National Health Service

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Turnberg not only for securing this debate but for his long-term contribution to health debates and the development of health policy in your Lordships’ House. Like him and many noble Lords speaking today, I am greatly committed to the NHS. In fact, I owe my life to it. No price can ever be put on that, and no acknowledgment is enough.

Many statistics will be traded here today but I am not going to engage in that. I shall focus on the wording of the debate so far as future demands are concerned and offer my thoughts on what the NHS needs in order to be the institution we know, love and admire into the next century.

In my view, there are two essentials. First, to have a viable health service you have to have a social care service which works. We are all familiar with the reasons why the post-war settlement set up different systems of care: men died at 66—one year after retirement—and women at 68 or 69, so you did not need much social care in those days. Now, with our ageing population, the contrast between a health service free at the point of use and a social care system which is means-tested and publicly funded only for those with heavy needs results in a lottery, so the type of ailment you have will determine the financial support you get to cope with its effects. There is no equity. Moreover, efficiency is hampered by a lack of integration in organisation as health and social care are separately commissioned. Look at the 3,000 hospital beds today occupied by people fit to leave but stuck there because funding or assessment has not been resolved. The economic cost of this is huge but to it must be added the cost of the human misery caused by this situation.

We simply must move to a single, ring-fenced budget for health and social care which is commissioned in one place and within which entitlements are understood. We hear constantly that health and social care are becoming better integrated. In the 18 years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have lost track of the number of times I have heard that assurance from Ministers on all sides of the political divide, but progress is piecemeal at best. We have to hope that somewhere, sometime and soon we will have a Government with enough vision and courage to disregard the five-year focus of any Government and propose a proper reassessment of the post-war settlement to reflect the current and future needs of our ageing nation. It can be done with vision and commitment, as my noble friend has shown us in Salford.

The second thing the health service needs—here I echo the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—is to focus not so much on curing illnesses but on the prevention of illnesses. Statistics are legion about the illnesses which are debilitating to the individual and expensive to the NHS, and the obvious way of tackling them is to prevent them arising in the first place—for instance, diabetes, so associated with obesity; strokes, so associated with high blood pressure; and lung diseases, so associated with smoking and lack of exercise. Yet time and again we hear that nowadays prevention programmes run statutorily or by the voluntary sector are being cut because they are long-term investments and may not pay off, so to speak, for as much as 10 or even 20 years, so they make easy targets. Does the Minister agree that this is short-sighted? We are at a point where only far-sighted, perhaps controversial, but courageous actions will preserve for the long term our much-loved and much-admired NHS.

Four Seasons Group

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I could not see where the question was coming from. I am not fully briefed on the financial instrument that my noble friend—I am sorry; the noble Baroness—referred to. I will have to research it and get back to her.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Four Seasons, which is the subject of the Question from my noble friend on the Front Bench, is only one of the groups facing financial crisis? It is estimated that by 2020 there will be a funding gap of £3 billion for the residential care sector, and 15 social care groups warned the Chancellor of this before the Autumn Statement. Have the Government any long-term plan for funding and improving social care or are they committed to short-term solutions and to saying that it is a matter just for local authorities?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, clearly, it is a matter principally for local authorities. However, the Government are making available in the spending review another £1.5 billion for the better care fund and allowing local authorities to raise a special precept of 2%. The oversight provisions of the CQC cover 45 providers, which cover some 20% of the market. It is intended that that will give early warning to local authorities of any likely collapse.

Residential Care: Cost Cap

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to debate this important issue and congratulate her on her timing, in a week when so many relevant reports are being published.

Your Lordships will know that it has become axiomatic to say that social care is in crisis. The situation faced by care homes is an integral part of that, but I must first acknowledge the improvements in the care provided in care homes since I was first involved in this issue more than 40 years ago. We have moved a million miles away from the old pattern of local authorities providing a very low level of care, to a mixed economy of mostly private and voluntary care home owners commissioned to provide care by local authorities. Our standards are now higher. Single rooms with en-suites were unheard of in the 1980s. Now they are of a standard to which everyone aspires, although sadly, financial pressure is now leading to concerns about the quality of the care.

While we must acknowledge improvements, we cannot turn away from the problems faced by the care home sector. It is proving more and more unstable as cuts to local authority budgets bite and financial pressures lead to concerns about the quality of care and the amount of care available in the future. The delayed implementation of Part 2 of the Care Act, the new means-test levels and the increased pressure on local authorities to arrange care at the request of self-funders all contribute to the crisis. I, like other noble Lords, would like to know what has happened to the saving the Government accrued by not implementing the care cap. I am sure the Minister will tell us that. It was to be hoped that following the Autumn Statement, we might have been more optimistic but there is widespread agreement among care home providers and others that the Chancellor missed an opportunity. Indeed, it has been called another setback for social care. Of course, the major review announced by the Chancellor into integrating health and social care by 2020 is welcome, although I would be more hopeful of this if it were not the umpteenth time I have heard such a pledge over my lifetime. Indeed, in the 18 years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I do not think there has been a year when we have not had a debate—sometimes I have been sandwiched between the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Warner, as I am today—in which better integration of health and social care was called for and promised. We are still waiting.

Councils, as we have heard, will be able to raise council tax by up to 2% to fund adult care, but not every council will be able to levy this much as their cost bases are so different and it will not be uniform across the country in any case. If every council raised it by the full 2%, this would only raise about £800 million—a fraction of the shortfall of £2.9 billion. And we still have a major problem with the relative clout of health and social care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has reminded us. We tend to focus on hospitals and healthcare, while social care in any form is seen as a poor relation. It is news if hospitals are under pressure, much less so if local authorities are, and even less if care homes are. I, too, want the crisis in social care and the care home sector to be given as many column inches as the floods have been given this past week.

Undoubtedly, care homes will begin to close when the national living wage is introduced in April. No one disputes that this is the right thing to do but we have to recognise the strain it will put on care homes, especially the small operators. One group of providers estimates that it will cost £10 million to put their 14,000 employees on the national living wage. Care homes which provide for self-funders will no doubt put their fees up to accommodate this, but those who depend on state-funded residents have already suffered a real-terms cut of 5% in fees over the past five years. Even if councils do manage to raise more via council tax and raise fees accordingly, I fear that many homes will shut.

Nor should we confine our concerns to the private home care sector. Thousands of people in residential care are provided for through the voluntary sector, and these homes are often preferred by residents for the understanding they bring to particular conditions or particular ethnic groups. Many voluntary organisations have in fact been subsidising the care home sector for years. Financial pressures are now catching up with these organisations too as their fundraising becomes more difficult and local authority support is being withdrawn. Naturally, this will be of great concern to family carers. For many, care homes are a last resort, contemplated only when the carer is absolutely at the end of his or her tether, often after years and years of coping alone or with minimal support. I remind your Lordships that the latest assessment of what carers save the nation is £132 billion a year—the cost of another complete health service.

Sometimes, having a care home available in the background or to provide respite care, if only for a weekend or the odd week once a year, enables the carer to continue. Therefore, carers’ needs must be factored in when we contemplate the future of the care home sector. Even when the cared-for person is eventually admitted to the care home, the family carer often visits every day and spends many hours seeing to the needs of their loved one, becoming part of the care team.

Good care that meets the needs of the person being looked after can improve a carer’s ability to cope for longer periods. If care is poor, it can have a huge and damaging effect on carers as well as residents—not only directly on the amount of care they have to provide themselves, but on their emotional and physical health and their finances. If residential care becomes a less viable option in certain areas, the consequences are stark for families as well as for those in need of care.

We have concentrated today on the problems faced by the care home sector. Many will be solved by more money but we really need—as so many of us have been saying for so many years—a five-year plan for social care as far reaching as the one for the NHS: a fully integrated service with budgets and services that are not differentiated. That would be possible if the will was there but, sadly, there is no sign of this so far. I am sorry to sound cynical. I hope the Minister can convince me otherwise.

Social Care and Support: Funding

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. I do not recognise the size of the cut to which she alluded. The figures that I have seen indicate that in cash terms it has been broadly neutral over the last four years, representing a real-terms cut of probably more like 10%. However, I think we are cavilling over numbers here because I agree with her broader comments about the state of the social care sector. We have, indeed, noted the savings gained from the delay in implementing the Dilnot proposals, which have been brought to the attention of the Treasury.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, while I recognise the Minister’s concern about the spending review, does he accept that the lack of proper provision of social care has a very profound effect on the rest of the economy? I offer as evidence a family carer to whom I spoke last week. She is a single mother. She looks after her mother, who has Alzheimer’s, and a son with severe learning difficulties. She has been doing so for many years. She has been receiving two afternoons a week of respite care for the son and gets one day of daycare for the mother. This rather minimal provision has just about enabled her to cope. Both those services have now been withdrawn. I fear that she will have a breakdown because she is so distressed and under pressure. If she does, all three of those people will be a charge on the state. Will the Minister explain how that makes any kind of economic sense?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

There is no doubt that what the noble Baroness says is true: the impact on other parts of the economy will be significant. It is also true that the impact on the healthcare system of reduced resources in social care will have an effect, which is why we are developing the better care fund and why we believe that more of the health and social care budgets should be pooled and used as one. Again, that is an integral part of the Five Year Forward View. At the risk of being boring, I am afraid that I will repeat myself: we will have to wait until the end of November before we know what the financial settlement is.

Social Care

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The position on the savings from deferring the introduction of the Dilnot proposals is that they are being taken into account under the spending round and I cannot comment further today.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that data from the Health & Social Care Information Centre show that without doubt the social care system is not just under pressure, as he has said, but at breaking point? The figures also show that family carers are under increasing pressure and receiving far less support and back-up. In fact, their quality of life and satisfaction with social services have dropped hugely in the past two years and now only 39% of them say that they have as much social contact as they want and need. Does the Minister agree that support for family carers is an absolute priority and must be maintained since they are, after all, the main providers of social care?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness says that the care system is at breaking point. The CQC’s report out today says that it is “fragile”. I think it is very variable. Some care providers are finding life extremely difficult but it is highly variable; it depends very much on the mix of clients that care providers are looking after and the extent to which they are funded by local authorities and the extent to which they are funded privately. But I take on board what the noble Baroness says and take it very much to heart.

Local Authorities: Public Health Budget

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the £200 million reduction in the public health budget on local authorities in the current financial year.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House and at the request of my noble friend Lord Beecham, I beg leave to ask this Question.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Department of Health recognises the importance of implementing this saving in ways that minimise any possible disruption to services. It is about to consult publicly on how best to do that, and on how best to monitor the impact on services.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the very strong statements that we have had in recent weeks from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health—and indeed from the Minister himself from this Dispatch Box—about the importance of prevention to help the NHS cope with future demand, is it not extraordinarily short-sighted to impose reductions which inevitably will result in cuts to preventive services, such as contraceptive services, drug and alcohol services and weight reduction? Does this not absolutely undermine the Government’s objective of improving public health?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I shall give a short quote from the Prime Minister:

“when you look at the costs of obesity, smoking, alcohol and diabetes, we know we need a completely new approach to public health and preventable diseases. A real focus on healthy living. That’s why it’s at the heart of the plan”;

that is, the Five Year Forward View. We accept that prevention is extremely important. This reduction in spending is £200 million out of a grant for local authorities of £3.2 billion—a reduction of about 6%. Local authorities have demonstrated in many other areas an ability to extract savings. I am sure they will do the same in this case.

Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2015 Lords Chamber

There is a tension here: to maintain the confidence of the public might mean not being as open and transparent about all the variables, all the unknowns and all the risks that exist in the provision of health and social care, particularly in the provision of complex healthcare. The Bill is trying to address those very issues and, I hope, to be realistic. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some clarification on both these issues.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling these amendments to Clause 5 and for her characteristically clear introduction. As noble Lords may remember from Second Reading, I too have concerns about Clause 5 in my role as chair of the Professional Standards Authority. I said then that there had been a misunderstanding of the role of the authority and that I was afraid that the Bill would make our objectives unclear and narrow the scope of our work. I was also concerned lest the Bill would in any way make it less clear that the primary and overarching role of the Professional Standards Authority is public protection. The Minister said then that his officials were happy to continue discussions, and I am pleased to say that there have been helpful conversations and meetings with the noble Lord promoting the Bill, the Minister and his officials. I am grateful for the care and attention that have been given to our concerns.

None the less, I take the opportunity that the noble Baroness’s amendment gives me to ask the Minister again to clarify that the Professional Standards Authority will never be required to prioritise the objective of promoting public confidence in the professions over its primary purpose of protecting and promoting the health, safety and well-being of patients, service users and other members of the public. In other words, could there ever be circumstances in which public confidence might conflict with public health, safety and well-being? Such circumstances might be where the authority identified a poorly performing regulator. If the Minister could give me this clarification, it would help the authority address any arguments that might in future be raised that it should conceal a regulator’s poor performance or otherwise prioritise the objective in new paragraph (b) over that in new paragraph (a).

The confusion about the hierarchy between the objectives in new paragraphs (a) and (b) may have arisen because of the conflation of the PSA’s role with that of the regulators which it oversees. It may have arisen also because Clause 5 does not follow the Law Commission’s recommendation, which proposed a clear main objective for the authority followed by two general objectives. Although the Minister has acknowledged the role of the authority as an overseer of the regulators, it would be helpful if he could provide an assurance that under Clause 5 the main and primary aim and focus of the authority will continue to be to promote the health, safety and well-being of patients, service users and other members of the public.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, some very important points have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. My regret is that we are dealing with these regulatory matters in this Bill. A number of statutory instruments will also come through your Lordships’ House, one from the GMC, in the next few days.

We had a Law Commission draft Bill which should have been a fifth Session Bill and would have enabled your Lordships to look at the statutory regulation provisions in the round. However, because of the Government’s decision not to proceed with that Bill, not even in pre-legislative scrutiny, we now have to look at this matter in a piecemeal way. It is wholly unsatisfactory. I am very sorry that we are having to deal with these issues in this way without enough time to focus on them properly. I am worried about Clause 5; I think that we are going to let it through without understanding its implications. We would be very grateful for anything that the noble Earl can do to clear this up.

Care and Support Regulations

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Of course, we know that a number of boards have been working hard on key priority areas such as joint strategic needs assessments, the better care fund and public health but many are still establishing themselves and surely we should expect health and well-being boards by this time to be playing a major role in such key areas as Care Act implementation. Can the Minister tell the House what action the Government are taking to ensure that health and well-being boards undertake the key functions and duties expected of them, and how the Government will ensure that they discharge their responsibility for overseeing the Care Act implementation, particularly as it enters into the first phase in just two months’ time?

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for the clear way in which she set out her concerns about these regulations and her tenacity in pursuing this issue. I want to comment on two parts that are of particular interest to carers: first, the delegation of assessments and, secondly, concerns about charging carers. The Minister will know that I have always warmly welcomed the Care Act, which showed a hugely significant development for carers, giving them the clearest rights ever to an assessment of their caring role.

Although it is already possible for local authorities to delegate the carrying out of a carer’s assessment, from April they will be able to delegate the carrying out of the assessment and, for the first time, the decision on whether the carer is eligible for support. This is a significant change and local authorities are considering whether to delegate their assessments in future. I have a number of concerns about this. Considering a carer’s assessment in isolation from the assessment of the person they are caring for will make it difficult for those making eligibility decisions to consider the family’s situation in the round—as my noble friend has reminded us—and is unlikely in my view to result in the best outcomes being identified for that family or the right action taken to achieve these outcomes. Moreover, the complaints and appeals system will be at arm’s length from the local authority, making it more difficult for families to get redress if they have complaints about the way in which an assessment is carried out or the decision made on eligibility. What measures have the Government put in place to avoid or mitigate these unintended consequences of delegating carers’ assessments? I stress that I understand that they are unintended consequences.

I am also concerned about charging carers for services. The Care Act retains the current power allowing local authorities to charge for services provided to carers. It also confers a new power to charge carers for arranging services for them if they request the local authority to do so. Currently very few local authorities charge for carers’ services but, with increasing pressures on budgets and the new duty to provide services to carers, we know that some local authorities are considering charging carers for the first time, perhaps not surprisingly. This would be an unintended and very unwelcome consequence of the new legislation. I recognise that the Government have further strengthened the statutory guidance on charging carers, but I am still concerned that the Care Act will result in an increase in the number of local authorities which make charges for services to carers. Perhaps I do not need to remind the House, because I have done it so often, that carers contribute a huge amount often at a great personal cost as caring has a negative impact on their finances, their health and well-being and opportunities to engage in work, leisure and education. That figure that I always quote is that carers save the Exchequer £119 billion. Charging a carer for support to meet their needs, often in order to help them to continue caring, risks being counterproductive by preventing carers from accessing services and may even discourage carers from seeking support. The adoption of charging policies might very well result in additional—not fewer—costs to local authorities. A carer and the person they are looking after—sometimes they look after more than one—may not have the same income. In many cases, carers have given up work or live on a reduced income as a result of their caring responsibilities, so will the Government commit to monitor the extent to which local authorities are charging for services provided to carers and publish the results as part of their evaluation of the impact of the Care Act? We should all bear in mind that this could have consequences way beyond the initial discomfort for the carer, in that many carers may then choose not to take up the caring role. I will be glad of the Minister’s response.

Francis Report: Update and Response

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the examples of poor care exposed by Sir Robert’s report were shocking. In many respects, the work he has done and the recommendations he has made constitute a wake-up call for everybody in the NHS—even those who are providing a very good service, which most of the NHS is providing.

There are many levels of protection for NHS employees. An employee can always lodge an appeal if they feel aggrieved and turn to their trade union for support in that context. We intend to consult widely on Sir Robert’s recommendations, including with the trade unions. We welcome their input to these ideas and look forward to further discussions—which, in the normal course, happen very regularly anyway.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

The Minister has acknowledged that it should be the responsibility of all staff to support the principles of openness and whistleblowing. However, has he any concern that the creation of these freedom-to-speak-out guardians might—I say only “might”—lead to staff thinking that they could abdicate that responsibility and leave it all to the guardians?

Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, on his introduction of his Private Member’s Bill and on the clear explanation that he has given of its contents. Although it is a Private Member’s Bill, it has strong support from the Government—such strong support, in fact, that in another place the Minister was reprimanded by the Deputy Speaker for speaking at unusual length on a Private Member’s Bill. Even if the Deputy Speaker in your Lordships’ House had such powers, I am sure such reprimands to the Minister would be unnecessary today.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the wide-ranging Bill that many in the regulation world were hoping for, expecting and working towards has not found parliamentary time in this Session, although the Law Commission and Department of Health officials continue to focus on a Bill for a future Session, as the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, reminded us. Such a Bill with adequate parliamentary time would have given us the opportunity to discuss the whole regulatory framework, but that discussion will be for another Parliament.

I now declare my interest as chair of the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. I emphasise that it is in that capacity that I address the issues in this Bill, so I will confine my comments to Clause 5. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care promotes the health, safety and well-being of patients, service users and the public by raising the standards of regulation of people working in health and social care. We are an independent body working to Parliament and accountable to Parliament. We oversee—“audit” might be a good word—the work of the nine statutory bodies that regulate health professionals in the United Kingdom and social workers in England. We review the regulators’ performance and scrutinise their decisions about whether the people on their registers are fit to practise. We have other functions, but those are not the concern of this Bill.

The Professional Standards Authority is concerned that there is a misunderstanding of our functions and that the Bill will make our objectives unclear and contradictory and narrow the scope of our work, thus reducing our ability to promote the health, safety and well-being of patients, service users and other members of the public. I fear this is because the Bill conflates the authority’s role with the role of the regulators. The Professional Standards Authority is not a regulator; it is an oversight body and has no direct relationship with the professionals regulated by the nine regulators. In fact, I do not think it is too strong to say that the Bill muddles the role of the Professional Standards Authority with the role of the regulators, and in doing so is likely to provide less public safety and quality rather than more, which is its aim. Let me expand on that a little.

The authority’s current objective requires it to promote the health, safety and well-being of patients, service users and other members of the public. This formulation provides a helpful clarity that our focus should be on patients and service users first and foremost. This emphasis, of course, reflects the findings of former and recent inquiries—Bristol, Shipman and Francis—and it is vital to maintain that emphasis. Indeed, the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has also emphasised how important that emphasis is. This is particularly helpful given that “the public” includes, of course, the professionals whom the regulators regulate. We have to think about the impact of decisions and policies on individuals, as well as take account of the impact on the wider public. In our Section 29 work, for example, when we review a regulator’s decision about a case we consider it in relation to the individual patients treated or seen by the health professional, and we also consider the wider public interest implications of the case.

I do not understand why it is considered necessary for Clause 5 to refer to “the public” rather than to patients, service users and other members of the public, or what additional benefit would be gained. It seems an unnecessary and unhelpful contraction that reduces our focus from individuals and population to population alone. I would be glad to receive an explanation from either the Minister or the noble Lord of why that is considered necessary. I must seek a strong assurance from the Minister that this change will never take the focus of the Professional Standards Authority away from patients and veer it towards the interests of professionals. When the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence was established, and since then in launching the Professional Standards Authority, we have constantly emphasised the patient and user focus of our work, and we do not wish to put that focus at risk in any way.

I have further concerns about the Bill setting up competing objectives for the authority when we identify a poorly performing regulator, which is what our performance process aims to do. Currently, the authority has no role in promoting and maintaining public confidence in the professions regulated by the regulatory bodies. That is for the regulatory bodies themselves to do. Here again, I am concerned that the Bill conflates the role of the authority with that of the regulators. If the Professional Standards Authority is required to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public by reporting the poor performance, followed, we hope, by improvement in the regulators, as proposed new subsection (2B)(a) requires, could it not also be said that the public would be better protected if the regulators’ poor performance was not reported, because highlighting it might harm public confidence in the profession it regulates and consequently increase the risk of people not seeking and trusting treatment and care when they need to do so? If a conflict between these two objectives arises, we need to be assured by the Minister that the Professional Standards Authority’s priority will always be understood to be to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of patients and public, not that of the professionals who deliver the care.

Under current legislation our role is clear, as I have set out. I am sorry that the Bill raises questions about the clarity of that role, and I repeat that I think this has occurred because of muddling the role of the authority with that of the regulators. My aim is to ensure that the authority’s role is entirely understood to be for the benefit of patients, users and members of the public. I seek the Minister’s reassurance on the points I have raised.

That is all that I wish to say about Clause 5, but I cannot sit down without registering my dismay at the way in which the Bill is being handled in your Lordships’ House. We are all realistic enough to know about government hand-out Bills, but a government “take it or leave it” Bill is another matter. It is not acceptable to be told by officials, not Ministers, not only that the Bill cannot be amended but that we cannot have a Committee stage for the discussion, negotiation and scrutiny that is such a proud tradition in your Lordships’ House. There are some complex and difficult issues in the Bill that could affect patients for years to come. The parliamentary process should not be short-circuited for the convenience of business managers. We would be failing in our duty as a revising Chamber if we agreed to that.