---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 25: 25: Clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert— ““(6) The Commission shall establish a sub-commission responsible for health and mental health. (7) The Commission shall establish a sub-commission responsible for social care. (8) The sub-commissions established in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) shall be chaired by a non-executive member of the Commission. (9) The sub-commission responsible for social care shall comprise non-executive members only.”” The noble Lord said: First, I confess that there is a touch of Gruyère cheese about this amendment. There is an obvious hole in it in that I suggest a separate sub-commission for social care but not for mental health. The sole reason for that is that I know nothing like enough about mental health to know whether that makes sense. However, there are many noble Lords in this Committee who can repair that disadvantage and, if the amendment is to proceed at a later stage, we can change it. Secondly, I suggest in the amendment that only the social care sub-commission should consist solely of non-executive members of the commission. That does not matter now because, if I understood the Minister correctly, a commitment has been given that the commission will comprise solely of non-executive members, but it will need to come out at a later stage. I make it clear that it remains my view—it is probably a majority view in the Committee—that this merger should not take place. I feel a sense of distress that my noble—and good—friend Lady Young, who is a superb person to do this, should nevertheless have to take on something that is fundamentally ill-conceived. Porting from yesterday’s Committee sitting, I say to her and to the Government that many of us feel that making the announcement today while this Committee was considering the issues involved in the Bill was an unwise provocation of the House. Some noble Lords will have picked up the excellent article by Nigel Hawkes, the health and science editor of the Times. He is the Peter Riddell of that area of journalism, whose word is taken as gospel by those who follow such things. His article in the BMJ says: "““Constant changes mean that those being regulated are uncertain what is expected of them. An old regulator, due to be replaced, loses influence. A new one takes time to get a grip. Momentum is lost and, if the changes are frequent enough, can never be regained. That is the pit into which this government has fallen””." Amen. Between now and possibly even beyond the passage of the Bill, those of us who feel this way have a challenge to find suggestions for delivering the advantages that the Government see in the Bill, including the cost savings, without the attendant dangers that some of us are so scared of. That is something on which I hope many noble Lords are actively deploying their minds. I know this is a long introduction but there is not much more to go. The amendment has a different purpose and is intended to establish, if the merger goes ahead, how we can best mitigate the damage that I and others fear will be done by it. In particular, how can we protect the status and distinctive ethos of social care regulation, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, said earlier, is our deepest concern? I believe that establishing sub-commissions of this kind would achieve that, while the overall board could have different kinds of objectives. Obviously, it would be somewhat dangerous for anyone in this Committee to devise detailed structures for the body—I am sure that the Minister will say that when she replies—but it would be enormously helpful if she would indicate that the Government have sympathy for the thinking behind the amendment. Will they actively ask the commission—it is delightful to have the chair designate beside me—to consider whether that kind of structure is not the way to carry things forward? That would at least alleviate some, if not all, of our fears about the merger. I beg to move.