Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 99:"Page 53, line 9, leave out subsection (6)." The noble Earl said: Though we may be tempted to gloss over what appears to be an uncontroversial part of the Bill, I will flag up some issues raised by Amendment No. 99, on the independence of the appointments commission. The Minister may tell me that powers of direction are a standard feature of any statutory body such as this. If she were to do so, however, I would suggest to her that this is no ordinary statutory body. Its whole raison d’être is that it should perform its functions independently from government and free of any outside interference whatever. One must ask what part there is for a power of direction in the context of such a body. I appreciate that we must have a power of direction in the first instance, in order that the Secretary of State may confer his powers of appointment on the commission; we see this explicitly mentioned in Clause 57. But that is the kick-start to the whole process. We need those initial directions but, after that, the powers of appointment, once devolved, should remain devolved, short of exceptional circumstances arising. If exceptional circumstances arise, then the initial direction could be revoked under Clause 69. Apart from that, however, what sort of ministerial directions are envisaged? I have taken it for granted that the Government’s intention is to create an independent body, by which I mean a body legally empowered to take decisions autonomously and entitled to protest loudly if anyone tries to prevent it doing so. Is that assumption right? I ask this as a genuine question. I recall to the Minister’s mind the remarks attributed to her former colleague Jane Kennedy when, to the regret of many—including me—she stepped down from her ministerial post about three weeks ago. One of the triggers for her departure was a certain NHS appointment in which she detected the not-always-subtle hand of No. 10 Downing Street. She was told by No. 10 that the NHS Appointments Commission was independent, and that she should not interfere. Then, however, she said—I am quoting from the Guardian:"““the penny dropped that only certain political influence gets through””." That episode concerned the current NHS Appointments Commission. The Minister will no doubt tell me that Jane Kennedy’s apprehensions were unfounded. What rules will apply to the new commission, however? Under what level of independence will it operate? If a Minister tries to steer its deliberations in a certain direction, or if a Minister declines to accept an appointment and tells it to go back to the drawing board, how empowered is it to resist such interference? The Bill does not give us much of a clue, and I should be glad to know. I beg to move.