---

Health and Social Care Bill

Perhaps I could just finish the point. There ought perhaps to be a safeguard. Somebody who makes a complaint needs to know that they can opt for an alert system. They can put the matter to an official body, which can then be on watch, or on alert, without launching a formal investigation. By that means, responsibility is offloaded from the individual. If the complaint is non-malicious, that is likely to give the person confidence that they have at least done the right thing. They will know that the official bodies are in possession of information that gives them the chance to be on watch, or to put in place an appropriate alert system. That happens in other areas, and quite properly so. The problem is that at the moment we do not have that necessary halfway house, which would at least in part provide the safeguard that my hon. Friend seeks in order to deter malicious tittle-tattle and worse. That is not in the Bill, but now that we have had this exchange, I hope that the matter will at the very least be picked up in the training and guidelines for all those involved officially in encouraging whistleblowing more widely, through marketing. We see advertisements encouraging whistleblowing in various parts of our community from time to time, so that we can get genuine information and so forth. That information will then be given, and the subject of the complaint can be officially put on watch; that way, allegations are not simply a way of passing on tittle-tattle. I hope that that addresses my hon. Friend's valid and important point to some degree, and I am deeply grateful to him for raising it. When the Minister addresses the points raised in discussion on this group of amendments, it would be helpful if he amplified his views on whether there will be official processes—perhaps a formal alert system of the kind that I described—to avoid tittle-tattle and unfair stigmatisation. That would give whistleblowers clarity and peace of mind about the fact that their concerns are being dealt with professionally. It would also give professionals the confidence that they need in the system, and I hope that the Minister listened carefully to our exchange. Amendment No. 52 is coupled with amendment No. 56. They would ensure that the rules concerning the running of a pilot scheme for legally qualified chairs of panels were subject to the affirmative procedure. As I am sure the Minister remembers well, we have already had extensive debate about legally qualified chairs. The amendments were tabled in response to points made by my noble Friend Earl Howe in Grand Committee, and by others, about the fairness of the scheme. The Government amendments on legally qualified chairs that were brought forward on Report in the Commons did not go as far as they might have done, but they were an important concession by the Government, and they recognised the strength of the arguments—not least our own—on legally qualified chairs. The provision of legally qualified chairs arises from recommendation 79 of the Shipman inquiry's fifth report, by Lady Justice Smith, then Dame Janet Smith. She reinforced her position during an oral evidence session in the Public Bill Committee, on 8 January, at column 37 of Hansard. Her grounds relate to effective chairmanship, the speed of proceedings, a higher standard of reasoned decision, and an ability to deal with the complexities of the civil standard of proof. It will be remembered that the Bill uses the civil, as opposed to the criminal, standard of proof for the processes in question. I am glad that both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the final proposals when they come before us; that will be absolutely vital. Amendment No. 62 prevents schedule 8 from coming into force on the day the Act is passed. Will the Minister clarify why he has had to take that step? I am grateful that the Government have conceded that the commission should be able to conduct special reviews from the outset. The Government spokesman in another place noted:"““The commission will decide for itself what reviews are necessary from the outset, taking account of the resources available to it and the need to fulfil all its statutory functions.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2008; Vol. 701, GC253.]" Both the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Healthcare Commission have produced valuable special reports that are able to assess the national picture of a specific issue. There was some concern about the Government's desire to delay granting that power to the regulators—not least that the delay would have conveniently tied the hands of the regulator until after the next general election. The Minister opposed the move in Committee and we pushed it to a Division. Why did the Government not change their mind at that point rather than now, welcome though it is that we have now reached agreement? Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 make what the explanatory notes call ““minor drafting changes”” to schedule 7. Amendment No. 73 excises the phrase ““member State”” and replaces it with ““relevant European State””. Often, these things can be absolutely fundamental, given how European legislation tends to work, but as far as I am aware, the relevant sections of the Medical Act 1983 have not been amended to read ““relevant European State”” instead of ““member State””. Will the Minister explain the substance behind the amendment and why it is being made? Surely ““member States”” are easily definable and ““relevant European States”” less so. The amendment may not be so much a ““minor drafting change””, although it must be thought to be that, given that the phrase is in the explanatory notes. It just worries me that it could be a definitional read-across that it is important to recognise, given that at the moment there is the introduction under European legislation of the 48-hour week. That is having a major effect on how health services can be provided in our country, let alone in other member states. We should have uniformity of definition. In answer to a written parliamentary question of mine, a Health Minister recently accepted that there was a great raft of member states that had not agreed to impose the 48-hour limit on the working week of those in the medical professions. We wonder whether a sleight of hand may be behind the issue. As I say, I have no reason to believe anything other than what is in the explanatory notes, but it is extraordinary that we should be asked to replace ““member State”” with ““relevant European State”” without an explanation, given that these things often carry such important cross-referencing in legislation. Amendment No. 82 ensures that the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence would not be able to take action on the case of any individual in respect of whom there were or had been proceedings before the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator. We raised the issue in Committee. The Minister contended that he had already achieved that through what was then Government new clause 6. He said the new clause meant that possible disputes about whether the council had the power to consider individual cases would be avoided. Why, then, were the Government unable to get the issue right in the first place? That question is left hanging in the air. The other matters in this group of amendments need not detain us any longer.