Clause 29
Health and Social Care Bill
10:00 am
Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)
The amendments would empower the CQC to seek stronger sanctions against providers who commit offences. Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 would amend clauses 30 and 31 respectively. They arise from Anna Walker’s comments when giving oral evidence. She said that
“at the end of a process like that, there is often considerable public anger and concern about what has gone on and I wonder whether some of the penalty issues need to be recognised in that context. The maximum fine allowed under the new legislation would be £50,000. There is an issue about public concern which that measure does not meet”.——[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 25, Q36.]
The point was also made that not only is a wider spectrum of sanctions needed; it will be important to have sanctions suitable for the body in question, given the range of providers that the CQC will register—from small care homes to giant hospitals. The Minister alluded to that point in his response to the last clause stand part debate. There is a world of a difference between what might need to be done in relation to an accident and emergency hospital facility, compared with a small care home.
The amendments would ensure that there is potential for more serious offences to be tried in the Crown court, rather than receiving a maximum fine of £50,000 from magistrates. I therefore ask the Minister, why is the Crown court not available in the pursuit of sanctions? Does he agree with Anna Walker that stronger sanctions need to be available to the CQC? How will these sanctions compare with the current sanctions?