| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Andrews: First, I shall deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I wish I could accept them, but if I explain why not I am sure that he will agree with me.
Amendment No. 40 would write into primary legislation a requirement to advertise publicly the post of chairman. We are already committed to following the guidelines issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. There is already such a requirement, so I am sure that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would both write into the primary legislation a requirement for "independent checks" on the "political impartiality" of the chair and non-executives. Our problem with that is that it goes further than the current position, which concerns political activity. We have taken advice from the OCPA about the matter and it shares our concerns. If we go down that road we will be looking at the voting preferences of applicants, and the concepts of politically impartiality are very sensitive. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we do not want people who lack views, but we need people who are there because they merit the appointment.
The current position is that OCPA guidelines require that applicants for public appointment should answer a standard question about political activity, which has been designed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments after consultation. That question would concern whether people have canvassed, stood for office, donated funds and so on. The information is not considered by appointment panels but is used for monitoring purposes.
We have some interesting statistics. For example, in 2002–03, 18.6 per cent of those taking up public appointments declared that they had undertaken political activities. So we are on our way to a true understanding of the extent of that.
As to the noble Lord's comments about the comparison between the corporate sector and the public sector, I would point out that the creation of the NHS Appointments Commission was set up to resolve the kind of problems that he identified. To some extent it has done so and we are looking at having fewer people now who are politically active than there were in 1999–2000. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord because there is some interesting background on the matter.
As to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am sorry, but he will also have heard this before. They are not necessary, because under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 the Secretary of State already has the power to delegate appointment functions to a special health authority. In
practice the NHS Appointments Commission is that body. We expect to delegate NHS appointment functions.The noble Earl drew attention to the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has a power to delegate its appointment functions under the Bill—and it is for the Assembly to decide whether to make use of that power—but the Bill does not give the other devolved administrations the power to delegate their appointment functions. Both we and they are content with that. The guidance published by the Commissioner for Public Appointments will apply to all non-executive appointments to the HPA boards, whoever makes them. I hope that that will partly satisfy the noble Earl.
Government Amendment No. 44 would enable regulations made by the Secretary of State on the conditions to be satisfied before a person is appointed as a non-executive member to apply to the chairman also. The chairman is referred to expressly in Clause 8(1)(3) and Clause 10(1), but in paragraph (a) reference to the chairman was inadvertently omitted. We are putting that right. The best of men can forget sometimes.
I shall now respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the point raised about the strategic plan. I understand the intention behind the amendment. I wish to clear up two points. First, it is important to make the distinction between information about the strategy and information in general that is available. The amendment would ensure that information about the agency's future plans and past activities is put into the public domain. However, perhaps the amendment confuses the two types of information and is not the best way of ensuring that information is put into the public domain—it links the publication of information about the future to the publication of information about the past. The end of the financial year, when one produces an annual report, is perhaps not the best point in the year at which to set out future plans.
My second point relates to the strategy. The amendment implies that a strategic plan should be produced each year, and can be seen as a contradiction in terms. Obviously, there is a strong case for producing strategies less frequently, making them more strategic.
Thirdly, writing into the legislation precisely what the agency should include in its annual report could be seen as a sort of micro-management, which possibly we should try to avoid. But I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay, that we expect the agency to publish information about future plans as a matter of good practice. I have been deeply impressed by the extent to which the HPA already puts information into the public domain, both in writing and on the web; there has been extreme openness. For example, it published its first five-year plan last August, and it operates a very powerful code of openness. The board meetings are open and the papers
that it considers are placed in the public domain. I am very confident that those who want to find out what the HPA is doing will have access and opportunities to do so, and not just to comment on strategic plans. We have every expectation that the agency that is to be established will carry on that very good tradition.
Lord Fowler: I am very disappointed that the Minister has not accepted all of what I said. However, from what she said, I felt that we were on the same side in principle. My concern is that we should have people of independent judgment, which was, I think, very much the Minister's concern also. She offered to write to me on what she described as the interesting background to all of this. I accept that offer with alacrity; it will enable me to bring back a better-drafted amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 44:
- Page 8, line 35, after "appointed" insert "as chairman or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
- Page 11, line 34, leave out "it" and insert "the Department"
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 58 and 59. The amendments are designed to correct what I perceive to be ambiguities in the wording. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: I understand that the amendments are intended to improve the drafting of the Bill. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that there is no real risk of confusion arising, and that we should retain the current style of the Bill.
Earl Howe: I am truly astonished by that. We may have to discuss the matter outside the Committee, because it seems that there is a fundamental point that the agency could exploit to its advantage, if it chose to do so. I shall not detain the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 52:
- Page 12, line 20, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland asked for the amendment, which will require it to lay a copy of the agency's annual accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General before
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 55:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfer of Property and Staff, etc.]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 63:
"( ) The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland must lay a copy of the accounts and of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report before the Northern Ireland Assembly."
Page 12, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "and the Auditor General for Scotland may each"
Page 12, line 30, after "Wales" insert "and the Auditor General for Scotland"
Page 12, line 31, leave out "he" and insert "each"
Page 14, line 24, leave out "XI" and insert "XII"
Page 14, line 28, at end insert "or Order"
Page 16, line 38, at end insert—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page