---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 126: 126: Clause 95, page 47, line 14, at end insert— ““( ) All fitness to practice panel members shall be independent of any previous investigation or proceeding concerning either the professional under investigation or an incident relating to that professional.”” The noble Baroness said: I will try to be brief in moving the amendment, because other noble Lords have important things to say on these matters. The panel members need to be independent of anything that has gone before. It is very easy to be biased at a subliminal level if you have been party to an investigation, proceedings or any type of inquiry that may surround any case. It becomes extremely difficult not to bring that bias into your thinking when you are in a hearing. Medicine is a very small world. The world of subspecialties is even smaller. There is gossip, there are rumours, and however much one attempts to be independent, it can be hard. I echo completely the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—transparency is critical. What I had hoped to do with this amendment was to ensure not only that we had transparency, but that we had independence from preconceived ideas or previous involvement in inquiries or proceedings. This matter will become particularly important when we move on later to consider standards of proof and the move from civil standards of proof to criminal standards of proof. However, this amendment is not the place for that argument. I beg to move.