I will briefly specify three linked reasons, good and bad, why we support the Government's programme motion. We oppose the Opposition's amendment to the motion because it would simply lead to unnecessary delay. The Government have identified through the listening exercise, perhaps belatedly, the controversial, difficult and unworkable aspects of the legislation and want to change them. In deference to the people they have consulted, they want to change those aspects promptly and subject them to proper scrutiny, not only in Committee, but in an evidence session that we will also have.
Surprisingly, many areas of the Bill are relatively uncontentious and ought not to detain the House a great deal longer, such as the aspects relating to social work, the health and care professions or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Those areas are relatively uncontentious and need not be massively reconsidered. In addition, there is the summer recess, as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, which means that after the Committee has concluded its considerations there will be ample time for him and anyone in the NHS, including all the consultees, to make adequate representations. The Bill will then go to the Lords and return for our further consideration.
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
John Pugh
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
530 c207 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:46:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_751057
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_751057
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_751057