§ 30 Page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33.
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ 31 Because it is desirable that there should be a time limit for the Board's report on private diagnostic out-patient facilities.
§ 1.30 p.m.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 31. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 31.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, we believe it may be that the Board may take a very long time over its affairs and I refer to Clause 4(2)(a) which tells us that the Board:
… shall submit its first proposals under this section within the initial period or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow …This Amendment refers to the latter part of the clause—to subsection (6)—and is contingent on the subsection which I have read out. I referred to this at a much earlier stage of our debate when we were considering what the Board were going to do.We on this side of the House believed that at the very first meeting the chairman would want to seek the advice of his colleagues on the Board to make a different time-scale for the programme. We believe that what shall take place within the first 12 months should be subject to 1706 considerable review. The phasing out of equipment mentioned in the Amendment which another place has rejected refers to just this. It refers to a situation which the Board may find it much better to organise in a different fashion. The Government want to pre-empt that. They want to ensure that a rigid time-scale is adhered to. It may be totally inconvenient for many people but, for political reasons, they believe that the time-scale should be stuck to. Neither I nor my noble friends consider it in the best interests of the Health Service as a whole that it anyone other than the chairman of a Board shall decide; but here is a set of pre-empting arrangements under Clause 4 which will make the life of the Board quite unnecessarily difficult.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I would suggest to the noble Lord that not having a time limit could create not only the very thing he said might happen in respect of the Board only but could lead to a great deal of chaos and confusion. The noble Lord knows as well as anybody how desirable it is in most things to have a time limit if you want to get something done. It is very desirable in matters like this in which there are going to be some fundamental changes—and I accept that they are fundamental changes—that this kind of situation should not go on indefinitely.
I would remind noble Lords that in the Standing Committee there was a great doubt in our minds whether, when it came to looking at private out-patient facilities, the Board had set a sufficiently fastpace for phasing out. The Bill at Second Reading included provision for an early report from the Board on phasing out consulting room suites—that is Clause 4(5)—a report within the initial period—which, as the Bill left the Commons, was six months. There was nothing so definite relating to other out patient facilities, but we wanted to ensure that after a reasonable (but not too long) interval a report would be prepared by the Board on other outpatient facilities. That was provided for in an Amendment which the Government moved on Report as your Lardships will remember.
The Government have considered what was said in another place on the matter of a time-tabling report but are satisfied 1707 that they were justified in putting this provision (which noble Lords opposite wanted to remove) into the Bill. I end where I began that in matters of this kind if something is to be achieved a time limit must be set otherwise one is facing a good deal of chaos and confusion in letting things go on and on without a decision being made.
§ Lord PLATTMy Lords, to bring a lighter element into the debate, you will remember the story of Samuel Johnson listening to some music not too well performed by the daughter of a lady he knew. She said, "You must realise, Doctor, that this is very difficult". He said, "Difficult? Madam, would that it had been impossible!" As a note of satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I may say that I think this will make the Board's work almost impossible and that will be greatly to the advantage of the Health Service.