---

Health and Social Care Bill

The noble Lord might get them quicker than he expects. Returning to the question, the Bill allows the commission to focus its inspection activity where it is most needed. Let us not forget that the Bill in Clause 2 makes clear that the commission must in everything that it does pay particular heed to the need to safeguard the rights and welfare of vulnerable people. It is highly likely that as part of its methodology the commission will want to develop a sensitive range of triggers for a range of different settings and, indeed, we would encourage it to work with staff, Unison, other unions, residents and relevant organisations and others to develop this. I really do believe that if the commission is to be the independent, intelligent regulator that we all want it to be, it is vital that there is flexibility to develop this methodology and not set it in secondary legislation—or to involve the tick-boxes that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned. After all, as the nature of services evolves, we would like the commission’s methodology to evolve, and while it is tempting to specify particular triggers for inspections, doing so could unwittingly tie the commission’s hands or cause it to devote less attention to emerging risk factors. Amendment No. 104A probes the purpose of one of several provisions in the Bill designed to maximise coherence and transparency for all those with an interest, particularly the providers who are being regulated. The provisions for the commission to have inspection programmes and inspection frameworks mirror provisions for other public sector inspectorates. For example, Ofsted’s chief inspector and the Audit Commission are each required by the relevant primary legislation to produce ““inspection programmes”” and ““inspection frameworks””. Similarly, a separate document setting out the planned frequency of the commission’s reviews provided for in Clause 43 will be informative to those who are being regulated. Noble Lords will appreciate that knowing how often you are likely to have comparative information published about you in a review and what additional reporting this might involve is important to a provider. Periodic reviews, special reviews and investigations will draw on existing sources of information and, wherever possible, minimise the burden of the reviews to the providers. The current regulators have developed methodologies that help them to achieve exactly this. That said, because a review might involve some inspection activity there is a link between the commission’s periodic reviews and its inspection programmes. Noble Lords will also note that under Clause 77, the commission will similarly publish its programme of other reviews and studies. It is important that each of these different areas of the commission’s responsibilities is made transparent. Each of these documents will, therefore, play a role in ensuring that service providers understand the wider work programme that the commission will undertake and they will help to reduce the burdens on front-line providers. In principle, I see no reason why the commission would not combine one or more of these into a single document. If the commission felt that it could still fulfil its responsibilities in this way, that would be a decision it would be able to take. Nothing in these requirements prevents the Care Quality Commission making unannounced inspections, as sub-paragraph 5(5) makes clear. I hope the Committee will appreciate that these provisions are intended to help the relevant regulators minimise burdens on the front line by enabling them to co-ordinate their respective activity. They also provide clarity for providers so that they understand what level of inspection activity they might expect and when. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.