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by leave, withdrawn.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
7Regulations
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.
| 
