Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed comments and all noble Lords who took part, although some of them did not quite understand the meaning of my amendments. None the less, it was never my intention to have a narrow definition of ““clinical””, and I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said: that it might give the impression that this is narrowly defined to medical standards. It is not; it takes into account both the well-being of the patient and, beyond that, rehabilitation and even social care, if we can define the standard. My intention was never to press the amendments, but to try to highlight the issue that standards that are written are important if they are written with a view to focusing on patient outcomes. The phrase ““clinical standards”” tends to do that, and other standards have to incorporate that. If there was one benefit of this debate, it was that the noble Earl had to define the quality standards that NICE would be expected to write, which incorporates the patient journey of care from access to rehabilitation. That is exactly what I was hoping to achieve. By the way, I am familiar with NICE, having been involved at its inception and having written the paper that established it. Standards, whether they are quality standards of access or others, must focus on what gives a better outcome to the patient. On that basis, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 15 withdrawn. Amendments 16 to 17 not moved. Amendment 17A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Amendments 18 and 18A not moved. Amendment 18B Moved by