My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s response. Of course I agree with her last point that the end result will be the impact on people to whom social workers provide a service. However, she did not respond to her noble friend Lord Newton, who asked whether creating this new body would not repeat some of the issues that were faced by CQC. I am left with puzzlement. I have not heard one point in favour of this happening. It is beyond me to understand why it is being done. No argument with any thought behind it has been put to suggest that this will improve the regulation of social workers.
On the question of costs, whatever the original estimate, the General Social Care Council produced new work. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Is she saying that the General Social Care Council is misleading Parliament on the issue? It stated clearly that it can produce a regulatory system that will cost the Health Professions Council very little.
Thirdly, on the question of student registration, the problem is that I know what the outcome will be of the work that the HPC will do. It will continue with the system that it applies to the health professions. It is clear that the HPC, although it is a good body, is completely inflexible and will not change its approach because a new profession has been added to it. There is no trust out there—I have fallen into the trap set by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I am talking about the professions. There is no trust because the record of the HPC is simply to embrace profession after profession, which all have to be moulded into the system that the HPC has set. While that will work for health professions, my concern is that social work is a completely different profession. This point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I understand why my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is concerned about an amendment that stresses the importance of having social workers on the council of the HPC. However, because of the very new nature of the body, when one brings in a completely new profession some protection needs to be given. There needs to be some assurance that the HPC will have people at a very senior level who understand social work. I still do not know why a new council is not being appointed. If good faith was being shown by the Government to the social work profession, the current council would have been stood down and a new council appointed. That is why I tabled my amendment.
Finally, I turn to the name. The noble Baroness said that we cannot put ““social work”” in the name of the organisation because none of the other professions covered by the HPC is in the current HPC name. If that is the case, why does Clause 210 refer to the Health and Social Work Professions Order? The Government have no problem whatever recognising ““social work”” in an order before Parliament. Surely it is not up to the HPC to depart from that view. Clause 219 refers to the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. Therefore, if the noble Baroness does not like ““social worker”” in the title of the organisation, why would she not accept ““health and social care professions””?. Why is there an attempt to completely remove the concept of social work and social care from the title?
Unfortunately, an existing health body is simply taking over the social work profession without any genuflection whatever to the need to embrace social workers in the new organisation, whether in governance, remit or title. It is very disappointing that the Government are not prepared to reconsider the matter.
Clause 206 agreed.
Clauses 207 to 210 agreed.
Clause 211 : The Health and Care Professions Council
Clause 211 : The Health and Care Professions Council
Amendment 338A not moved.
Clause 211 agreed.
Amendments 338B to 338D not moved.
Amendment 338E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
Clause 212 : Function of the Council in relation to social work in England
Clause 212 : Function of the Council in relation to social work in England
Amendment 338F not moved.
Clause 212 agreed.
Clauses 213 to 217 agreed.
Amendments 339 to 339ZB not moved.
Clause 218 to 224 agreed.
Clause 225 : Establishment of voluntary registers
Amendment 339A
Clause 225 : Establishment of voluntary registers
Amendment 339A
Moved by
Health and Social Care Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 December 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c1626-7 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:59:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796672
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796672
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796672