---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 4: 4: After Clause 112, insert the following new Clause— ““Registers of healthcare professionals: non-practising members (1) The Secretary of State must, if so requested by a regulatory body, make regulations giving power to that regulatory body to enable non-practising professionals to qualify for registration in a register of non-practising professionals. (2) The regulations shall make provision for a reduced fee to be payable by non-practising professionals. (3) In this section— ““non-practising professional”” means a person who would otherwise be qualified for registration in the relevant register of the regulatory body, but who is, for a reason other than having been erased from that register, not currently practising; ““regulatory body”” means— (a) the General Medical Council, (b) the General Dental Council, (c) the General Optical Council, (d) the General Osteopathic Council, (e) the General Chiropractic Council, (f) the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, (g) the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, or (h) any regulatory body within the meaning of Schedule 3 to the 1999 Act established by an Order in Council under section 60 of that Act.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have brought forward this amendment twice before when it covered only dentists, but at the Report stage on 24 June it became clear that this situation affects all healthcare professionals. They run the risk of finding themselves removed from registers simply because they have ceased to practise. They cease to practise for many reasons: maternity leave; illness; the wish to follow a different career for a time; or simply that they are old enough to think about giving up active practice. The amendment before noble Lords today contains a list of the healthcare professions that may be adversely affected. The General Dental Council considers it important that a list of non-practising dentists should have some public value rather than just private or personal value. I do not disagree, but the council underestimates the importance of knowing which trained professionals were practising as well as those who are still practising. All sorts of situations can arise. There could be an epidemic in an area, a pandemic could break out or a national emergency develop when it might be extremely useful to know where all those with skilled healthcare training could be contacted to give assistance. That can happen only if their details are retained on a register. People move house, sometimes to be closer to their families. The last dental register for retired dentists who wish to continue to be listed without continuing professional development and in a non-practising category was produced in 2004. Even by this year many of those details will be out of date. Who knows how much more time might go by before any call is made on these people? I turn to the Good Samaritan issue, raised on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. At the moment doctors can remain on a list, but that is now under threat. What would be the noble Lord’s position if he were called on to save the life of a fellow Member of this House? Would it be a case of saying, ““No, I am sorry””? That reminds me of the news story about the community support officer who was told not to dive in to save a drowning child. He said, ““I can’t dive in the water to save that child who is drowning because health and safety prevents me from doing so””. Good Samaritans are needed on many occasions; indeed, in France you have a duty to be a Good Samaritan, but if you are a Good Samaritan in this country you are likely to be sued if anything goes wrong. For that reason, people are a bit doubtful about offering help. A third important issue is whether the various equivalent health defence and protection organisations are willing to protect people when they are no longer practising. People do not know whether their cover will continue. Also, why is it that healthcare professionals are disadvantaged and treated as second-class practitioners in comparison with solicitors and accountants? Their councils have no intention of dropping the lists of non-practising members. You can remain on the list as a solicitor or accountant until the day you die and you value that position. We should value it for professionals in the healthcare field. The Minister stated on 24 June that, "““the changes proposed in the amendment could be made through existing secondary legislation””." It is important to have that confirmed clearly, certainly as it applies to the General Dental Council. I do not intend to repeat the arguments because they are all set out in Hansard and anyone who is interested can look them up. The president of the General Dental Council said in a letter that I quoted on Report that, "““there is no immediate prospect of a legislative opportunity being available””." On previous occasions, the Minister has kindly said that any of these medical councils would be knocking at an open door if they asked to have this amendment made, but I would like that point to be stated specifically so that I can be confident that it is true and that it will not be just written off. There are major changes ahead. I quote the Minister again. She said: "““I should also mention that the White Paper on working groups on revalidation for all professionals will need to consider the wider issues around semi-retirement, retirement, career breaks and the ability of professionals to make use of or provide expert opinions to others””.—[Official Report, 24/6/08; cols. 1381-84.]" That is another important feature because non-practising people often still write in journals or lecture to other people. It is essential that there should be a differentiation between people who have been struck off the list for malpractice and those who have had an honourable career until whatever stage they decided not to continue. The amendment would cover that point. I look to the Minister to reassure me on this. I am one of those awful, pig-headed people who tend to divide the House over issues if they have to. I do not want to have to, so I hope that she will be able to give me the reassurances that I seek. I beg to move.