My Lords, I also speak with sympathy for the position that the noble Earl, Lord Howe is advocating. I was chief executive of the NHS when Monitor was created and therefore I have some background in it. There are two points to make. First, there are times when it would be sensible to deauthorise a foundation trust, and that is when the problem is not resident within the trust but within the wider local health economy. That may be solved by sorting out issues on a slightly wider scale than only within the individual organisation.
I agree with the point about the separation of government and DH from Monitor. The point of Monitor was that it would be independent, objective and ultimately accountable to Parliament. However, this amendment seems to suggest that when government, for whatever reason, decides that it wants Monitor to answer to it, it is expected to do so on a fortnightly basis. That seems a very short period of time and takes away the basic point. We wanted to see these sorts of decisions taken in an objective fashion and as far away as possible from any political considerations. It is on that basis that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl’s position.
Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Crisp
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
714 c596 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:46:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593488
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593488
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_593488