Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Monday 8 November 2004
[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]
Draft Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and Commission for Social Care Inspection) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2004
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and Commission for Social Care Inspection) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2004.
I welcome you to the Chair, Sir John. The order makes changes that are consequential to part 2 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. The Act established the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, known as the Healthcare Commission, and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. On 1 April this year, both organisations began their functions and the former bodies, the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission, were abolished. The Act introduced significant changes that were the subject of much debate, including foundation trusts and the reform of complaints procedures for health care and social services, as well as establishing the two commissions that are the subject of today's order. The order introduces no contentious provisions, but is simply a tidying up exercise that is intended to update legislation by replacing redundant references to the Commission for Health Improvement with references to the Healthcare Commission. It also adds references to the Commission for Social Care Inspection, where appropriate, so that both commissions are on an even footing.
The reason why we are debating the order today is that the 24th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recommended the affirmative procedure for all orders that amend Acts. That is why an order that has no material impact on the way in which services are provided or on the way in which either commission carries out its function is before the Committee today. The order does not therefore give us the scope to re-examine the changes made by the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act or to open up a debate about the future of the commissions. That is not why we are here today. Having set the scene for the debate, it is best therefore if I resume my seat.
Column Number: 4
If members of the Committee have any detailed comments to make, I hope to be able to reply to them later.
4.32 pm
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): The Opposition welcome the order and we have no intention of seeking to divide the Committee. As the Minister said, it puts into place what happened earlier this year with the creation of the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, which take over from the previous bodies. We welcomed, in particular, the establishment of CSCI in April and the way in which it has carried out its functions and duties during the first six months of its existence. As the Committee will be aware, part of its function is to oversee the availability, access, quality, effectiveness and management of care. That applies to not only children and children's homes, but residential homes.
What strengthens the bodies is the attitude that CSCI has adopted since its inception. There was concern in the past that its predecessor was too prescriptive and too reliant on individual assessments and the views of inspectors, which did not give consistency. As a result of the Act and the order, we have now seen a willingness by CSCI to be flexible and to create consistency throughout the country in the work of the inspectors, and to work with those responsible for domiciliary and residential care so that they work as partners rather than with a confrontational attitude of them and us. For that reason, we welcome the fact that the order enshrines in secondary legislation what we agreed in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the passage of the primary legislation.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions to which I am sure there is a straightforward answer, but they are matters that I find perplexing. I should be grateful for his explanation of them. Article 2(1)(f) exempts vehicles owned by CHAI or CSCI, when driven under their respective control, from the requirement under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to be insured or secured against third-party risks. Similarly, sub-paragraph (g) exempts them from paying excise duty and connected provisions under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Are we talking about some legal term and those issues are dealt with elsewhere? Or are those vehicles allowed to be driven uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks? That would be rather surprising and I would find it difficult to believe, but perhaps we will be surprised? I could understand—or accept it more—if they were exempt from road tax, but not from insurance. That would have a knock-on effect—if hon. Members will excuse the rather bad pun—on other drivers if there were an accident. If the Minister catches your eye, Sir John, in the concluding period of this sitting and is able to give us an answer, I should be grateful.
4.36 pm
Sandra Gidley (Romsey) (LD): I intend to be brief, because there is little to say on this matter. I read the order on the train and wondered whether I had missed something, but I do not think that I have.
Column Number: 5
I should like to echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and welcome CSCI and its work. It has done a very good job so far and it has the right approach to engaging people in the sector. I just hope that it has a chance to bed in and to really get going, and that there are no plans to reorganise things yet again.
My questions were raised by hon. Gentleman. My interpretation is that there is an exemption from vehicle excise duty. If we are serious about sustainability, that might provide some sort of perverse incentive to have more vehicles on the roads. I may have misinterpreted that and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the point, because vehicles should be subject to the provision.
Article 2(1)(b) applies in relation to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work that presumably comes out of the work of the CSCI. Will that have any impact on the work that is being done throughout the National Health Service to try to improve innovation and encourage NHS workers, and other workers in the health sector, to apply for patents and receive recognition for what they are doing? Or, is it purely the artistic side where copyright rather than patents apply?
4.38 pm
Dr. Ladyman: First, I agree with the hon. Members for West Chelmsford and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) about the positive way in which CSCI has started its work.
It is true that the National Care Standards Commission had a slightly more draconian and strict attitude to the way it carried out its business. However, we should not be too critical of it, because it had to pull together a wide range of inspection processes and employees from a wide range of organisations, and to try to create a coherent structure out of that.
As that has been done, CSCI can take that work forward. Indeed it is trying to work with a lighter touch and a more co-operative attitude. That is a deliberate policy on the part of the chair and the chief executive. As a result of the success of that, I have felt it possible for us to announce the review of the national minimum standards. We can use both its attempt to get a lighter touch inspection process in place and my desire to see, as much as possible, a reduction in the regulatory burden while leaving in place appropriate protections for individuals who need care services. I agree with both hon. Members on that matter.
I understand that Government vehicles—including those funded by the Government, such as those belonging to primary care trusts and the NHS—are exempt from third-party insurance and vehicle excise duty, presumably because the Government indemnifies anyone who has an accident with, or is driving, a Government vehicle.
Column Number: 6
Mr. Burns: Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that, if one of those vehicles drove into my car through no fault of my own, the Government would reimburse me 100 per cent. for repairs to my vehicle?
Dr. Ladyman: I am sure that exactly the same arrangements and protections are in place for such vehicles as for those insured in the usual way. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were in an accident with a Government vehicle and was not at fault he would be fully reimbursed.
The old Commission for Health Improvement and the old National Care Standards Commission benefited from the exemptions that I have mentioned. Under the statutory instrument, we are giving the new commissions the same exemptions as those enjoyed by their predecessors, and are putting them on the same footing.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman if what I say turns out to be false, but I understand that Government vehicles do not usually have to carry insurance. The new commissions could take out insurance, but they would need to assess whether that was an appropriate and cost-effective way to provide the protection that they need.
Mr. Burns: I am a bit confused; if the Government are to reimburse people for any accident involving a car driven on behalf of, say, CSCI, surely CSCI would never in a month of Sundays consider taking out insurance. It would not be cost-effective. If it took out insurance, it would have to pay for it, but if the Government indemnified those whose vehicles were damaged by Government cars, the Government would pay, and it would not cost CSCI a penny.
Dr. Ladyman: My understanding is that if one of the commission's vehicles were involved in an accident, it would have to pay the bill.
Mr. Burns: Not the Government?
Dr. Ladyman: Well, the commissions are funded by the Government, so it is all taxpayers' money at the end of they day. The commissions will have to make a judgment and take actuaries' advice on whether it is cheaper to have insurance or take advantage of the exemption. However, as I promised, if that information turns out to be inaccurate, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
I can tell the hon. Member for Romsey that article 2(1)(b) does not affect arrangements agreed upon between the copyright owner and the commissions. I hope that that gives her the assurance that she seeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and Commission for Social Care Inspection) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2004.
Committee rose at seventeen minutes to Five o'clock.
Column Number: 7
The following Members attended the Committee:
Butterfill, Sir John (Chairman)
Burns, Mr.
Calton, Mrs.
Cohen, Harry
Dawson, Mr.
Ellman, Mrs.
Foster, Mr. Derek
Gidley, Sandra
Ladyman, Dr.
McKechin, Ann
Ryan, Joan
Ward, Claire
| 
