Health Bill [HL]

I am, as ever, somewhat confused and find it difficult to understand why a Labour Government have trouble on occasions in using the words ““trade unions”” in legislation. A number of pieces of legislation have gone through Parliament in recent years which refer to ““staff””, but we are never absolutely specific. I am not saying that we should identify any particular trade union, but we should be a little more adventurous in the language we use. There is a generic heading, ““staff””, in Clause 3(5)(b), whereas in Clause 2(2), paragraphs (a) to (g), there are listed, "““Strategic Health Authorities … Primary Care Trusts … National Health Service trusts … Special Health Authorities … NHS foundation trusts … the Independent Regulator … the Care Quality Commission””." Those are specific areas of managerial operation and administration, but trade unions are not included. My Amendment 18 would include in this process of consultation trade unions and professional organisations representing staff. I propose the amendment following my usual discussions on this Bill and similar Bills with UNISON, a trade union with which I have quite a lot of contact but no pecuniary or financial relationship whatever. I should make that absolutely clear. UNISON, which was formed from three trade unions, NALGO, NUPE and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, will be in the front line in implementing many areas of this legislation. I should have thought that Ministers would have had immediately in mind the need to consult trade unions, particularly in this area of the Bill which deals with the review of the constitution. UNISON supports the introduction of the constitution and believes that it will help enshrine and protect the NHS’s vital core principles and responsibilities. The union welcomes measures in the Bill that ensure that every organisation and staff member working within or on behalf of the NHS will have to adhere to the constitution and its accompanying handbook. Ideally, UNISON would want implementation of the constitution to be covered in the contractual relationships that the private sector has with the National Health Service. It is vital, in the union’s view, that the Bill covers all models of provision. It emphasises that a two-tier adherence to the NHS Constitution and handbook must not be possible, now or in the future in particular. The union agrees that the constitution must remain a relevant document but that it is right that the main reviews take place only once every 10 years. It believes that this will help to focus the constitution on long-term priorities and ensure that it remains above shorter term political debates. The union welcomes the specific naming of staff as a statutory consultee for any changes. However, it would like assurances that employee representative organisations, such as itself and including trade unions, will be specifically consulted as part of any review process. The union believes that revisions to the handbook should focus only on the technical detail necessary to make sure that the rights outlined in the constitution reflect the most recent legislative terminology and organisational forms and not other matters. The more aspirational pledges within the constitution should be revisited only in the 10-year review envisaged for the actual constitution. While not wanting to make the handbook review process too cumbersome, it would like assurances that key stakeholders, including staff and patients—I do not like the word ““stakeholders”” but I am using it today—are involved with proposed revisions to the NHS handbook if they go any further than technical amendments. On Second Reading, my noble friend gave some assurances that such organisations would be consulted with. However, the union would be keen to see these assurances in the Bill. They should be, and we should not duck what I believe is a Labour Government responsibility.