Care Bill [HL] — Committee (7th Day) (Continued)

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 9:30 pm on 22 July 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Patel of Bradford Lord Patel of Bradford Labour 9:30, 22 July 2013

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. On the first amendment, which deals with financial regulations, he singled out three issues that were relevant to why the CQC was chosen: having a single regulator, better relationships with local authorities and better relationships with commissioners. That goes some way towards reassuring me, but I still feel, coming back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Warner, that this is not necessarily about relationships and capacity but about the expertise and skills required in a very complex financial arena. That is the key.

If I were naive, we lived in an ideal world and I was providing care homes, and either my accountant was not very good and I did not know that I was going bankrupt or I wanted to carry on and would do everything possible to keep the company running, regardless of my relationship with the CQC, that is where somebody with the real financial expertise required in this day and age could come in and spot what was happening. I am not 100% reassured that the CQC will have that capacity or expertise. I suppose that I recognise that Monitor does not understand the social care sector as well but it has the financial expertise that I think is invaluable. I may want to return to this issue again and to have a further discussion about it.

However, I am far more reassured by the response that the noble Earl has given me on central commissioning. I suppose that I stipulated NHS England in the amendment because I could not think of another body. Having said that the CQC does not have the capacity to do this, I could not say that the CQC should be doing it. However, I am reassured that the potential is there for central oversight through regulations and other areas. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 92AY withdrawn.

Clause 52 agreed.

Amendment 92AZ not moved.

Clause 53 : Informing local authorities where failure of care provider likely

Amendments 92AZA to 92AZD

Moved by Earl Howe

92AZA: Clause 53, page 42, line 28, leave out “or 48”

92AZB: Clause 53, page 42, line 30, leave out “or 48(3)”

92AZC: Clause 53, page 42, line 33, leave out “or 48(3)”

92AZD: Clause 53, page 42, line 39, leave out “or 48(3)”

Amendments 92AZA to 92AZD agreed.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed.

Clause 54 : Sections 51 to 53: supplementary

Amendment 92AZE

Moved by Earl Howe

92AZE: Clause 54, page 43, line 9, leave out “or 48(3)”

Amendment 92AZE agreed.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed.

Clause 55 : Assessment of a child’s needs for care and support

Amendment 92B

Moved by Lord Patel

92B: Clause 55, page 43, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—

“(1) When a child receiving services reaches the age of 14, or a local authority receives a request from the child, or a parent or carer of the child, to assess the child’s needs for care and support (whichever is sooner), the authority must, if the consent condition is met, assess—”