Perhaps I could try to answer my noble friend. There are two reasons why this is important. First, there is a real risk that the mandate will become so large and extensive to cover the Secretary of State—who wishes to transfer responsibility to the national Commissioning Board—that we will end up with a real fudge about who is actually responsible. Secondly, there are circumstances. Until last week, I do not think that many people knew that once a trust had allowed its waiting times to go beyond 18 weeks, there was a problem with some of them taking their eye off the ball. If a patient missed the target, often he might have to wait for weeks. It is quite possible that even if the mandate is as extensive as I suggest it might be, there will be circumstances in which the Secretary of State may need to intervene. It is not the case of having time to rewrite or edit the mandate, or look at the standing rules. The Secretary of State may need to intervene on the day that an issue arises. All that I want to do—and I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Marks, also wants this—is to make sure that the Secretary of State is able to intervene in circumstances that we cannot necessarily anticipate but, knowing the health service, we suspect will arise from time to time.
Health and Social Care Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 30 November 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c276-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:24:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_791609
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_791609
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_791609