Health Bill [Lords]


[back to previous text]

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If the Minister is asking me to remove the mote from my eye, I hope that he will remove the three oak facsimile beams from his own eye. I dare say he knows precisely where that comment comes from—it is from the great big book.
I listened with care to what the Minister said, which was an interesting exposition of what I wanted to establish, which was the nature and quality of the pledge that lies behind the measure. Although it is important to recognise that, to a degree, we need to be conscious that, whatever we do and however much we may wish to remove so much of the discussion about the NHS from the political fray, as the hon. Member for Romsey said, there is of course the reality of electoral time scales, over which most of us have very little control. I simply wanted to establish the quality of the pledge that is in place, to ensure that the measure is outward-facing rather than self-serving, either within Government or within the Department, and to ensure that there is a degree of accountability that would refract back on to the people who sent us here.
Sandra Gidley: I would have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s arguments if an election was a year hence and an amendment was tabled to bring a report after a year, which is not an unreasonable length of time to have an early review. However, I am sure that he must accept that a period of two months—I had not realised that it was quite so short a time—is unhelpful and would provide little meaningful information.
Mr. O'Brien: The point that I was about to conclude on is this. Having had this discussion, it is clear that there are some grave difficulties about the timetable, simply because we are bumping up against the final moment at which the Prime Minister has to make up his mind about when he is prepared to call upon the country to endorse his position or not endorse it. It strikes me that it would be inappropriate to press the matter to a Division, because I think that it has been a useful discussion, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Regulations under section 3 or 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I do not intend to revisit any of the issues that we have discussed. However, it would be helpful to place on record my concern that the Bill, and in particular the drafting that we have looked at in relation to the constitution, do not give fair weight to an important issue—one to which I certainly give weight and, judging from the Minister’s earlier response, one to which he also intended to give weight. We must show that we genuinely value social care as much as we do health care. Because we are dealing with NHS services in NHS provision and therefore with an NHS constitution, there is a real danger, simply by referring to the document, of making a social care a second order area. It is difficult to attach an equivalent importance to social care in the absence of a social care constitution.
I recognise that we are all governed by the very high expectations that the Government have encouraged us to have of the Green Paper, whose publication is imminent. That said, however, we need to recognise that social care is likely to be regarded as an untouched and slightly under-discussed subject; it may even be the Cinderella of the two aspects of care, even though it is so important to so many people. Although primary care deals with 95 per cent. of people who access health care, in the end social care tends to affect all of us, in one way or another, during the course of our lifetime. It is vital that we place on record—the point is best made in a stand part debate—that we want the social care aspects of the Bill to stand on equal terms with health care. Although it is difficult to see how that could be incorporated on the same footing, through our discussion of the Bill and this stand part debate, we can at least make sure that our intention is on the record. I shall be interested to see whether other members of the Committee feel equally strongly about that.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We certainly regard social care as enormously important and on a par with health care. For much of the time, the two are inextricably linked. We take the view that that needs to be an important focus of Government policy, which is why we have been preparing the social care Green Paper. Given the importance of the issue, we will be publishing that shortly to ensure that we have a full and appropriate national debate.
As far as the issue of an NHS constitution is concerned, we do not propose to have a social care constitution because we do not have a national social care service; we have a national health service, and that requires a constitution. However, that should in no way diminish the key importance that social care should, and does, have to the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mary Creagh.)
6.46 pm
Adjourned till Thursday 18 June at half-past Nine o’clock.
 
Previous Contents
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 18 June 2009