Health Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 240 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My amendment is much more narrowly focused than the excellent debate we have had so far. Nevertheless, I am surprised that this issue has not been addressed before, but it is terribly important and needs to be addressed now. This proposed new clause would require statutory regulators of health and care professions to remove permanently from their professional register any individual found to have committed sexual misconduct. It would also make it clear that erasure from the register is a mandatory sanction and cannot be replaced by a lesser penalty.

At the heart of this amendment lies a simple proposition. Sexual misconduct by a healthcare professional is not merely a disciplinary failing; it is a profound abuse of professional trust. Healthcare professionals occupy positions of exceptional authority. Patients are often frightened, vulnerable, in pain, under sedation, partially clothed or entirely dependent on the judgment and integrity of the clinician before them. Society grants doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals access to situations and circumstances unlike almost any other profession. With that privilege comes an obligation to maintain the highest standards of conduct. When a healthcare professional exploits that position for sexual purposes, they do more than violate professional rules. They betray the trust on which the entire healthcare system and relationship depends.

The current system does not always reflect the gravity of the breaches taking place. Recent analysis by the Royal College of Surgeons has highlighted a disturbing gap between what the medical regulator believes is necessary for public protection and what tribunals ultimately decide. An examination of cases involving proven sexual misconduct found that nearly one in four doctors whom the General Medical Council argued should be struck off were instead given suspensions and allowed the possibility of returning to practice. The cases involved serious misconduct including sexual assault, harassment, grooming and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.

That raises fundamental questions. What message does it send to patients when a doctor found guilty of serious sexual misconduct is merely suspended, rather than permanently removed from practice? What confidence can patients have in the regulatory system if findings of grave sexual wrongdoing do not automatically lead to removal from the profession? What reassurance can be offered to those contemplating reporting abuse if they believe that their abuser may eventually be allowed to resume professional practice?

Regulation exists first and foremost to protect the public. Of course, regulators must be fair to practitioners and due process must be observed. Of course, allegations must be thoroughly investigated and misconduct properly proved. But once serious sexual misconduct has been established, the primary duty of the regulator must be the protection of patients and maintenance of public confidence.

Too often, arguments were produced that an individual should be allowed another chance because they had an otherwise distinguished career, because they possessed valuable clinical skills which the NHS needed, or because they expressed remorse or there were mitigating personal circumstances. Such considerations may have relevance in cases involving competence, judgment or less serious professional failings, but they should carry very little weight when the issue is sexual misconduct involving an abuse of professional trust.

The question is not whether the individual remains clinically competent; it is whether they remain fit to hold a position that requires vulnerable patients to place complete trust in their integrity and professionalism. Many professions recognise that certain forms of misconduct are fundamentally incompatible with continued membership of that profession. The deliberate abuse of a position of trust for sexual purposes should be regarded in exactly the same way within the healthcare profession.

The amendment we propose seeks to establish a clear statutory principle. Where sexual misconduct is proven, removal from the professional register should follow automatically—not sometimes, not usually, not subject to different interpretations by different panels and not dependent on which tribunal happens to hear the case, but always. Some may argue that this removes discretion from regulators and tribunals. I would respond that Parliament frequently determines that certain conduct is so serious that a clear and consistent consequence must follow. Consistency is not an enemy of justice. In cases involving abuse of professional trust, consistency can be an essential component of justice. Others may argue that regulators are already reforming their procedures. I welcome these reforms if they are actually happening. I hope the Minister can elucidate on that.