Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has answered the question. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move amendment 80, in
schedule 5, page 63, line 23, leave
out ‘obtain the consent of’ and insert
‘inform’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 81, in
schedule 5, page 63, line 24, leave
out ‘or’ and insert
‘and’.
Mr.
O'Brien: These are probing amendments. Amendment 80
removes the need to obtain consent. Why has the ombudsman not been
given the discretion to decide that himself and what would be the
factors involved in making and denying
consent? Amendment
81 questions why there is an “or” in this schedule. It
seems that if you cannot get something from mum, then you should try
and get it from dad. The views of both parties should be sought and if
they do not agree then they should wait. If there is one thing that my
wife and I made a clear, early decision about when we had children, it
was that we should always back each other, even if we do not agree, so
that the children cannot divide and rule. To a large degree it has
stood us in good stead, so the same principle should apply
here. Mr.
Mike O'Brien: What applies as a parent may
not always apply as a Minister. [Interruption.]
Yes, perhaps it should. It is important that the complainant is asked
for their consent before a joint investigation takes place. There may
be reasons that are not obvious to the ombudsman for the complainant
not wanting the investigation to be joint; there are also
considerations of data protection and human rights. To remove the
requirement for consent would be inconsistent with the joint
investigation provisions recently introduced in legislation covering
the parliamentary and health service commissioners. As we already have
it in one area, why should we change it? We should remember that the
ombudsman is acting for the complainant. In effect, it is the
complainant’s right to ascertain their own wishes.
They should have some control over the process. If the complainant
objects to a joint investigation, it would be illogical to override
that. The right of consent is critical for service users. We are
seeking to make complainants and people affected by complaints feel
more empowered and central to the resolution of these complaints. I
suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take some of that
power away from individuals and give it to the ombudsman, and nor do I.
On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman is able to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful for the Minister’s
answer. They were probing amendments and this has been a useful
exchange. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move amendment 82, in
schedule 5, page 64, line 42, at
end insert ‘and the content of the complaints
it has processed since the last review was made under this
subsection.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 139, in
schedule 5, page 65, line 18, at
end insert— ‘(2A) The Local
Commissioner may, in the Part 3A annual report, assess the costs of the
complaints process borne
by— (a) the taxpayer;
and (b) the provider;
and (c) the service
user.’.
Mr.
O'Brien: The amendment seeks to include in the
ombudsman’s review of its own activities a review of the nature
and content of complaints it has dealt with. Taking oral evidence
during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill last year, Anna
Walker of the Health Commission pointed out the value of the regulator
inspector also having access to complaints data. The amendment would
give the public and policy makers an overview of the complaints being
made, so that similarities can be charted and solutions
explored. Amendment
139 addresses the contents of the ombudsman’s annual report. It
is worth having it on the record that the Government expect,
according to the regulatory impact assessment, each of the 800 to 1,000
complaints a year to cost the taxpayer £1,500, through the
ombudsman, and the provider £800. The RIA elaborates in
paragraph 21
that “there
is a possibility that providers will, depending on the state of the
care market, be able to pass on their additional costs to
commissioners—probably mainly to people funding their own
care.” The
amendment would seek to establish the breakdown of these costs every
year, in part to control rises in fees. I ask if the Minister is happy
that this measure would push up care home fees, which is the fear.
Could the Minister also confirm whether the local government ombudsman
has been voted the additional resources he needs—about
£1.5 million in the Department’s estimate? There was a
real concern during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill that
the Government declined at every point to discuss the extra resource
that the
parliamentary and health service ombudsmen would need to deliver the
legislative requirements. We have since discussed that and found from
information provided by the ombudsmen that that has now been put in
place; that has been
helpful. Mr.
Mike O'Brien: I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on
those points.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I will be happy to receive the letter. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
5 agreed
to. 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No. 88).
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
