§ Dr. MarekI beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after 'authority', insert
'or provided by a health authority for the use by health authority staff for residential or other purposes'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, after 'the', insert 'user.'.
§ Dr. MarekWe are uncertain how clause 1 will be interpreted. At the moment, subsection (1)(b) reads:
premises used by a health authority shall not be regarded as property of or property held on behalf of the Crown.It is not entirely clear whether a nurses' home is property used by a health authority. It is used by health authority staff. I shall not read out the press stories which appeared under headlines such as:Cockroach photographs stun health conference.Unsavoury hospital kitchens bring calls for an end to legal immunity.Disease carrying pests are taking over hospitals, report says.Dirty hospitals to lose immunity.Hospital food poisoning report tells of appalling conditions.According to the British Pest Control Association, the problem has been increasing. The Government have recognised that something must be done and have proposed legislation which will ensure that hospital kitchens and some other places used by health authorities will be subject to food legislation. If food is wheeled along dirty corridors, the food, although not the corridors, will be covered by food legislation. Other buildings owned by the health authority, or perhaps rented by the health authority, will not necessarily be covered by food legislation. It is clear that nurses' homes and places where doctors might live will also be subject to food legislation. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.Amendment No. 3 would alter clause 1 to make it read:
The appropriate authority may by regulations — (a) provide who is to be treated as the user, occupier or owner of any such premises for any of those purposes".I hope that the amendment is helpful. Some premises may be not occupied but owned by an authority or somebody else and used by the authority. That is why we think that the word "user" may help.Nurses' homes are important, and food legislation should undoubtedly apply to them. We are sorry that the Government did not accept that food legislation and health and safety at work legislation should apply to them. Unfortunately, that question has been disposed of previously. It should be absolutely clear that food legislation should apply to such places.
§ Mr. HayhoePerhaps I can help the House by saying that the words in clause 1(1)(b)
premises used by a health authoritycover all the NHS estate and, therefore, include residential premises and premises described by the amendment as:provided by a health authority for the use by health authority staff for residential or other purposes.I am legally advised that the words in the amendment are absolutely covered by those in the Bill.96 Regarding amendment No.3, under the food legislation, which it is proposed should be applied to health authorities—that is what lifting Crown immunity will do —requirements are placed on owners and occupiers of premises, not on users. Therefore, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the user to be designated in any regulations made under clause 1(2)(b).
Those points properly raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) are already covered by the words in the Bill as it stands, so there is no need for the amendments. If they are pressed, I urge the House to reject them.
§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)I am grateful for the Minister's comments, because I was worried on reading the Bill and considering the amendments.
Obviously, I bow to the Minister's superior legal advice. Nevertheless, I am extremely anxious that it must be crystal clear that all premises in the ownership and control of any health authority are covered by these measures. The wording had seemed to be ambiguous and. I am grateful to the Minister for removing that ambiguity. I trust that what he said will apply when it comes to interpretation by the courts.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) to seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Speaker, not simply to accept the Minister's comments, but to say that he will not press amendment No. 3. Although I have great respect for my hon. Friend, I have been worried about that amendment. It seems to give a considerable amount of discretion to the head of the appropriate authority in defining use and user, which was precisely the sort of discretion that the entire measure was designed to remove by ensuring that health and safety regulations apply to premises owned by health authorities.
There is a possibility that a loophole might be created if amendment No. 3 were to be pursued. However, I trust that, in the light of what the Minister said, that will not be the case and we can be absolutely certain that premises owned by a health authority and used for whatever purpose and by whoever, will be covered by the regulations established. We must be clear on that point, and I hope that that will happen. The impression that I have had from what the Minister has said—I shall read his words carefully in Hansard tomorrow — that the clarity is there and we can be certain of it.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI cannot understand why we have had to wait so long for such a clear statement of intent. Over the past month, there have repeatedly been articles in newspapers and trade union journals setting out the great concern among the membership of trade unions. [Interruption.]Does the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) wish to intervene? If he does not, perhaps he will contain his pleasure or wrath.
People have been misled, or the Minister is still being ambiguous. I am sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees. I receive no money from the union. Although I am sponsored, all the money is paid to my constituency party and used for serving the community by funding surgeries and an office to which people come with their problems. I retain neither expenses nor any remuneration.
A few weeks ago, in the journal of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, a headline said:
Minister's pledge on immunity was a sham.97 Is this article correct? I would be grateful for the Minister's attention. I hope that he will listen to what I am saying when I make a statement on behalf of the union. I shall read him an article and ask him whether he has anything to qualify what is said. It says:Hospital buildings look set to stay on the health and safety danger list despite the Government's pledge to lift crown immunity. A new National Health Service Bill which is supposed to put promises into action will have no effect, a COHSE study revealed. The Bill applies only to hospital kitchens and even then, Ministers would be left with full power to decide what parts of the law will apply in future. Worse still, fire prevention laws, the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Housing and Rent Acts will not apply to the NHS. COHSE general secretary David Williams described the Government's promise to act as a sham. It had been forced to make a concession because of trade union and public pressure, especially after the deaths at Stanley Royal Hospital, but was hoping no to drop its commitments. It looks,' he said, as though the Government want to do the minimum work possible. This still leaves hospitals above the law. David Williams said, 'If crown immunity cannot be justified for hospital food preparation, it cannot be justified for health and safety regulations. It makes little sense to remove the threat of food poisoning but leave patients and staff at risk from deadly dangerous substances like asbestos.' He then pledged COHSE would continue its campaign to persuade the Government to lift crown status in its entirety from health authorities.From what the Minister is saying, I understand that we and the union have misunderstood the Government's intention. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) agree with my interpretation of what has been said? I should like the Minister to put the record straight. I shall be referring his comments back to COHSE. I am sure that if the Minister makes it clear and unambiguous, in a way that would be helpful and comprehensible to Health Service workers, the journal would be eager to publish his comments to set the record straight.
§ Mr. Chris SmithThe Minister referred to the entire NHS estate. Does my hon. Friend agree that that means anything owned by a health authority?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThat is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), sounded aghast when he replied to the Minister. The Minister made an important statement tonight, although I am sure that these matters were dealt with at length in Committee, where the Minister must have been pressed at length.
§ Dr. Marekt am slightly perplexed at what the Minister said. The possibilities are enormous. A health authority might hire or rent premises or have a mortgage. Will such premises be part of the NHS estate? I do not have a legal training so I am not sure. If the point must be made there can be no harm in accepting our proposition.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI presume that the Minister was referring to premises for which the NHS has a responsibility in law, whether the property be freehold, on lease or rented. I assume that the provision is all-embracing and an undertaking to Health Service workers and to the House. The Minister, if he is clear in his response to the article, will achieve much.
§ Dr. MarekI do not think that premises for which the NHS or a health authority is responsible are necessarily part of the Health Service estate. I find it difficult to rationalise what the Minister says and what my hon. Friend says.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMy hon. Friend has a subtle understanding of such matters and if anyone in the House 98 were able to differentiate between the various facets of this argument my hon. Friend would be able to do so. I expect a similar subtlety and understanding from the Minister. I am sure that the Minister will wish to confirm that there is a distinction. I thought that he argued that there was no need to distinguish. The matter is all-embracing.
§ Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)If the Bill is passed, it is its provisions that will be the law, not what the Minister says. The Minister spoke with clarity tonight, but his remarks are at variance with the Bill. If the Government think that our suggested words are not appropriate they should attempt to clarify the provision formally, as the Minister did.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe Minister referred to having the best legal advice. I therefore presume that the Minister's statement meets fully every concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The Minister would not have given such a firm commitment at the Dispatch Box without having taken the best legal advice because otherwise he would be ridiculed. The Minister would not want that.
In the best sense of comradeship I ask the Minister, please, to reply to the article and to nail anything that he believes to he inaccurate so that Health Service employees are made fully aware of the Government's intentions.
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)The debate might be regarded, in a sense, as having been a little pedantic. The Minister said that all premises within a health authority's control should be covered by the Bill. There is great—
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.