Health and Social Care Bill

Amendments Nos. 53A and 65 relate to the General Social Care Council. Amendment No. 53A seeks to make it a regulatory requirement for registered providers to comply with the GSCC codes of practice. Amendment No. 65 would require the Care Quality Commission to notify the GSCC when it has taken certain enforcement action. Amendment No. 66 would also oblige the commission to notify the charity commissioners when it has taken action against a provider which has charitable status. The issues raised by Amendment No. 53A were debated in another place. At the time, my honourable friend the Minister for Health was able to give sufficient assurances to enable amendments to be withdrawn and I hope I will be able to do the same. The draft registration requirements currently out for consultation include a number around ensuring staff have the competence, skills and support to do their job effectively. It is important to remember that these will apply to all registered service providers of either health or social care. The commission will determine the criteria by which it assesses compliance with those requirements. In another place, my honourable friend signalled his expectation that the commission will continue to refer to GSCC codes of practice when assessing registered social care providers, as CSCI does now. That remains our position. So, while I recognise the importance of the GSCC’s role in this regard and the quality of the codes it produces, it is not necessary to be more prescriptive about this. In responding to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, let me first explain our intention behind Clause 35. There will be cases where primary care trusts and local authorities are commissioning care from service providers against whom the Care Quality Commission has taken enforcement action. We therefore feel it is important that the commissioner should have notice of the enforcement action that has been taken so that, where necessary, it is able to commission alternative services. I agree with the intention behind the amendment proposed by the noble Baronesses. It is important that the GSCC is informed of the relevant action that has been taken. However, I hope I can provide reassurance that there is already adequate provision in the clause for this to happen. Subsection (1)(d) already requires the commission to give notice of the action specified to any other person it considers appropriate. Where the commission takes action against a person registered with the General Social Care Council, we would certainly expect the commission to notify the council that action has been taken. Likewise, if the action was against a charity—for example, some of the care homes registered with CSCI are charities, as the noble Baroness explained—we would expect the commission to notify the Charity Commission where appropriate. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the role that the Charity Commissioner plays in this respect. Similarly, it might be appropriate for the commission to notify the General Medical Council or the General Dental Council about certain matters. There are circumstances in which that would not be appropriate. For example, some of the notices served under Clause 35 may be for very minor changes in conditions. We would not want the commission to have to notify the General Social Care Council of action taken in relation to healthcare providers. It is important that we do not create an over-burdensome system, but one that ensures that people have the information they need to carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. Rather than specify such detail in legislation, the commission will be better placed to make those decisions and decide when it is appropriate to inform other people of action that it has taken. Given those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.