balances to potential profligacy than the
Bill currently provides. As the Committee knows, full GMC registration
on the medical register will rise to £390 a year with effect
from April 2008, having been frozen at £290 per annum since
2002, and GOC registration stands at £169 pounds per annum.
Those costs will presumably go up again given the creation of the OHPA,
because while the adjudication costs should remain substantially the
same, two bodies invariably
cost more than one to run. That is not rocket science, and it would be
helpful for the Minister to indicate by what amount he expects the fees
to
escalate.
During
the oral evidence-taking session, Sir Graeme Catto noted that while, in
his opinion, the GMC did not think that the move to the civil standard
of proof would have, in terms of numbers
“any significant effect at the
serious end of the spectrum...There may be an impact on doctors
whose practice has failed to a lesser
extent”
although,
“any
impact is likely to be small”.
Will the Minister tell the Committee what
sort of increase the Department is expecting in the number of
adjudications, as that obviously plays into any debate on the costs of
the
OHPA?
In
its written evidence, circulated to the Committee yesterday, the GOC
noted
“the provisions of
paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 as to financial accountability. There are
provisions elsewhere in the Bill allowing representations to be made to
OHPA regarding the fees paid to OHPA by the regulators. However, there
is no mechanism for the regulators to take further any concerns they
may have over excessive expenditure (hence higher fees) should those
representations not be met with an adequate response.... We
acknowledge that OHPA must be independent of, and not accountable to,
the regulators. There should, however, be a mechanism to ensure proper
oversight of OHPA’s expenditure that takes into account the
views of the regulators.”
In support of
the amendments, it also
said:
“We
would expect the regulators to be provided with OHPA’s annual
accounts and business plan, and to be invited to provide comments on
those documents to the Secretary of State. We would welcome these
arrangements to be provided for in the Bill. If they are not to be
provided for in the Bill, we would expect to see these in the
regulations to be made under new clause
7(1)”.
Would
the Minister now tell us what the running costs, as a distinct item
from the adjudication costs of the OHPA, will be? Will that come out of
the fees, or from a Government grant? In the debate on the previous
group of amendments, the Minister said that it would be, at least in
part, a publicly funded body. I hope that the amendment and a direct
question will flush out from him precisely what will be the split
between those costs that will be recoverable through fees and those
that will effectively be a subvention on the public purse. I also hope
that there are sustainable expectations that it will remain a public
subvention rather than something that will be clawed back from doctors
themselves over time, notwithstanding that in our view the Government
have not established that the OHPA is effectively a public body rather
than an independent
body.
11
am
What
powers will the profession and the current councils have over value for
money issues with the OHPA? What protection will the profession have
from continual fee hiking? What guarantees are there that the Committee
is not voting for a blank cheque and what increase in adjudications
will the move to the civil standard bring? Some questions about the
Privy Council, to which the Minister alluded in his more general
remarks at the beginning of the previous group of amendments, may be
more appropriate for a stand part debate. Therefore, I move the
amendments on the basis of the arguments just
advanced.
Sandra
Gidley:
I have no problem with amendment No. 223. Given
the arm’s-length, but hopefully in some way joined-up,
relationship between the regulatory bodies and the OHPA, it is
important that the regulatory bodies receive the reports.
I have
slightly more difficulty with amendment No. 224. I agree with the hon.
Gentleman that there needs to be some mechanism to scrutinise spending.
He mentioned the increase in fees of the GMC and I know from my own
profession that provisions in the section 60 order were responsible for
a big fee increase that did not go down well among the profession. I
assume that it is the same with doctors. Having said that, the
mechanism advanced by the hon. Gentleman is rather over-prescriptive
and although he wants greater financial clarity, it seems that the
amendment as drafted provides room for professional games
playing.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It is worth reminding the Committee at this
stage that the genesis of the OHPA was concerns
resulting from the Shipman inquiry about the
independence of the adjudication system from the medical profession.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to be more concerned about independence from
Government. I warn him that in pushing the amendments—I will
come back to this in a moment—he is taking us back into a sphere
where the organisation would not be as independent from the profession
as I am sure he would want it to be.
On amendment
No. 223, which is about sending a copy of the report to the relevant
regulatory bodies, clause 100 already requires the OHPA to make public
information relating to it and the exercise of its functions. It is
anticipated that, in line with best practice, the publication of its
annual reports will be carried out in that manner. We do not think that
requiring it additionally to send its reports to the regulatory bodies
is
necessary.
Amendment
No. 224 seeks to confer the power to direct the content of the OHPA
annual report on to the regulatory bodies. We do not think that it
would be appropriate for the regulatory bodies to direct the OHPA,
which we are setting up to be independent. It is important that the
OHPA’s decisions are seen to be made in an independent manner.
The whole point is to set up a body that is independent from the
regulatory bodies and therefore from the professions. Even if that
problem could be overcome, we do not think that it would be appropriate
for the regulators that use the services to say what information the
OHPA should provide in its annual report. Although the regulators may
use the OHPA services, it should not be accountable to them for how it
discharges its adjudication functions per se. That is dealt with
through the power of appeal to the High Court that the regulators have
if they are concerned that the OHPA is making decisions that are too
lenient. On those counts I hope that the hon. Gentleman is
reassured.
On
fees, which we discussed at rather more length than most of us were
expecting during the debate on the ways and means resolution, I
indicated that the estimated current cost of the General Medical
Council’s adjudication is around £11.5 million a year.
That would be apportioned between the regulatory bodies using the
OHPA’s services. However, I went on to add that the GMC is
currently engaging a firm of financial advisers, which is undertaking
an independent assessment of the costs, and it expects that report to
be available by the end of January. We
shall look at that very carefully. As I also made clear in the ways and
means debate—and this was one of the GMC’s
concerns—the Government have said that we will meet the set-up
and transitional funding costs of establishing the new organisation. We
will also help out where High Court referrals could create a potential
burden, such as when the appeals courts overturn a decision. We do not
think that it would then be fair to expect those costs to be met by the
GMC, the equivalent organisation or their members.
If there is a
sudden increase in costs—one could imagine a Shipman or
equivalent type of inquiry—there is a power in the Bill for the
level of fees to be varied throughout the year, for them to be reviewed
and for the regulatory bodies to appeal against decisions. The fee
setting will also be subject to full consultation when the regulations
are
discussed.
Mr.
O'Brien:
The Minister said that the report is due by the
end of the month, and I hope that it will be available to members of
the Committee, as much as anybody else, by the time we get to Report.
That might be quite instructive. I think that I have made the points
that are important to highlight, so on that basis, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘Seal
and evidence
The application
of the seal of the OHPA must be authenticated by the
signature—
(a) of any member of the
OHPA, or
(b) of any other
person who has been authorised by the OHPA (whether generally or
specifically) for that
purpose.
A
document—
(a) purporting to be duly
executed under the seal of the OHPA,
or
(b) purporting to be signed
on behalf of the
OHPA,
is to be
received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, taken to be so
executed or
signed.’.
Archaic
as it may seem, the amendment allows the OHPA to have an official
seal.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I am a bit surprised to see this amendment
now. Perhaps it was an oversight. I do not want to embarrass anybody by
saying that they need to own up to that, but there have been a
tremendous number of changes to the use of seals in terms of both
public and private limited companies. I dare say that, for an
organisation such as this, this may be more symbolic than necessarily
being available in order to bind the body. If there is something much
more legally significant than appears in this simple amendment, I hope
that the Minister will make us aware of
it.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Question
proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to
the
Bill.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I promised a short debate on the schedule,
Mr. Hood, and I would not want to disappoint you. The Privy
Council has various powers
under schedule 6, notably the appointment of the chair, non-executive
members, the first executive members, removal of members and
regulations concerning those responsibilities. While the explanatory
notes state, in relation to the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence,
that:
“The
Privy Council and the Secretary of State may, if they wish, delegate
the selection process to the Appointments
Commission”,
they make no
mention of either the Appointments Commission, or the
commissioners’ code of practice in relation to OHPA
appointments. Does the Minister agree that the councils should have a
right of recommendation to the Privy Council for executive and
non-executive members, rather than the power of recommendation lying
solely with the Department? Can he also clarify the actual process that
the use of “Privy Council” signifies in schedule 6? That
would be a helpful clarification before we decide whether the schedule
should stand part.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
In response to the last question, the reason for
that system is that it most closely replicates the existing system of
appointments to the GMC. The OHPA will be the UK-wide body, hence we
have the Privy Council route; the Privy Council covers the whole of the
UK. The professions, including the GMC, were concerned that that should
be the case. As I said earlier, we have included provisions in schedule
10 that allow the Privy Council to delegate its powers of appointment
regarding the board members, through directions. We have done that
following discussions with the Privy Council and I would fully
anticipate that that would be the case.
Question put and agreed
to.
Schedule
6, as amended, agreed
to.
Clause
92 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 23 January 2008 |