Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will take note of the very serious points which the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, has made to your Lordships tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, these two amendments deal with changes to Clause 72 to impose a duty on local authorities to make safeguarding inquiries in prisons and approved premises. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling these amendments. We strongly agree that a person with care and support needs should be protected against abuse or neglect wherever they live.
Prison governors and directors, and the probation trust in the case of approved premises, are responsible for safeguarding prisoners and for protecting them from abuse and neglect. They have in place procedures to follow in response to allegations of abuse or neglect, and they must provide assurance on this to the National Offender Management Service. The UK operates a comprehensive level of monitoring and scrutiny within prisons to ensure that prisoners are kept safe and secure and that governors and directors are accountable for taking steps to improve matters if necessary.
We have in place a fully independent prison inspectorate that carries out a rigorous programme of scrutiny; more than 1,700 volunteers on prison independent monitoring boards who monitor the treatment of adult prisoners; and a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman who investigates both the complaints of those in prison and all deaths that occur among prisoners. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Prison and Probation Ombudsman require assurance that safeguarding procedures are in place and their implementation provides equivalent protection to that available in the community. Investigations by the Ombudsman will provide learning to improve effectiveness. The important thing is not to impose a duty on another body to conduct inquiries in prisons and approved premises, but to ensure that the procedures within the prisons and approved premises are informed by best practice and local expertise.
The Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service have acknowledged that there is a need for improved directions on safeguarding to the Prison Service and probation trusts. They will be working with officials from my department and stakeholders to develop instructions and guidance that will give improved clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the Prison Service and probation trusts in safeguarding adults in their care. The Ministry of Justice encourages prison staff to be involved with local safeguarding adults boards, but the nature of that involvement is best determined at local level.
The Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service will be producing guidance for prison staff on safeguarding in conjunction with their partners. This will be consistent with the broader advice and guidance on safeguarding adults in the community and will ensure that the importance of active engagements with SABs is routinely reiterated to prison staff. Any particular safeguarding considerations for older prisoners and those with dementia will be part of this operational policy. The guidance will set out clear instructions on the need for structured relationships with local safeguarding boards; for example, the model being employed by Surrey, where a memorandum of understanding sets out how prison staff will benefit from the expertise of social services and local authority safeguarding teams. It will also set out how and in what instances referrals to SABs will be made.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, that the existing position makes clear the responsibility and accountability for the safeguarding and protection of prisoners, and that further guidance to prisons and approved premises will bring about the improvement and joint working that we all want to see. The proposed amendments to Clause 72 are therefore not necessary and I would respectfully ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative response and I take on board completely the fact that prisons and the MoJ have developed some good safeguarding measures. I am pleased that further guidance is to be issued to encourage governors and directors to attend local authority safeguarding adults board meetings. I am fairly happy about prisons, prisoner safeguarding and liaison with local authorities. However, for clarification, if someone is living in approved premises, my understanding is that that has nothing to do with the prison governor or the prison because they are in the community living in, say, a bail hostel. Who has responsibility for any serious issue of neglect? I do not think that the probation service undertakes safeguarding inquiries. It would be the local authority, but this clause seems to suggest that it would not be; rather, that it would be the prison governor. That does not make sense to me, although perhaps I do not understand it completely. Of course, one assumes that the local authority would have responsibility for someone in the community, but this provision clearly states that it does not.
Lord Patel of Bradford
For the record, because no one on the outside seems to have been able to give me an answer, someone would have to report to the probation trust that a person is being neglected or abused and it would carry out a safeguarding inquiry. It would not be the local authority or the prison.
Lord Patel of Bradford
If that is the case and it is correct, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State must have regard to the general duty of local authorities under section 1(1) (promotion of individual well-being)—
(a) in issuing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1);(b) in making regulations under this Part.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, are Amendments 138A and 138B consequential and therefore to be moved formally?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Low, wished to move these amendments. He did of course move his earlier amendment which the House decided upon, but I think that he indicated he was satisfied with my reply on these amendments. I do not want to mislead the House at all, but I believe that that is right.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we are very sympathetic to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell want to achieve through the amendment in promoting the well-being, dignity, rights and welfare of older people. My noble friend Lady Bakewell, in particular, has campaigned long and hard for an older person’s commissioner and, as the Voice of Older People under the Labour Government, speaks first-hand about the job that needs to be done in government to join up policies on health, social care, housing, transport, welfare, work and pensions to address the economic and social challenges presented by an ageing society.
The importance of a cross-government overview and strategy on older people is why Labour has a shadow Cabinet Minister for Care and Older People. Liz Kendall has a vital role in ensuring joined-up policies across the range of services that must be changed and adapted to meet older people’s growing and changing needs. The importance of developing a coherent strategy and vision for our old age was recently underlined by the excellent report of the Select Committee on Public Services and Demographic Change, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is entirely right to say that in Ready for Ageing? the committee described the UK and its society as being “woefully underprepared”. It pointed out that the implications of an ageing society had not been assessed holistically and that it had been left to government departments,
“who have looked, in varying degrees, at the implications for their own policies and costs”.
The committee called on the Government to look at ageing from the point of view of the public and to consider how,
“policies may need to change to equip people better to address longer lives”.
When we consider that important report tomorrow, the role of an older person’s commissioner in helping to face the future and meet the challenges so graphically set out by the committee and today will be a key part of that debate
A considerable amount of work and thought has gone into the drafting of Amendment 139, but the main emphasis seems to be on rights and redress, rather than the all encompassing and unique role envisaged by my noble friend Lady Bakewell in her Second Reading speech and earlier today. That would give the commissioner effective access to planning across different government departments.
We would prefer that broad approach, and, of course, we also need to learn from the experience of the older person’s commissioners in Wales and Northern Ireland. We understand that the advocacy role has worked particularly well in Wales in promoting the rights and interests of older people and challenging discrimination.
Inevitably, costs are an important consideration. The older person’s commissioner’s salary, operational support and accountability costs would be significant. I would be interested to learn from the noble Earl whether the Government have undertaken any costing and impact work on that, as promised to my noble friend when she first raised this issue, as she said, under the Health and Social Care Bill.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this extremely well crafted amendment, which proposes the establishment of an older persons’ commissioner. Our ambition is to make this country one of the best places to grow old in and I begin by saying that I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment; to ensure that older people receive the high-quality care they need and also to support them to use the complaints system effectively when things go wrong. However, disappointingly for the noble Baronesses, I cannot subscribe to the solution that is proposed in the amendment. The main reason for this is that the provisions contained in the amendment are, by and large, covered by work already being undertaken elsewhere. The interests of service users are already protected through a number of routes.
I begin by citing the role of the CQC. The Care Quality Commission’s role is to ensure providers of regulated activities in England provide people with safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care. The new chief inspectors for hospitals, adult social care and general practice will champion the views of patients and service users and judge the quality of care. Then, separate from the CQC, the new chief social worker will ensure that social work practice is directly inputting into policy development and we now have Healthwatch, whose function it is to represent service users’ views. If noble Lords look at what we are doing in the Bill, new statutory obligations are being introduced, such as the duties to establish safeguarding adults boards and to undertake safeguarding inquiries and/or reviews. We also have the government amendment to require independent advocacy in certain cases.
Looking beyond the Bill, the vulnerable older people’s plan is working towards having an accountable clinician to ensure proactive care planning for older people and those with the most complex needs. Furthermore, we want older people to have a major voice in issues that affect them. The Minister for Care and Support and the Pensions Minister take part in the UK Advisory Forum on Ageing. This group gives Ministers the opportunity to engage with and hear directly from older people on the key issues affecting them. I suggest that all these steps, taken together, go a considerable way towards addressing the concerns at which the amendment is aimed, but I need to be clear that, to minimise the impact on the public purse, we would not envisage setting up a new public authority alongside those functions.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked why we should not have an older persons’ commissioner since there is a children’s commissioner? If an older persons’ commissioner were established, the supporting structure would potentially be very large and would cost significantly more than the children’s commissioner. This is not only because of the comparatively larger number of older people who receive services compared to children, but also because the amendment confers a wider range of functions on the older persons’ commissioner than the children’s commissioner.
Michelle Mitchell, former director-general of Age UK said last year:
“For us it’s not just about having a commissioner; it’s about ensuring that older people’s issues are central to the mainstream – not only the government agenda, but business and the public sector as a whole”.
I support that view. What matters, surely, is what is actually happening and whether the system is pulling together to make it happen. We want to ensure, quite simply, that issues affecting older people are at the heart of government business. I am happy to explore ways to further enhance the voice of older people, although without creating additional costly bureaucracies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baronesses will feel somewhat comforted that there is a lot going on to protect the interests of older people and that my noble friend will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his characteristically comprehensive response and I am in complete agreement with him: there is a great deal going on, much of which is valuable and effective. I return to the central issue: I am not convinced that there is coherence, either within government, across government or in government interactions with the private and voluntary sectors and with local government. That is the issue to which I will return, and it is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has made so eloquently.
I accept that this amendment is not perfect; it was crafted in order to bring the older persons’ commissioner within the scope of the Bill but it is not ideal. I thank the Minister for his response. We will continue to work away at this issue, I have no doubt. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty of candour
In section 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulation of regulated activities), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Regulations under this section must make provision as to the provision of information in a case where an incident of a specified description affecting a person’s safety occurs in the course of the person being provided with a service.””
Earl Howe
My Lords, this amendment concerns the new statutory duty of candour. This will place a requirement on registered providers of health and adult social care to be open with patients and service users about failings in care. The Francis report made a clear recommendation that there should be a statutory obligation to observe a duty of candour on providers of healthcare who believe that treatment or care provided by them to a patient has caused death or serious injury. This would require the provider to inform the patient of that fact. This amendment is a major step towards implementing that key recommendation of the Francis report.
The Government’s approach is to introduce this duty as a requirement for registration with the CQC. In Committee, noble Lords tabled amendments that sought to place the duty of candour in the Bill. The amendment that I am presenting today seeks to strike a balance; I make no apology for that, since it allows us to have the best of both worlds. The amendment tabled in my name makes it clear that the Government must introduce such a regulation. It does not present the Government with a choice; rather, it imposes a crystal clear obligation on the Government to put such a regulation in place. I hope that it will be welcome to noble Lords for those reasons. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, the duty of candour means honesty and straightforwardness. We desperately need an open, honest, transparent and compassionate health service, and I hope that Amendments 140 and 152 will help to achieve that.
Something has gone desperately wrong with the care in some hospitals and care homes. We now live in a litigious society, and I feel that that has been increased by cover-ups when something has gone wrong and gagging people who try to speak out. People will go to any lengths to find out what happened to their loved ones if they are not told and given an apology. Good medical personnel will explain and apologise if something adverse happens. So often, that is all that is needed.
Patients know that there are risks, if they are explained when they sign a consent form. When they go wrong, lessons should be learnt so that they do not happen again. That is one of the reasons why openness is so important. Have lessons been learnt after the horrific situation of the Mid Staffordshire hospital? Recently I heard of a former police superintendent who had had a brain injury due to an accident, and was a patient in a well known central London hospital. When his wife and young son went to visit him, they smelt him before they saw him. They found him facing the wall in bed, unable to move and lying in soiled sheets and wearing a filthy gown. His wife was so upset that she told a nurse, who just said that they were overworked. The next time the wife visited she found him sitting alone, facing a curtain, looking miserable and wearing a pad that had not been changed. She said to her children, “We are taking Daddy home”, and smuggled him out of the hospital.
Baroness Barker
I have a quick follow-up to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations were clear that the duty of candour should apply where death or serious harm “may have been caused” or were believed or suspected to have been caused. That is an important distinction; it is not merely playing with words. When the Minister comes to respond, perhaps in writing, will he say whether that point will be covered in regulations?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that we are all aiming for the same effect and that there is little difference in the approach that we are taking. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is drafted as a stand-alone duty: it would place a duty of candour on providers, but it would operate outside of the CQC registration system. As such, it is not clear who would enforce the duty of candour or what would be the consequences for a provider who did not observe the duty.
Introducing the duty as a requirement for registration with the CQC comes with a ready-made enforcement vehicle, including the power to prosecute providers who do not meet the duty. In Committee, we explained why this is our preferred approach. It would give the flexibility to develop the duty in consultation with service users and carers. I can indeed confirm that patient groups will be included. The duty itself will have the same legal power in secondary legislation as it would in primary legislation.
We are making real progress in taking this forward. In the summer, the CQC consulted on plans to introduce a duty of candour set through its registration requirements. The CQC is due to publish the findings from the consultation shortly. The department plans to consult on a draft regulation later in the autumn. I assure noble Lords that both I and my officials would be pleased to discuss the content of the draft duty of candour regulation with them in detail as we develop the final regulation. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that these will be affirmative regulations.
On the threshold, both the Francis and the Berwick reports recommended that the statutory duty of candour for CQC-registered providers should apply in instances of death or serious injury/incident. There is a balance to be struck. We accept the Berwick report finding that an automatic duty of candour covering every single error could lead to defensive documentation and large bureaucratic overheads that would distract from care.
I hope that my amendment reassures noble Lords of our strong commitment to introducing a duty of candour and that they will feel able—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Can I take it that, if that is the Government’s position, which will be set out in regulations, guidance to the providers of services regulated by the CQC would none the less make it clear that the principle of candour would apply to all such cases? I can see the distinction with regard to the seriousness of the incident in relation to the action that can be taken. The risk would be that a statutory duty of candour within the regulations might be taken the wrong way for cases which were not classified at such a serious level.
Earl Howe
I certainly take the noble Lord’s point. There is an issue of interpretation which we will want to clarify through guidance. That is what we intend to do. I look forward to discussing this with him and other interested noble Lords in due course. I hope that that will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, not to press his amendment when we get to it.