Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 241C, which is tabled in my name. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I was tempted to add my name to them, but I was a bit late yesterday. These amendments concern the implications of abolishing the General Social Care Council and the dilution or indeed the elimination of some of the functions carried out by that body. I thank the Minister for the briefing meeting that he held yesterday. At the tail end of this most unpopular of Bills, and after what I gather have been more than 100 meetings with Peers and others, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that the noble Earl has done throughout. The social work profession is perhaps the most battered profession in this country and, if I may say so, the previous Government did not help in that. A certain Secretary of State for Education in the other place took what I thought was completely unreasonable action following the Baby P incident, which left the social work profession pretty much on its knees. The idea of having a chief social worker in this country who would act as a spokesperson for social work—someone who would promote and defend it—is enormously justified at a time when the profession, as I say, is on its knees. It is very difficult to appoint good people because of the reputation of the profession and because of the actions of that Secretary of State. He happens to be a friend of mine, but I think that he made a terrible error on that occasion. Amendment 241C seeks to ensure that best interest assessors under the Mental Capacity Act continue to have their training regulated. I realise that the Government's agenda is to reduce regulation wherever possible and I broadly support that objective, because we have had too much regulation in this country. But there are limits to that process and I believe that this is one issue over which the Government have in fact gone beyond a reasonable limit. Post-qualification training is currently regulated by the General Social Care Council, but under the Bill only the training of approved Mental Health Act practitioners will be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Although the GSCC accepts that it could have done a better job with that regulatory power, to do away with it altogether seems to be the absolute opposite of the right answer. Why is this important? It is because the issue here is often about the deprivation of liberty of elderly patients with dementia and those with severe learning difficulties. Civilised countries always take extra care in protecting individuals where their liberty is being taken from them. It is somewhat arbitrary that these groups happen to fall into the ambit of the Mental Capacity Act on the one hand and that of the Mental Health Act on the other. I am sure that in time those two pieces of legislation will be brought together, but in the mean time we have to manage the fact that people are being detained either under the Mental Health Act or the Mental Capacity Act and that very similar processes are under way in the two sets of circumstances. Mental Capacity Act clients in residential homes or nursing homes, for example, who do not have the capacity to make their own decisions about their lives, are in essentially the same position as psychiatric patients who are not able to make a rational decision about whether they need to be detained in hospital. Psychiatric patients are assessed by approved Mental Health Act practitioners to determine whether they warrant that detention. In Mental Capacity Act cases, the professional is assessing whether a particular decision is in the best interests of the patient or resident, assuming that the patient does not have the capacity to make the decision for themselves. In both cases this is likely to involve assessing whether the individual can live safely at home. That is the whole point. People are assessing pretty much the same thing under the two different pieces of legislation. It is true that in some cases approved mental health practitioners have to assess the risk to others, but the issues are honestly very similar. Is there any logic, therefore, in regulating one and not the other? We know that abuse of these adults is commonplace. Relatives may of course be absolute angels in terms of protecting their family members, but they may not be, and the best interest assessor is there to protect vulnerable people when relatives let them down. The words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson in his ruling in the London Borough of Hillingdon v Steven Neary and Mark Neary and the Equality and Human Rights Commission highlight the importance of the deprivation of liberty safeguards. The deprivation of liberty safeguards were designed to protect the human rights of some of our most vulnerable people. Employers and supervisory bodies have to be sure that the professionals they charge with undertaking this vital role are competent, compassionate and able to approach the situation from both a practice and legislative basis. With the closure of the GSCC, I urge the Minister to put in place a system at least as robust as the current one, and ideally more robust, to ensure that the providers of training for best interest assessors can clearly demonstrate their ability to produce and, importantly, assess potential best interest assessors. That would go a long way towards protecting some of these very vulnerable citizens. I want to turn briefly to a number of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The first concerns student registration, which we discussed in detail at the briefing meeting yesterday. I shall not go into all the detail again. However, it has to be said that if it is justified to register social workers, it has to be justified to register social work students. That is because these people are unknown and untried. They go into vulnerable people's homes on their own and they are probably more of a potential risk to their clients than qualified social workers. There is once again an issue of logic here, which I hope the noble Earl will take seriously. A further concern is that, as I understand it, the Health and Care Professions Council will not introduce the satisfactorily assessed and supported year in employment as a requirement before someone can be accredited as a fully qualified social worker. This is another important safeguard, as people have to prove themselves over the course of a year's work. There is no great administrative problem about this. It is simply a requirement so that employers meet certain standards. I would argue that it is not a bureaucratic nonsense; it is an important requirement. Finally, there is to be no regulation of social care workers. The arguments that were rehearsed in the previous debate probably apply just as much to this one. The case for statutory regulation where vulnerable people and low-paid workers are concerned seems absolutely overwhelming. Again, I hope that the noble Earl might agree also to have a review of this area. At the minimum, is the process of voluntary regulation really working? I fear that the Government have gone too far in dismantling the protections for vulnerable clients. Of course employers and universities have important responsibilities for their workers and clients, but I hope that even at this late stage the noble Earl might want to maintain some state responsibility for the protection of these most vulnerable clients when their liberty may be taken from them.