Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rea (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.


Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, Amendments 253, 254 and 255 concern various clinical scientists, particularly clinical physiologists. In Committee, I declared an interest in that I have received skilled care from clinical physiologists for nearly five years in monitoring my pacemaker. From 2008 to 2010, when the previous Government were in office, I asked four Questions for Written Answer, pointing out that the Health Professions Council had recommended in 2004 that clinical scientists be included in its regulatory regime. This recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State at the time. The Answers that I received respectively from my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Darzi said, in impeccable ministerial speak, ““This will be done not this year, perhaps next year, but certainly some time””. However, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested in Committee that it would be sufficient to continue the voluntary registration scheme that exists now. Perhaps I may read a small extract from a note sent to me by the Registration Council for Clinical Physiologists, which compiles a voluntary register. The council states that it has, "““substantial evidence suggesting that voluntary self-regulation is not effective for clinical physiologists. Our register has no power of enforcement and is completely toothless because it cannot protect patients from continuing to be treated by practitioners who have not been registered and who are potentially unfit to practise. Where a complaint is made and upheld about a practitioner, he or she usually 'disappears' from the voluntary register, which means it is impossible for the RCCP to do further investigations, while the practitioners under investigation are able to find employment elsewhere””." The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave an example of precisely that. Surely that should not be allowed to continue, and I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider his position and agree that statutory registration is the way forward for this very important group of skilled health professionals.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c181-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Codes of practice Care homes Competition Ancillary staff Health Health services Finance Human rights Drugs Health professions Home care services General Social Care Council Local government Medical treatments Patients Protection Property transfer Pharmacy Older people Mergers Nurses Staff Mental health services Negligence National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Registration Standards Vulnerable adults Training Regulation Safety Reform Social services Social workers Risk assessment Health and Social Care Information Centre Health Professions Council Monitor Physiology National Patient Safety Agency Clinical commissioning groups Health and Care Professions Council Healthcare assistants
Legislation
Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk