Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill (Hansard, 15 June 1988)

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This short Bill is one of a number of Private Members' Bills brought forward in your Lordships' House and in the other place over the past few years, all seeking to provide access to information and greater openness in public bodies for the general public who are, after all, the consumers of the services provided by such bodies.
It could be said that all of these Bills stem from the Local Authorities Admission of the Press to Meetings Act, a Private Member's Bill which was introduced by Mr. Arthur Henderson in the other place in 1908. Mr. Henderson's Bill was aimed at guarding the rights of members of the public by enabling information to be obtained for them about the actions and policies of their local representatives.
As a result of changes in the law, a number of attempts were made to update this Act. The Local Government Act of 1933 allowed councils to appoint any committees which they chose, and this enabled them to go into a committee of the full council not just to discuss confidential matters, which were allowed under the 1908 Act, but in order to exclude 358 the press from their deliberations when it suited them. This was obviously an undesirable loophole and further attempts were made to update the Act in 1949 and 1950. It was not until 1960 that Parliament agreed to change that law and update the 1908 Act.
The Public Bodies Admission of the Press to Meetings Bill of 1960 (to which reference has been made in previous stages of this Bill) was introduced into the other place as a Private Member's Bill on 5th February 1960. The Bill was moved by a maiden speaker. That is interesting in itself because I do not know of many precedents for a maiden speaker to introduce a Private Member's Bill. The speech lasted for 27 minutes. That is interesting because I doubt whether any maiden speaker would be very popular if he spoke for 27 minutes today. It was definitely controversial, and that must also be unusual and difficult. The Bill was debated for five hours and there were two Divisions at the end before it was given its Second Reading. It went to Committee on 30th March. The main sponsor of the Bill tried to amend it to include the public as well as the press. This point had formed part of the maiden speech. For a number of technical reasons this amendment was resisted. It was debated; the Committee divided; the Ayes were nine and the Noes were nine, and the chairman had to rule on it under the standing orders. The amendment was lost because it did not have a sufficient majority. Therefore the Bill remained as it was, without any right of admission by the public to many statutory bodies.
I do not know what has happened with regard to subsequent Bills but that was my reading of that particular Bill. It went through all of its stages. The maiden speaker who had moved the Bill and steered it through its passage was then a new Member of Parliament for Finchley who went on after that remarkable start to her career to become the Prime Minister. Therefore we are in good company. If the honourable Lady (as she then was) had been able to persuade the Committee to accept her amendment, the form of this Bill might have been exactly the same and this evening's debate might have been unnecessary. I have not had time to research subsequent Bills which may have changed that situation. However, I believe that it would have made a difference if that amendment had been carried.
This Bill seeks to provide: access by the public to meetings of, and to certain documents and information relating to, Community Health Councils and committees of those Councils and for related purposes". In its original form, the Bill was first introduced in the other place in 1987 by Mr. Lewis, who was the Member of Parliament for Worsley and, after successfully completing all its stages there with no opposition and a good deal of government assistance, it fell because of the June election of 1987. It was reintroduced in the other place in April of this year by Mr. Faulds, who is the member for Warley East and, again with further assistance from the Department of the Environment and the DHSS and with no Opposition—in fact, it received a great deal of help and assistance from government Ministers—it once more completed all its stages. It has been welcomed by most of those who are concerned, including CHCs, many of which go most of the way in 359 encouraging public participation any way as a matter of course.
The Bill applies the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government Act 1985 to community health councils. Hence the rather complicated appearance of Clause 1. From experience and from discussions I have had, it is inevitable that any Bill with so many references to other Acts will be complicated and will need expert drafting. I should like to thank all those who have been responsible—the Ministers and staff of departments—for their guidance and assistance with a very difficult task. Bills with these cross-references are not the easiest to draft. Equally, any Bill that has gone through its Committee stages and other stages twice must, by now, be fairly well drafted and that must be a plus.
Community health councils were established in 1974. There are 194 in England and Wales and their job is to keep under review the operation of the health service in their district and to recommend improvements. They are to be consulted by health authorities on hospital closures or any substantial variations in services. They are there to represent consumer interests. Last year their total expenditure amounted to £7.2 million, which is about £37,000 per community health council. In my view, we are well served by those councils.
If this Bill is passed, community health councils will need to provide copies on request of such papers as agendae, minutes and background papers for which a reasonable fee may be charged. They will have to give proper notice of the place and time of meetings. They will have to keep a register of CHC members and committee members. They will have to nominate an officer to fulfil those functions. As I said earlier, many community health councils already perform these functions anyway, but this would extend openness to the affairs of all CHCs. In my view, this Bill will further improve an already good service.

Earl Grey
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill as we have always campaigned for openness in government. I am grateful that this Bill passed through its Committee stage in another place without any difficulties and that the Government have given their approval, although with a degree of hesitancy as they were not planning legislation which is contained in this Bill, as was stated in another place by the Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Currie.
I hope that its passage here will be swift, and that the Bill will receive the support of all sides of the House. As I have said on a previous occasion when we debated the Second Reading of the Health Service Joint Consultation Committees (Access to Information) Bill, any extension of public access must be very good news for all concerned. We hope that the general public are made more aware of their rights and the obligations on the necessary bodies to provide the relevant information and help which is requested.
360 Having said that, we express concern that the Government are not making available any more resources to community health councils to comply with this Bill. Money will be needed to cope with the staffing consequences of the Bill. A typical community health council office has one professional grade member of staff. The community health council office has to be open at all reasonable hours so that the public has access. This one professional member of staff will be expected to attend meetings and evening committee meetings, for which time is due in lieu, and is entitled to annual holidays, not to mention the possibility of illness. When this Bill is implemented, there will obviously be a need for another part-time professional member of staff for which funds will have to be found. Do the Government agree that that is a serious practical problem for which the Bill at present makes no provision but which they should address? Will the noble Earl give an assurance that the Government will closely monitor the situation regarding staffing levels with a view to taking steps to remedy that problem? However, we are very happy to support this Bill.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, this short Bill of three clauses relates to the community health councils. The community health council is the voice of the consumer in the National Health Service. The council is separated from the decision-making body, the district health authority. On the assumption that the separation of functions is correct, each district should have its own health council. It is at this level that one must ensure that the services are interlocking effectively and being delivered effectively. As the Bill enhances public participation in the business of the community health council or possibly removes obstacles to such participation, we on these Benches give it our full support.
My only criticism of the Bill, which has been anticipated to some extent by my noble friend Lord Stallard, relates to its drafting. It is not clear from reading Clause 6, with its six subsections, what it means. It legislates by reference to the provisions of Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972. I understand that the 1972 Act has been amended by the Local Government Act 1985. If I were a community health council secretary who, having read the Bill, reached for the 1972 Act, I could be led to the wrong conclusion because I would not have read the 1972 Act in conjunction with the 1985 Act. I mentioned this to my noble friend Lord Stallard and suggested that it would have been helpful if the provisions of the 1972 Act as amended by the 1985 Act were set out verbatim in the Bill. If I am assured that this is an example of legislation by reference to earlier legislation and that it is in order, may I suggest that the DHSS should issue a circular explaining in clear language the meaning of Clause 1?
As the Bill enhances public participation in the business of the community health council, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stallard for having introduced it and explained its history and meaning to the House.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, this is not a measure that the Government would have initiated, but equally it is not one which we oppose. Community health councils are small bodies, typically with two or three staff. They exist to represent the interest of local people in health service matters and have no executive responsibilities. Access to their meetings is already assured by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. However, because CHCs exist solely to represent the public we see no reason why they should be anything but open with the public. There is no reason for them to conduct their business behind closed doors nor to deny copies of their papers to the small number of people who may be moved to want to see them.
This measure may impose additional administrative burdens on CHCs and their officers, but these will have to be absorbed within their existing resources. It would be wrong to direct resources from patient care to make arrangements for a public demand for greater access to the affairs of CHCs, which I doubt exists. The noble Earl, Lord Grey, brought up that point.
In relation to closure proposals the community health councils have a statutory position on consultation giving significant capacity to make their views known and to ensure that they are considered. It is entirely within their purpose, function and approach to the health service that those councils should deal with the public as openly as possible themselves. Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to conform with the obligations imposed by the Bill.
362 On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the DHSS will issue a circular to CHCs in simple terms setting out what the Bill requires. Under those circumstances, we do not seek to oppose the Bill.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate and for their welcome to the Bill, however guarded. I am also grateful to the Minister who has replied to the questions raised by noble Lords on this side of the House.
As the Minister rightly says, and as I said in my opening remarks, CHCs in the main already comply with the requirements of the Bill and where they do not it will probably be on the access to information, the photocopying of documents, and so on. Provision has been made to make a charge in that respect. It is not expected that there will be a massive demand for information—and discussion on that point took place in Committee in another place. As has been said by the Minister in the other place, the department will keep that aspect under review and monitor the position. The noble Earl this evening said that the Government intend to issue a circular to explain the requirements to CHCs, and we have therefore met most of the possible objections to this very small Bill. I conclude by again commending the Bill to your Lordships.