Francis Report

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Pressure on hospitals, and how we relieve it so that they can care for people properly, is the core of this debate. What we have seen under this Government is an ever-increasing number of frail, elderly people coming into hospital via A and E. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but Francis made specific recommendations on the care of older people in hospital. The point I am making is that under him the number of older people admitted to hospitals as emergency admissions has gone up significantly, and that goes to the heart of the issues raised by the Francis report.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

We have an excellent hospital in Salford—it is one of the best in the country—but we also have 1,000 people who are losing their care packages this year. We have pressure on Salford because Trafford has been downgraded and lost its A and E, and we are short of two A and E consultants—even Salford has a problem recruiting A and E consultants. Those are real concerns for people in Salford despite having one of the best hospitals in the country.

[Andy Burnham]

I hope that the Secretary of State was listening to my hon. Friend. The point I was making—he did not like it—was that there is plentiful evidence that the NHS has gone downhill in the 12 months since the publication of the Francis report. The chaos in A and E has increased, and pressure on mental health services has reached almost intolerable levels.

Trusts face great difficulties in recruiting sufficient A and E doctors—a central issue in the Francis report, as it addresses safe staffing numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I want to talk about the Francis report, which detailed failures that were a betrayal of NHS values—we have heard repeatedly about those failures in this debate—but before I do so I will speak briefly about NHS change day, which shows so much that is good about the values of the NHS.

This week saw the second NHS change day. It is a front line-led movement, the largest of its kind, with the shared purpose of improving health and care. Its mission is to inspire and mobilise people everywhere—NHS staff, patients and the public—to do something better together to improve care for people. Hon. Members have until 31 March to make pledges for NHS changes, and it may be that Ministers and shadow Ministers will want to adopt some of them. Some inspirational pledges have been made that are making a real difference to care. An example I like is the “Hello, my name is...” campaign by Dr Kate Granger.

In December 2012, Dr Kate Granger was herself an in-patient, and she noticed how infrequently health care professionals introduced themselves. She wrote:

“As a healthcare professional you know so much about your patient. You know their name, their personal details, their health conditions, and much more. What do we as patients know about our healthcare professionals? The answer is often absolutely nothing, sometimes it seems not even their names. The balance of power is very one-sided in favour of the healthcare professional.”

It might seem astonishing that a campaign to encourage health care staff to introduce themselves to patients is needed, but it is an important part of the change in culture that people are trying to bring about.

Some 390,000 pledges have been made for the second NHS change day. It will run to the end of March, so that figure might reach half a million. This is a very good movement inside the NHS to improve care, in addition to the important matters we are discussing today. It is valuable that NHS staff, patients and carers are making pledges to do just that.

It is clear that staffing is one of the most important issues in the Francis report. The report talks about

“a lack of staff, both in terms of absolute numbers and appropriate skills”.

A survey of nurses published by Nursing Times one year on from the Francis report found that more than half those surveyed believed that their wards remained dangerously understaffed. Indeed, 39% of those who responded warned that staffing levels had worsened in the past 12 months. Various numbers have been bandied about during the debate, but that is a key factor. Only 22%—a fifth—of the nurses surveyed reported an improvement. I think it notable that more than half said that their own wards were dangerously understaffed, because that is the same percentage as a year ago. If understaffing was identified as an issue in the Francis report, it is still an issue now.

I believe that one pledge that politicians can make to improve care in the NHS is a pledge to support the Safe Staffing Alliance. The fundamental standard is a ratio of no more than eight patients to one nurse; other key aspects of safe staffing are use of a management tool to work out the safe staffing levels and the publication of staffing levels so that they can be seen by patients and their families. Let me repeat what I have said to Ministers a number of times over the last year, now that they recognise that Salford Royal is an excellent hospital. Salford Royal works out minimum staffing levels with a management tool, and publishes actual versus planned staffing levels on whiteboards on the wards every day. Again and again, we hear about failures in hospitals that, like the failure at Mid Staffordshire, are related to understaffing and the awful position in which it puts nursing staff. In another debate on this subject, the Secretary of State said:

“Salford Royal is one of the best hospitals in the country and we should always learn from what it does”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1107.]

I hope that he will now start to take his own advice.

People in Salford were thrilled when Salford Royal’s chief executive, David Dalton, was knighted earlier this year. I believe that that was well deserved, because Salford Royal and David Dalton have done a huge amount to improve patient safety and reduce mortality. In its report “After Francis”, the Health Committee said that it had

“been impressed by the approach of Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust to the development of a staffing management tool. This appears to the Committee to be good practice, and the Committee recommends the adoption of this or similar systems across the NHS.”

Other Members have also mentioned that.

The Health Committee also said—we keep returning to staffing levels—that

“Ensuring adequate levels of both clinically- and non-clinically-qualified staff in all circumstances is therefore a fundamental requirement of high quality care, whatever the financial circumstances.”

As I have said, that is a key point. It is clear to me what should be done to ensure safe staffing levels—we have that excellent example—but it is also clear to me that the Government’s proposal for monthly publication of staffing levels is not adequate. Robert Francis is a convert to the position of the Safe Staffing Alliance and has said that minimum safe staffing levels should be drawn up by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and policed by the Care Quality Commission. He did not say that in his report, but he has subsequently said it to the CQC.

As we heard earlier in the debate, the Francis report was published as the Government’s NHS reforms took effect. It is clear that the structural changes involved in their unnecessary top-down reorganisation have caused upheaval and created new problems. Many Members have talked about restructuring decisions today. Those decisions are proving impossible to implement in many parts of the country, because there is no one really in charge. The chair of the British Medical Association, Dr Mark Porter, made that point earlier this year. Reorganisation costs are another problem, because they have taken money away from patient care. Change of that kind has not improved care in the NHS and has worked against the recommendations of the Francis report. As we heard earlier, the findings of surveys identify the problems that have been caused: seven out of 10 NHS staff members think that the Government’s reorganisation has had a negative impact on patient care, while only 3% think that it has improved patient care. That is a vote against what the Government have done.

Nothing makes the impact of the reforms clearer than the deteriorating performance of A and E departments and the crisis in recruitment to them. It is interesting to note the Public Accounts Committee report this week, which is in a very similar vein to that of the Health Committee. We know that more patients are waiting in A and E departments for longer than four hours: last year the figure was 1 million, whereas in 2009-10 it was only 345,000. The numbers speak for themselves. We know, too, that emergency admissions have increased by 51% in the past decade, with a 26% rise in admissions of over-85s in four years. That is serious: the biggest cause of pressure on local A and E services is the rising number of frail and older people with multiple long-term conditions.

Some Members have questioned the relevance of this to the Francis report, saying we should not be discussing all these issues, but I disagree. If we are concerned about safety and mortality rates, what happens on admission to A and E is a key factor. The consequences if things start going wrong was well understood by Salford Royal hospital: more people were dying unnecessarily at the weekends because of a lack of consultant cover, so the hospital changed that. Work on safety does not ignore what is going on in A and E or how much consultant cover there is; instead, it takes that into account and does something about it.

I am concerned that the number of frail older people attending A and E will continue to increase and that that situation will worsen as a result of continued cuts to social care budgets. We had a warning about that from Sandie Keene, director of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. She said

“it is absolutely clear that all the ingenuity and skill that we have brought to cushioning vulnerable people as far as possible from the effects of the economic circumstances cannot be stretched any further, and that some of the people we have responsibilities for may be affected by serious reductions in service—with more in the pipeline over the next two years.”

Unfortunately, excellent though our local hospital is, we are facing a situation where 1,000 people will lose their care packages this year, and I am very concerned about that.

[Jim Shannon]

The Francis report makes some recommendations on mental health, which is in the social care category. One of those suggestions was the training of family members to look after those with mental health conditions better at home, so as to improve their quality of life and help rehabilitate them. I do not see much of that in the report. Would the hon. Lady like there to be more emphasis on family members who are under pressure and are helping others with mental health conditions at home?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and our most recent inquiries in the Health Committee are about mental health issues. There is a series of issues that need to be looked at. It is rare in a health debate for me not to mention carers. We need to be realistic about the fact that we are now putting a huge amount of pressure on those carers. Removing social care packages will affect our local hospital, but it will also affect those family members, because in the end who is the person who cares? It is the family member to whom the role falls.

To conclude the point about staffing issues in A and E, we found in our earlier inquiry that fewer than one in five emergency departments were able to provide consultant cover for 16 hours a day during the working week, and the figure is lower at weekends. The whole issue of mortality rates is very much linked to that, and we cannot ignore it. We must keep focusing on the problem with recruitment and the lack of consultant cover.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary referred to the warnings by the president of the College of Emergency Medicine. During the time when the college was warning about these issues, Ministers were tied up in knots by the challenges of reorganisation. That is key. Ministers have insisted that they are acting now, but it is clear that those warnings from the CEM in 2010 did not get enough attention until recently. The staffing situation can hardly improve when so few higher trainee posts in emergency medicine are being filled. In the latest recruitment round, 156 out of 193 higher trainee emergency medicine posts went unfilled.

My final point is about the difficulties caused by the cost of the NHS reorganisation reforms. In the past few months the spotlight has fallen on unnecessary spending and waste. We all should be concerned about that. We know that emergency departments are spending £120 million a year on locums, and this could be getting worse. The Health Committee has also recently focused on redundancy costs, which have absorbed £1.4 billion of NHS funding since 2010, with £435 million attributed just to restructuring costs. The scandal of the scale of redundancy payments to NHS staff was made worse when we found out that such a revolving door was in operation. The Health Committee was told that of 19,100 people made redundant by the NHS, 3,200 were subsequently rehired by the NHS, including 2,500 rehired within a year and more than 400 rehired within 28 days. There were reports of payments of £605,000 made to an NHS executive whose husband also received a £345,000 pay-off, with both reported to have been subsequently rehired elsewhere in the NHS. That is a scandal. I know that the Minister said it would not happen again, but that is £1 million that could have been spent on patient care.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

I would prefer not to. That money could and should have been spent on improving staffing, particularly nursing staffing. Those patients and family members who have been let down by NHS failures, of which we have heard innumerable examples, deserve to know that everything possible is being done to avoid such failures in future.

Of all the things I have talked about, safe staffing is crucial, as is transparency and staffing ratios. We increasingly have to take on board the fact that there is a funding gap in both the NHS and social care. Indeed, the chair of the British Medical Association said in his new year statement that the funding gap in the NHS is so bad that if the NHS was a country, it would not have even have a credit rating. That is what we are facing.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I do not have time.

Given that situation, we have to learn that precious NHS resources cannot be wasted on reorganisation and redundancies any more, particularly where staff are being rehired. The NHS will reach its 70th birthday in 2018, so let us hope that all the measures we are talking about today, and the implementation of whole-person care under a Labour Government, will help it be in better shape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I reread the executive summary of the Francis report yesterday when I was on a train journey, and I decided that in today’s debate I would like to look at one of the most crucial aspects of his findings in respect of what happened at Mid Staffs.

On page 62, at paragraph 1.102, the summary states:

“The senior officials in the DH have accepted it has responsibility for the stewardship of the NHS and in that sense that it bears some responsibility for the failure of the healthcare system to detect and prevent the deficiencies at Mid Staffordshire sooner than it did. There is no doubt about the authenticity of their expressions of shock at the appalling story that has emerged from Mid Staffordshire. However, it is not possible to avoid the impression that it lacks a sufficient unifying theme and direction, with regard to patient safety, to move forward from this point in spite of the recent reforms put in place by the current Government.”

It goes on to say:

“Where there are perceived deficiencies, it is tempting to change the system rather than to analyse what needs to change, whether it be leadership, personnel, a definition of standards or, most importantly, culture. System or structural change is not only destabilising but it can be counterproductive in giving the appearance of addressing concerns rapidly while in fact doing nothing about the really difficult issues which will require long-term consistent management. While the DH asserted the importance of quality of care and patient safety in its documentation and its policies, it failed to recognise that the structural reorganisations imposed upon trusts, PCTs and SHAs implementing such policy have on occasion made such a focus very difficult in practice.”

It is my contention that we could probably say that of every reorganisation of the NHS, certainly in my three decades in politics.

The summary goes on to discuss the lessons learned and related key recommendations:

“The negative aspects of culture in the system were identified as including: a lack of openness to criticism; a lack of consideration for patients; defensiveness; looking inwards not outwards; secrecy; misplaced assumptions about the judgements and actions of others; an acceptance of poor standards; a failure to put the patient first in everything that is done.”

It goes on:

“It cannot be suggested that all these characteristics are present everywhere in the system all of the time, far from it, but their existence anywhere means that there is an insufficiently shared positive culture.”

Again, it is my contention that that sums up not just the past 30 years but perhaps the past 60 years of our national health service.

The summary goes on to say that achieving change

“does not require radical reorganisation but re-emphasis of what is truly important”.

All parties in the House should recognise that it is not the reorganisation but the re-emphasis of what is important that is significant. Paragraph 1.119 lists how that can be achieved:

“Emphasis on and commitment to common values throughout the system by all within it; readily accessible fundamental standards and means of compliance; no tolerance of non compliance and the rigorous policing of fundamental standards; openness, transparency and candour in all the system’s business; strong leadership in nursing and other professional values; strong support for leadership roles; a level playing field for accountability; information accessible and useable by all allowing effective comparison of performance by individuals, services and organisation.”

I was not surprised by any of that.

The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) was a member of the Select Committee on Health in the previous Parliament between 2005 and 2010, and I had the privilege of chairing that Committee. In 2009 the Committee looked at patient safety in the NHS. We visited one of only four hospitals that were part of a patient safety project on how to look after patients inside hospitals, never mind outside. We looked at some of the major issues at the time, such as how different parts of the NHS interacted and their failure to communicate with one another properly. Much of the time they were working with different regulations, and occasionally the inspectorate was not sure what it was responsible for inspecting. This whole restructuring has been going on for a very long time, and it has been more confusing to people working inside.

I am pleased with how the Government have reacted to some of the Francis report’s main recommendations, but I take issue with them on one point. If we are to change the culture inside the NHS, we really need to look at the duty of candour. The Government have accepted the report’s recommendation on a duty of candour for organisations, but they have rejected the recommendation to extend that duty to individuals. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

I spent nine years as a lay member of the General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, and for the first few years I would sit on fitness-to-practise committees. I think that the only way we shall get change is if individuals have responsibility for the duty of candour, not just organisations. I believe that the Government have got that fundamentally wrong. If they really want to tackle the issues that led to the awful situation at Mid Staffs, they need that duty of candour to extend to individuals.

On the Government’s decision on the duty of candour, the Patients Association has stated:

“We question that if individuals are not already motivated by their own professional code, how will a duty on their employer encourage them to come forward?”

That is absolutely right. It continued:

“Without this fundamental change within the NHS, the Duty will just be providing lip service to the issue of patient safety and patients will struggle to see any real improvements.”

That is a big assumption, but on balance I agree. It is something that the Government, no matter who is in Richmond House, need to tackle throughout the NHS.

I have in my hand a copy of the Health Committee’s report on patient safety, which was published in July 2009. We looked at patient safety across the health care system and compared it with what was happening abroad. We visited New Zealand, which has a comparable health system—I accept that the country has only 4 million occupants, compared with our 60-odd million. We looked at why the culture here is the way it is, why people are not open and why they do not learn from mistakes that other health professionals have made. Often those mistakes are not reported because people fear they will get into trouble. We took evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association and learned that any mistake a pilot makes in an aeroplane is whizzed around the world so that other pilots understand it and learn the lessons immediately. That is not the case in our health service.

I want to mention two of the Committee’s findings from New Zealand. The first relates to investigating complaints. I do not think that leaving the duty of candour to organisations, as the Government suggest, will work well. New Zealand has a statutory body—I have mentioned it before in the House—called the Health and Disability Commissioner, which resolves complaints. People can go to the commissioner to request investigations, and they can do so anonymously if they do not want their colleagues to know about it. It is completely independent of the health care system. It works, and it has been working for many decades.

Another area we looked at in New Zealand—again, I accept that it is a very small country—was compensation and redress. I know from my experience of 30 years in Parliament that when people complain about something that happened to them in their local hospital that they are unhappy about, they are treated as if they are going to get into litigation and that it will cost a lot of money; immediately the barriers come up. That culture is not good for our health service, it is costing massive amounts of money for us as taxpayers, and it is certainly not good for the individual concerned. I do not know how many times I have been told that all the patient wanted was an admission that the hospital got it wrong and an apology; they did not necessarily want money. New Zealand has a redress system that some might call a no-fault liability system. Here, it would mean getting rid of lots of lawyers who make massive amounts of money and careers from public money for NHS litigation. Just those two areas hold back changing what is wrong in our system.

[Barbara Keeley]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had similar cases to a difficult one that I had for months involving someone whose wife died in terrible circumstances at home. He was badly let down by the care she received and he wanted redress. He found that people were happy to have meetings with him and to talk to him, and were sympathetic and supportive, but whenever something was put in writing, it was absolutely dreadful. He was very offended and horrified by everything that was in writing, and that is the chilling effect of lawyers because they checked everything. It ruins the support that can be given after a difficult bereavement and when someone has a real case. Things can be said, but they cannot be written down.

[Kevin Barron]

I agree entirely. The system is defensive and people do not get a satisfactory response, but the lessons are not learned. Issues are not reported for fear of the consequences. The Minister is a doctor. He will know that if as a junior doctor he had seen a senior doctor doing something wrong and had gone public about it, it might have affected his career. Some young doctors’ careers have been affected. That is not good for the system, and it is certainly not good for patients.

I am a wholehearted supporter of the national health service and the way it is funded. There is none better in the world, and we can use it without question. It may be different in different parts of the country, but access to health care in this country is second to none in the world for the whole population as opposed to just those with money. Could it better? Yes, and what the Francis report said was a lesson for all of us, and for the national health service. We should change the culture, but we will not do that with reorganisation or by blaming one another in the Chamber for what is right or wrong. That just feeds the politics of the national health service. We must change the culture by putting the patient first, and after 60-odd years it is about time we did.

Patient Medical Records

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Godsiff]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and indeed, I will come to that point later. As I said, we have an opportunity in the next six months to try to get the scheme right. If the Government now address the many concerns raised about privacy, consent and the creeping commercialisation of our health service, they have the opportunity to create a scheme that offers enormous benefit to health care and research. However, if they fail to do that and continue to steamroll ahead, ignoring public concern, in six months’ time they will find themselves in precisely the same place as they are now, faced by massive public opposition to a scheme that has the potential to do so much good and to save lives.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has noticed an issue that has emerged. NHS England uploaded a vast amount of hospital patient data—188 million records—to Google servers. That was done—we have already heard mention of the firm, Atos—by PA Consulting Group, which lost a Home Office contract a few years ago because of data loss. Does he agree that it appears that NHS England has now lost control of the IT side of the project, and that before we go forward, we need full disclosure of all the uses to date of patient data?

[Mr Godsiff]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has taken note of what she said and that the Department will be forthcoming in identifying exactly how much confidential NHS data have been released to private profit-making companies. He might also point out how much income the Government have received from that.

There are a huge number of problems with the existing scheme. I could mention the information leaflets that look more like junk mail and have no opt-out return slip on them, or the fact that data extraction was planned to start before the code of practice on who will be allowed to access the data was completed, or the lack of a clear figure on cost. However, perhaps the most damaging flaw in the whole plan has been the refusal to listen to or to address those concerns when they were raised by doctors and patients. We simply cannot and should not bring in a scheme that lacks the consent and approval of the vast majority of people whose confidential health data will be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is also important to highlight that sections 263 to 265 of the 2012 Act put much stronger safeguards in place. Those sections state that processes must be in place in the Health & Social Care Information Centre to ensure confidentiality and to ensure that data are always handled in the right way. The body is responsible for ensuring that those processes are kept up to date and that there are accountability frameworks for those processes. That important step forward was not in place for the previous body.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I want to make progress on some of the points raised in this debate. I will have to be brief any way, and she had a good chance to question me when I appeared before the Select Committee on Health last week. If she feels that she did not have an opportunity to discuss all of the issues, I am sure she will have an opportunity next week when we discuss these matters in our consideration of the Care Bill. Amendments were tabled last night to support some of the issues that we are talking about today. Those amendments will be considered next week, and I am sure those Members who cannot contribute in greater detail today because of the time will be able to contribute much more fully to next week’s debate.

Finally, it is important to talk about driving and supporting integrated, joined-up health and social care across the system, in which we all believe. I know that those Members who are members of the Health Committee believe in that because I remember being a member of that Committee with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Easington. If we are to deliver better integrated care, we need to have the right data. One of the key challenges in the past is that we did not collect the data effectively to measure what good integrated care looks like. We know we need to improve the collection of those data, and we want people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, dementia and asthma to be better supported in their own homes and communities. Of course we need to have the data to do that. A lot of those data will come from primary care, and it is important that we put together those data and analyse them to understand what good care looks like. We have not been in the right place to deal with that in the past, but I am confident that we will be in the right place to do it while protecting patient confidentiality with the measures that we are seeking to implement.

[Barbara Keeley]

The point that I wanted to make is in line with what the Minister is saying. Following the revelations about IT issues that I mentioned, and the apology that his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made yesterday to the Commons, will he now agree that it would be sensible for Ministers and NHS England to consider keeping one copy of the care.data database and run staff queries against it, so that it is held in one place and not scattered about on various servers, causing consternation and the need for websites to be taken down, as they were yesterday, because NHS England does not know where the hospital data have gone? The only solution is the one that we discussed last week: keeping one copy and running staff queries against it.

[Dr Poulter]

It is absolutely right that the discussions that we have had in this debate and the issues raised about care.data have been helpful in building on the safeguards in the 2012 Act to improve the processes of the Health & Social Care Information Centre, as a new body, to ensure that it has particular regard to putting strong confidentiality criteria in place. It is also right to keep those criteria under regular review. Obviously, there is regular communication between that body and the Information Commissioner about issues such as protecting confidentiality.

I am sure that we have a robust set of criteria in place under the 2012 Act. It may be helpful to hon. Members if I outline what they are. I reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green that the data are not released for profit. It is about cost recovery when they are. It is also important to say that data are not released in identifiable form without a strong public policy reason: for example, in a civil emergency or some such situation. Data must be used for the benefit of the health and care system. That is a strong set of criteria for use of the data, and strong safeguards are in place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already put in place an opt-out for patients who do not want to be involved in the process, which has not been the case in the past.

It is important in this context to highlight that we are not taking a sudden, big-bang approach or change to data; this is an evolutionary process. In 1989, in-patient data were collected for the first time; in 2003, out-patient data; in 2007 and 2008, accident and emergency data. That was about improving and driving transparency, developing better care pathways for patients with, for example, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ensuring that we better used data to benefit the health service and patients. Now, when it is so important to drive better integration, primary care data will also be collected. That is not a revolutionary change; it is an evolutionary change. What is important is that now, under the 2012 Act, we have much stronger safeguards in place better to protect patient confidentiality and much more rigorous processes under which the Health & Social Care Information Centre, as a new body, will operate, in order to ensure that it regularly reviews its processes and uses data in the right way.

It is also important to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully supports and is committed to the principles of the programme, which will alert the NHS where standards drop, enable prompt action to be taken, help staff understand what happens to people, especially those with long-term conditions, and help us develop and improve care. However, in order to reassure hon. Members further and bring greater clarity to some of the issues and discussions, we have tabled some amendments to the Care Bill. We will have an opportunity to discuss them fully next week when we debate the Bill. I am sure that when hon. Members see them, in conjunction with the safeguards already in place under the 2012 Act that were not there before, they will be reassured.

The programme is a good one. It is doing the right thing, improving research, driving up care standards in our NHS and supporting the integration of the health and care system, which we all believe in. It is also protecting patient confidentiality. With those reassurances, I close my remarks. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity next week to debate fully any further issues or concerns that they may have. I will bring them the reassurances that they need.

Points of Order

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week we learned that insurance actuaries had been able to obtain 13 years of hospital medical records on every NHS patient in the country. A report on the use of the data said that the 188 million records were at individual episode level, and the hospital data obtained had many identifiers, including diagnosis, age, gender, area where the patient lived, date of admission and discharge. On Thursday, in a debate in Westminster Hall, the public health Minister, who is in her place, said that she wanted to put it on the record that the data released to the insurance actuaries were publicly available, non-identifiable and in aggregate form. The Minister’s comments on the data released are at complete variance with the reported facts, which were also discussed extensively at the Health Committee last week. There is now a further damaging story in the news that that released patient data were made available online. I understand that the Health and Social Care Information Centre has today had to ask a company to take down a tool that used that hospital patient data online.

May I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether the public health Minister has sought your permission to correct the record from Thursday’s debate. Furthermore, has the Health Secretary asked to make a statement about NHS patient data being made available online?

[Mr Speaker]

Not at the moment. I can say to the hon. Lady that the public health Minister did indicate to me a willingness to respond to her intended point of order. The Minister is in her place, and we should hear from her now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and pay tribute to the agencies in Portsmouth that are coming together to hold the summit and discuss that critical issue. The Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia has made real progress in improving diagnosis rates and the way that society treats dementia, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T4. Further to the answer given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), the lobbyist John Murray and an organisation funded by large pharmaceutical companies led a consultation and co-wrote a report for NHS England on the future of commissioning for £12 billion of NHS services. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it is now Government policy to have lobbyists and big drug companies drafting reports that directly influence the commissioning of NHS services?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

Let me say this to the hon. Lady: we have very clear rules, and for people who are involved in industry and have a self-interest we have important protections to ensure there is no conflict of interest. Let us be clear: the private sector has an important role to play in the NHS, but it grew far faster under the previous Government than it has done under this one. We are not going to take any lessons about being in hock to the private sector.

NHS

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the situation is put into perspective when we know that those PFI deals are costing the NHS more than £1 billion a year: £1 billion that could have been spent on providing compassionate care and looking after patients with dignity and respect, but instead is having to finance Labour’s appalling mismanaged PFI contracts.

Let me return to the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leigh. I think that a much more substantive argument relates to the things that he chose not to say. This is the day before the anniversary of the Mid Staffs report, and this is the day on which hospitals are finally putting behind them Labour’s appalling legacy of poor care. We have 14 hospitals in special measures—all of them, incidentally, with A and E departments—making encouraging progress after a very difficult year, with 650 additional nursing staff and 50 board-level replacements between them. Every single one of those hospitals had warning signs under Labour, but rather than sorting out the problems, Labour chose to sweep them under the carpet, sometimes because they had arisen during the run-up to an election. There are 5,900 more clinical staff in the NHS than there were a year ago, and there are 3,300 more hospital nurses than there were at the time of the last election. All those people are vital to the functioning of our A and E departments.

Bullying, harassment and intimidation were perhaps the ugliest features of Labour’s management of the NHS. Now we have seen courageous A and E whistleblower Helene Donnelly being given a new year honour, alongside brave campaigner Julie Bailey, who was literally left out in the cold when she came to lobby the right hon. Member for Leigh about poor care at Mid Staffs.

There is much to do—poor care persists in too many places—but with a new Ofsted-style inspection regime, in England but not in Labour-run Wales, we can at least be confident that poor care in A and E departments and throughout hospitals will be highlighted quickly, and not hidden away. We will keep people out of A and E departments in the first place—that is something to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—with the return of named GPs for the over-75s and integrated health and social care through the better care fund: precisely the joined-up, personal and compassionate care that was envisaged when the NHS was founded 65 years ago.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Was not one of the key points that Francis made about transparency? The Secretary of State is making claims about staffing numbers which are not recognised. Ministers have had the opportunity to go along with a better scheme of transparency in hospitals, whereby they display every day on the ward their staffing ratios—as Salford Royal does. The Secretary of State will not accept that, however. If he thinks that putting out the totals of staff once a month is an adequate way of dealing with the Francis recommendations, he is fooling himself.

[Mr Hunt]

We on the Government Benches will take absolutely no lessons about transparency in the NHS from Labour after what it did for so many years. I think what we are introducing is a huge step forward, because for the first time every hospital in the country will, as a minimum, have to publish their ward-by-ward staffing ratios every single month. They can publish more—they can do what Salford does—but for every hospital in the country to do that every month is a huge step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because his point is germane to my argument. I shall develop that subject in the few minutes I have left when I talk about the consequences of what is happening in social care. I certainly feel that some of the policies that his Government have supported have contributed to the crisis. For example, the top-down reorganisation has had a damaging effect on A and E performance. I will address that point in a moment.

Other hon. Members have spoken today, in interventions on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), about patients being ferried to hospitals in police cars. That has certainly happened in County Durham, and it must be a cause for concern. The A and E crisis can largely be placed at the Government’s door, because they have not faced up to some of the problems. It has rightly been pointed out that the number of admissions had risen by 633,000, not least because of demographic changes involving more older people and people with core morbidities and multiple conditions. That is placing a huge amount of extra pressure on A and E departments, but that pressure is being compounded by damaging cuts to local authority budgets.

My own local authority, Durham county council, is experiencing cuts of £222 million between 2011 and 2017. I know that Ministers will say that social care is ring-fenced and that £3.8 billion is being transferred to the home care fund, to be made available to clinical commissioning groups and local authorities, but what that means in real terms for the people living in Easington is that EDPIP—the East Durham Positive Inclusion Partnership—which supports frail elderly people and young people in vulnerable families, is closing down because of a lack of funding from the local authority. Similarly, East Durham Community Transport, which provides transport to take the frail elderly—including my mother, incidentally—to day centres and elsewhere, has been severely curtailed.

The Government have been warned by experts that cutting the staggering £1.8 billion from council social care budgets in the first three years of this Government would have a knock-on effect for the NHS, particularly in accident and emergency departments. That point has been made in expert witnesses’ evidence to the Health Select Committee, on which I have the honour to serve. Because of the cuts to social care, fewer older people are getting adequate support in the community, and are therefore visiting A and E departments instead. The impact of that is twofold. First, it means that those with care needs are not getting the treatment they need. Secondly, it means that our A and E departments are being put under great strain. Directly and indirectly, the Government have ignored warnings that by slashing social care they would make it difficult to discharge patients with care needs because it would be unsafe to send them home.

[Barbara Keeley]

Perhaps it would be pertinent at this point to mention the comments of Sir Bruce Keogh to the Health Committee’s inquiry into urgent and emergency medicine. When I asked him if the cuts in social care bothered him, he said:

“Yes, it does bother us and I think it bothers everybody. We are trying to maintain a stable and improving service in the NHS at a time that our colleagues in social care are taking a massive hit to their baseline.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

May I start by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron)? The issue of alcohol has been ducked by successive Governments for a very long time. He is absolutely right to campaign on it, and I absolutely agree that we need to see the introduction of minimum unit pricing. However, we should not in any way give the impression that that of itself is the entire solution to what is a broad societal problem. None the less, it most certainly would make a significant contribution. I hope that, at the next election, it will be part of my party’s platform on public health issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) was right to call for a debate on the Francis report. I hope we will be granted Government time to debate it. If not, I would certainly join him in an application to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the Floor of the House. We should have the opportunity to bring Ministers here to debate the report.

Before addressing some of the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State, I wish to place on the record my thanks to the staff at my local hospital, St Helier, for all the work they do not just over the winter period when the pressure is undoubtedly at its most acute, but right across the year. Having been in the hospital over the Christmas period singing carols, which hopefully did not discomfort people too much, I saw for myself just how that pressure can build. I also saw how well the staff are perceived by their patients.

I want to register a frustration with the Minister today about something that has been going on in my patch for several years now. For almost as long as I have been an MP, clouds have from time to time gathered over the future of my local hospital. In 2010, the previous Labour Government signed off an outline business case for the rebuild and refurbishment of St Helier’s hospital. That was great news, and a culmination of work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and me. We secured funding from the Government worth some £219 million. Then there was a change of Government; a coalition came in. Given the spending review and the desire to tackle the public borrowing problem, it was far from certain whether that funding would stay in the Budget. Again, the three of us lobbied hard, and we were delighted when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was able to confirm the funding.

However, in the dying days of the primary care trusts, a review was launched of accident and emergency and maternity services in south-west London. It was called Better Services Better Value, but it offered neither. It has been an absolutely crystal clear case study of everything that is bad and wrong about NHS change management. There are some really good examples of change management, stroke care in London being the exemplar. However, we have to refer to that example too often, as there are too few other really good examples of change having been managed well. All too often the public feel left out of such processes, and it is no wonder they mount the barricades to oppose change of which they feel no ownership.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I were repeatedly told during the process by the then chief executive of the primary care trust, Ann Radmore, that the rebuild of St Helier was a fixed point in the whole process. It was not to be touched; it was sacrosanct and the rebuild would happen regardless. I have to say, however, that the events of the past three years have left me feeling betrayed and lied to. As a result of the uncertainty caused by BSBV, three years on—despite GPs having now declared BSBV’s proposals unviable, and having gone back to the drawing board—my local trust and clinical commissioning group are saying they cannot proceed with that £219 million. They lack the will and vision to take it forward, and I hope the Minister can confirm today that the £219 million is still in the Department’s budget lines and that he will encourage my local NHS to work with my local councils and Members of Parliament to bring forward these plans.

The motion moved by the shadow Secretary of State today feels a bit thin, and a little like a re-editing of its previous two incarnations in an attempt to create the sense of a febrile environment of a looming and predicted crisis and calamity that is about to engulf us all. That tactic has been adopted by the Opposition time and again, and time and again it has not been borne out on the ground. The analysis of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is deeply political, and let me give just one example. He lays the blame for delayed discharges principally at the door of budget pressures on social service departments. That is not true. If he looks at the figures, he will see that the bulk of the pressure is caused by delayed discharges in the NHS, not social services. I do not pretend for one moment that there are not parts of the country where social service cuts are impacting on delayed discharges, but the picture is more nuanced and complicated, and I wish the shadow Secretary of State had the courage to say that, rather than repeating a uniformly gloomy picture that is not true.

[Barbara Keeley]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Select Committee on Health’s report on the matter. The data were completely conflicted. Again and again, individuals from the NHS told us that social care was the problem, as Sir Bruce Keogh, whom I quoted earlier, said to me just a few weeks ago. Our report said that NHS England should sort this out. There are figures that the right hon. Gentleman could quote and figures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) could quote, and we should not be confused about this.

[Paul Burstow]

I entirely agree that if there is any doubt about the figures, it needs to be resolved, but there seems to be a disconnect between what people think is happening and what the figures show. I have been to events at which clinicians have said that the problem is the local social services, but when they are shown the figures they are surprised. Perhaps that is why we need, as the hon. Lady says, to ensure that there is an agreed way in which such things are reported, which is what, I think, was put in place by the previous Labour Government. These figures have been collected for a long time, and they have consistently shown that social care is not the principal driver of delayed discharges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Health Committee has held a number of inquiries into urgent and emergency services. The College of Emergency Medicine told us in its evidence that increased demand, combined with a more complex case mix, was the driver that had led to departments struggling to meet the four-hour target. We were told that type 1 emergency departments, which offer a consultant-led 24-hour service with full resuscitation facilities, had

“reached the limits of their compensatory capacity.”

We heard that there were

“more people out of hours, more after midnight, more ambulance and more elderly.”

I checked that with the chief executive of Salford Royal hospital and have checked again in the past 24 hours. He told me that the trends that I first reported in our debate last summer have continued at the hospital. There are now 14 more ambulance arrivals each day—reflecting sicker patients, not self-referrals—which is an increase on last summer. There has been a 13% increase in admissions for stays lasting longer than 72 hours, with a drop in shorter stays, a 31% increase in triages into the hospital’s resuscitation area, and an 11% increase in admissions into critical care. There is now a different mix of patients being admitted. The chief executive, Sir David Dalton, tells me that those trends now appear to be year-round, rather than a purely seasonal impact of winter pressures. He said—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) might touch on this—that Salford Royal is also now experiencing additional pressures from north Trafford patients.

I am concerned that the current crisis in A and E will continue, and indeed worsen, as a result of continued cuts to social care budgets. We have heard a certain amount of complacency from Ministers today about this winter. It has not yet been a hard one, and there is plenty of time for flu pandemics. Sandie Keene, the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, has warned that

“it is absolutely clear that all the ingenuity and skill that we have brought to cushioning vulnerable people as far as possible from the effects of the economic circumstances cannot be stretched any further, and that some of the people we have responsibilities for may be affected by serious reductions in service—with more in the pipeline”.

That is the really worrying point, because we are not even at the end of the cuts we have to make.

As I have said before—I make no apology for mentioning it again—my local authority has already lost £100 million in funding since 2010, and it will lose another £75 million by 2016. It has had to cut its adult social care budget by 20%. This is a crunch year for us, because we have had to change our eligibility criteria from “moderate” to “substantial”, which is a difficult cut to make. About 1,000 people are predicted to lose their council-funded care packages, and another 400 who would have qualified under the “moderate” eligibility criteria will not now do so.

The work to reassess those people is ongoing, but Sir David Dalton tells me that

“following the initial scoping there is clearly a risk of more frequent attendances, increased admissions and a prolonged length of stay for this cohort of patients.”

Salford Royal is having to review the possible increased work load for community nursing teams, especially the district nurses, who the chief executive feels

“may need to pick up increased duties for these patients.”

It is clear that there is a straightforward shift: as those people in Salford lose their care packages, the hospital is having to pick it up.

Nationally, the number of people over 65 receiving publicly funded care has fallen from 1.2 million to fewer than 1 million. All across the country there has been a serious fall in the number of older people receiving publicly funded care. Some of those who have lost that care will fund it themselves, but in other cases the work load will fall on unpaid family carers. We have been warned about that in surveys. Carers UK found that 55% of carers are caring for someone who has been admitted to emergency hospital services in the last three years, and a significant number of them said that additional support could have prevented the emergency admission.

We also know—this is a worry for those who are concerned about carers—that full-time carers are themselves more than twice as likely to be in poor health as people without caring responsibilities. The Care Bill has not yet completed its passage through the House, but it does not do enough to support full-time carers, particularly given the funding situation for social care. Carers are the first line in prevention, so properly identifying and supporting them can prevent an escalation in demand. However, identification of carers is not happening and the Care Bill does not do enough to change that.

Macmillan Cancer Support has found that 70% of carers of people with cancer come into contact with health professionals. GPs and hospital doctors should identify carers and signpost them to information and advice, but in many cases they do not. Many hon. Members will encounter such people in their casework. The Care Bill gives a carer a right to a local authority carer’s assessment, but that is meaningless for a carer who has no contact with a local authority. In fact, 1,000 fewer families this year will have that constant contact with, and support from, their local authority.

Carers UK yesterday published a report on caring and family finances, which found that almost half of carers are cutting back on food and heating and that over half have reported that money worries are starting to take a toll on their health. The report quotes one carer:

“With the cuts I have cut down to eating one meal a day so I can ensure my husband has enough food to keep him well.”

We know that the caring that unpaid carers do saves our economy billions of pounds every year, but we have to face the fact that they are choosing between heating and eating, and in some cases eating only one meal a day. As was noted earlier, there is also the lack of funding to pay for prescriptions. Carers UK has warned—we should take note of this—that if this country’s 6.5 million carers are not supported, we will be pushing them to breaking point. In my authority, for example, if they are left unable to care, they will not be able to go to social care and will have to go straight to the NHS.

We know that the NHS is struggling in the wake of unnecessary reforms that redirected £3 billion from the front line. The cost of living crisis is clearly starting to have an impact. This is cold homes week, and it is estimated that people suffering from the cold costs the NHS an extra £1.36 billion a year, and that figure might continue to rise with fuel bills.

Last Friday I met a couple in their 50s who said that they could afford to have their heating on for only an hour a day—last Friday was absolutely freezing, as Thursday had been. It is interesting to reflect on how we could maintain our health if we could afford to have the heating on for only an hour a day. Since 2010, 145,000 more older people have had to receive hospital treatment for cold-related illnesses and respiratory or circulatory diseases, which is a real worry.

On NHS staffing, the Health Committee inquiry highlighted the fact that only one in five emergency departments have the right level of consultant cover for 16 hours a day. That worrying situation is not set to improve because, despite increased recruitment, very few higher trainee posts in emergency medicine are being filled—156 out of 193 such posts were left unfilled in the latest recruitment round. Even Salford Royal, which is an excellent hospital, is experiencing recruitment difficulties. I understand that it still has 2.3 full-time vacant posts, against the eight consultant posts it should have in emergency medicine. That is a good record compared with 52% of posts that are vacant in most hospitals.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said earlier, the president of the College of Emergency Medicine feels that we are suffering “decision-making paralysis” across the NHS. The college said recently that it felt that its position was akin to that of

“John the Baptist crying in the wilderness”.

It is a great pity that the warnings it made three years ago about understaffing were overlooked while attention was focused on NHS restructuring. I do not think that the recruitment drive the Secretary of State keeps talking about is the answer, because it will not address the high drop-out rate. We have to recognise that the increasing pressure on A and E will remain a strong disincentive to a career in emergency medicine.

In conclusion, the Government’s unnecessary and costly NHS reforms, combined with the swingeing cuts to social care budgets, are responsible for the crisis, and accident and emergency departments have been left to try to pick up the pieces. I support the motion and urge other Members to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for being so concise in his remarks. It is always a pleasure to follow him.

This debate takes place against a background of confusion and contradiction in the NHS. I hope that we will not end up with a national health disservice. We read all the documents and hear all the announcements about efficiency savings, but we still have not heard the lesson that people and patients should be at the heart of the NHS.

Many of the policy makers in the health service who appeared before the Health Committee warned us that there was not much detail in the lead-up to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny and then there was a pause. Not for the first time, the Government rushed to get legislation through without proper scrutiny and without an electoral mandate.

That played into the hands of the people who think that this Government and this country are up for sale to the highest bidder, and that there is no commitment to the people of this country. The Shard is an example. I understand that a number of its floors have been allocated to a private hospital. That is somewhere where pearly kings and queens cannot afford to live—they cannot even afford to go up to see the view.

I am pleased to see a number of my colleagues on the Health Committee in the Chamber. We hear a lot of first-hand evidence. At a time when there are concerns about A and E, the Government seem to be intent on fiddling about with name changes. The NHS Commissioning Board is now known as NHS England. The integration transformation fund is now known as the better care fund. Interestingly, the Chancellor announced in the spending review in July that the £3.8 billion that has been allocated to the integration transformation fund—aka the better care fund—will only be available in 2015-16. However, the problem needs to be addressed now.

That £3.8 billion is not extra money, but money that has been underspent in the NHS over the past few years. The underspend was £2.2 billion in 2013 and £1.4 billion in the previous year. When I asked the Secretary of State on 26 November last year why the underspend was not used for the NHS, he said that I should ask that question of Labour Ministers. I do not know whether he meant that I should do so in 2015. As I pointed out in an aside, which was not picked up by the Official Reporters, I am not a time traveller like Dr Who and was only elected in 2010. The rules of the House say that I should have had a proper response, rather than a dismissive one.

Another issue is that people have been fired and then rehired. One in five of the 19,000 staff who have been given redundancy payments has returned to the NHS. That is more money that has been wasted and that should have been spent on patients. Primary care trusts were disbanded and then re-formed with a different name. Urgent care boards were set up—their name was then changed to working groups—to ensure that there was a forum to replace the PCTs. All of that has strained resources and made staff suffer, without any increase in pay. There is job creation. However, it is not in front-line services, but in the appointment of a chief inspector, which was not suggested by the Francis report, and of assistant chief inspectors. There may well be assistant assistant chief inspectors as well.

The Select Committee heard evidence that the pay policy was significant in enabling the NHS to fill the gap, and NHS England said that, so far, around 25% of efficiency gains had come from pay. Ask A and E doctors who are struggling with working unsocial hours while locums without continuity in patient care are paid more, and they will say, “We need more staff; it is more money wasted on locums and agencies.” Perhaps Ministers should think about golden handcuffs for A and E staff, or the equivalent of an A and E special allowance to recognise the work of those doctors and staff in A and E. That might go some way towards ensuring that we keep them in their place and provide a safe service while doctors are trained. The College of Emergency Medicine has made repeated calls for such measures, and the emergency medicine taskforce made recommendations in 2011, yet we are still waiting for action.

Many Members will know from their own hospitals that patients are suffering from delayed discharge. I have seen that first hand at Manor hospital after the closure of the accident and emergency department at Stafford hospital, where perhaps the relationship with local government is not at the same stage as it is with the local authority in Walsall, for example, and it takes longer to discharge patients. We are still waiting for the £4 million that is needed because we have had to take the strain of the closure at Stafford hospital.

When giving evidence, Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, acknowledged that 20% to 25% of people in hospital should have been discharged. The Secretary of State said that himself, having spoken to chief executives of hospitals with approximately two wards full of people who could be discharged. Our House of Commons Library says there have been £1.8 billion of cuts in social care, but apparently, the boffins at NHS England have not “dissected out” why people are in hospital when they do not need to be there. They are working on it now—that serious work on delayed discharges has apparently only just started, despite there being a problem for some time.

The urgent and emergency care review suggested that there should be emergency centres and major emergency centres. Sir Bruce said that NHS England was still listening to that proposal, but in a contradictory view, the Committee was told in the same evidence session that the clinical commissioning groups and other working groups are organising their networks to ensure that that is the outcome. Worse still, it was admitted that they have no intention of stopping any reconfigurations during that review.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Valerie Vaz]

I am sorry; I have no time. The Secretary of State wants to reconfigure but he does not want a national debate. He gives himself extra powers if he does not like what the courts and local people say. We need that debate. We need to tell people the truth based not on ideology but on fact, because it impacts on the type of medical work undertaken, and on how we train the next generation of doctors, nurses and health care professionals and what specialties there will be.

The Nuffield Trust gave evidence to the Select Committee and said that people have made the easy savings and now they are running out. People’s memories are long. They have paid their taxes and expect the state to look after them when they need it; not to have to show their credit card as soon as they walk into an emergency centre, or a major emergency centre—whatever it will be called. People do not want prime NHS property in the centre of a city to be sold off so that they have to travel further to get to hospitals.

Chaos, confusion, contradiction, and finally, from the Secretary of State an admission. In evidence last December he said that hospitals want to employ another 4,000 nurses compared with a year ago—an admission that 4,000 nurses have gone missing on his watch. The shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), made it clear that he does not want a further top-down reorganisation, and he started the conversation about whole-person care in the 21st century in a speech in January last year. Finally, Margaret Mead the anthropologist said:

“Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world…indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has”

We have in the staff, patients and people of this country a group of citizens who want to save their NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of social care budget changes on the number of accident and emergency attendances.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of social care budget changes on accident and emergency attendances.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Although councils have reduced social care budgets, the evidence suggests that this is not having an impact on the NHS. In fact, the data published by NHS England show that councils are getting better at getting people out of hospital at the appropriate time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

There is always a lot of political smoke around this, but spending has roughly been flat in cash terms according to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services survey and councils are budgeting to spend more this year than they were last year on social care. In addition, we are setting up the integrated care fund of £3.8 billion to better join up health and social care, and that will help to improve the care available to patients as well as reduce pressure on budgets.

[Barbara Keeley]

But Government budget cuts have forced Salford local authority to change its eligibility criteria. For 1,400 people it is going to be zero-day social care, not seven-day social care, and even our excellent Salford Royal hospital is going to struggle when those 1,400 people find that the hospital is the only option for them. Age UK says these cuts make “no financial sense” and are “morally wrong”. When are Health Ministers going to see that point?

[Dr Poulter]

I make two points. First, the eligibility criteria began to change under the previous Government, so it is wrong of the hon. Lady to try to make political points which do not stand up to scrutiny. Secondly, I am disappointed that she is unable to recognise that there is very good integration of health and social care in Salford, in her own constituency. That is a model that we could look at to see how good care can be delivered elsewhere.

Accident and Emergency

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I want to make some progress on this because it was the central point of the shadow Health Secretary’s speech. The reason the 48-hour target was scrapped is very simple: access was getting worse, not better, under that target. On the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, the proportion of people getting an appointment within two days fell, while 25% of people who wanted an appointment more than two days ahead could not get one. They would call wanting an appointment for the following week and be told, “You can only get an appointment by calling less than 48 hours in advance.” But do not take it from me. This morning—

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

We know that rising demand is concentrated in those aged over 85. Cuts in social care budgets are now widely acknowledged as contributory factors in rising admissions, and the Select Committee’s inquiry heard that from witnesses again and again.

Salford city council has made cuts of 20% to its adult social care budget since 2010, given the cuts it has had from the Government. This year, the city council is changing its eligibility from moderate to substantial, and social care staff estimate that the number of people receiving council-funded care will fall this year by 1,000, from 8,500 to 7,500. That is a very big change to happen in one year.

Cuts already made to the NHS locally have also had an impact. We have seen the closure of two walk-in centres, including one in Little Hulton, a deprived area in my constituency that was under-doctored. The walk-in centre was popular and successful. The Minister’s predecessor will have heard my plea about this again and again. The local primary care trust, when we had one, axed the pilot of an active case management scheme for people with long-term conditions. Those things were done under the umbrella of NHS efficiency savings, but they achieve the opposite. More older people will not be receiving council-funded care, and that will have an impact on family carers. We have no walk-in centres and no active case management for people with long-term conditions.

I want to refer briefly to the Carers UK survey of 3,500 carers conducted earlier this year. Some 55% were caring for people who had been admitted to hospital emergency services, with a significant proportion of those carers referring to support that could have prevented those emergency admissions. We have seen exactly the same message in the CQC state of care report.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Salford Royal hospital on its excellent inspection report from the CQC. The hospital was found to demonstrate exceptional leadership qualities at all levels across its staff, but even excellent hospitals such as Salford Royal are now feeling the strain of extra emergency admissions. The chief executive told me that in the winter quarter last year it had 10% more ambulance arrivals, patients were sicker, there was an increase in people staying longer than 72 hours, and there was a significant increase in co-morbidity among the patients. And all that happened before the cuts and loss of council funding of care to 1,000 patients this winter.

I want to touch briefly on the shortage of emergency doctors, which the College of Emergency Medicine has been warning about since 2010. That situation is not going to improve. The fill rate of higher trainee posts has been running at 40% or less since 2010. The latest recruitment round for ST4 trainees filled 37 posts out of 193 vacancies. There is some talk today of increasing the number of vacancies for emergency medicine trainees, but people are voting with their feet. The career pressures in A and E are just too great, and they are putting people off having careers in emergency medicine.

In conclusion, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care since 2010. We are seeing the cuts in our budgets in Salford, and 1,000 people will lose care. That will put pressure on their health and that of their families. The Secretary of State briefly mentioned the integration transformation fund, but there is no new money in that fund—none at all. Health Ministers need to think again about the impact that cuts in social care are having on the NHS. Pooling budgets with the same amount of money in the integration fund will not help. They need to deal with the crisis in A and E staffing and try to make it a career that people want to go into. As the motion states, they need to restore the 48-hour appointment guarantee. I support the motion.

Care Bill [Lords]

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I am delighted to do so, Mr Speaker, and I know that you would think it was legitimate of me to hold the Labour party to account for its decision if it is voting against today’s Bill or declining to support it, as its amendment clearly states.

However, today is a day to rise above party political considerations, as Mr Speaker has just said, and recognise that putting these things right is overwhelmingly in the interests of patients. If the Labour party continues its stubborn refusal to support legislative underpinning for a new chief inspector of hospitals, which is in today’s Bill, how will it ever be able to look patients in the eye again? Perhaps the most shocking thing about Mid Staffs, which is one of the reasons we have so many provisions in the Bill, was not just the individual lapses in care but the fact that they went on for four long years without anything being done about them.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

When problems are uncovered, action must be swift. Robert Francis cited confusion over which part of the regulatory system is responsible for dealing with failing hospitals, so this Bill makes it clear where the buck stops. It is the CQC’s job to identify problems and instigate a new failure regime when it does so. Monitor and the Trust Development Authority will then be able to use powers to intervene in those hospitals, suspending foundation trusts’ freedoms where necessary to ensure that appropriate action is taken. If, after a limited period, a trust has failed significantly to improve, the Bill requires a decision to be taken on whether the trust needs to be put into special administration on quality grounds—and, yes, where necessary, a trust special administrator will be able to look beyond the boundaries of the trust and consider the wider health economy. As we know from Lewisham, that is not easy, but we will betray patients if we do not address failure wherever it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we considered that matter carefully. We decided that the best way forward is to strengthen the professional duty of candour on individual doctors and nurses through their professional codes. After extensive consultation, which was supported by the medical profession, including the British Medical Association, we decided that that was a better way of ensuring that we had the right outcomes and did not create a legalistic culture that could lead to defensive medicine, which would not be in patients’ interests.

If supporting the Francis measures in the Bill is too awkward or embarrassing for Labour Members, can they not see the merits in the parts of the Bill that deal with out-of-hospital care? I am talking about not just vulnerable older people, but carers, for whom we need to do more. We need to do much more to remove the worry that people have about being forced to sell their own home to pay for their care.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I want to make some progress.

At Committee stage, we intend to table amendments to enable the creation of a £3.8 billion better care fund in 2015-16. That represents the first significant step any Government have ever taken to integrate the health and social care systems.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way in a moment, but let me make some progress first.

I commend the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for championing integration, although he chose not to do anything about it when he was in office. How, then, when a Government take steps to do that for the first time, can he possibly justify not supporting it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

Thanks to our reversal of Labour’s 2004 GP contract, vulnerable people over 75 will have an accountable, named GP responsible for making sure they get the wraparound care they require.

The collapse of Southern Cross showed the risks to people’s care when providers fail, so through the Bill we are introducing provisions to help ensure that people do not go without care if their provider fails, even if they pay for their own care. The CQC will monitor the financial position of the most difficult-to-replace providers in England to help local authorities provide continuity of care in a way that minimises anxiety for people receiving care.

We also need to improve the training of health care assistants and social care support workers. For the first time, health care assistants will have a new care certificate to ensure they get training in compassionate care and the Bill allows us to appoint a body to set the standards for that training. That means that the public can be assured that no one will be assigned to give personal care to their loved ones without appropriate training or skills. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is responsible for care and support, will have more to say on those elements of the Bill when he closes the debate and I thank him for his outstanding work on raising standards in that area.

We also need to address the funding of care. At the moment, people fear being saddled with catastrophic costs and even having to sell their home at the worst possible time to pay for their care. The Care Bill significantly reforms the funding of care and support, introducing a duty on local authorities to offer a deferred payments scheme so that people will not be forced to sell their homes in their lifetime to pay for residential care.

We will also introduce a cap on people’s social care costs, raising the means test at which support from the state is made possible and delivering on the recommendation of the independent Dilnot commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I was about to explain that those charges are increasing quite quickly, but first I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who has done so much to raise these issues.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am surprised and disappointed that the Secretary of State would not give way.

My local council, Salford local authority, is one of the many that are reluctantly having to cut their eligibility criteria this year. Salford tried to stick with the moderate level and this is the third year of cuts. The council has lost £100 million over the past three years and it will lose another £75 million before the Bill’s reforms are implemented. That is a 20% cut in adult social care. How can any of the Health Ministers, whose southern local authorities are not affected in the same way, think that our northern councils can afford this?

[Andy Burnham]

Those are the facts. The councils that are still trying to provide support to people with moderate needs are not all, but by and large, Labour councils. They are still trying to do that, but they have lost significantly more per head under this Government than councils elsewhere. The situation is about to get a lot worse, because NHS England will meet tomorrow to consider a major change to the NHS resource allocation formula, which will reduce the weighting given to health inequality and increase the weighting given to age. That will have the effect of taking more money out of Salford and Wigan and giving more money to areas where healthy life expectancy is already the longest. The Government are making it impossible for people who want to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I say again, with all respect to the Chair of the Health Committee, that I was proposing a fundamentally different scheme to that in the Bill. I was proposing a universal all-in scheme, and several steps were put forward to get us to that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that because the Conservative party and those on the Government Front Bench put posters up about that scheme before the last election. Does he remember that? [Interruption.] He nods, right—that was my proposal, but it is not the Government’s proposal, which is different. I proposed various steps to get to my scheme. Is it about time the Government started answering for their proposal, rather than for mine?

[Barbara Keeley]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way, and I guess we ought to move on shortly. There is all this harking back to our policies, but I understand—I was here—that steps were taken towards Labour’s national care service, including the Personal Care at Home Act 2010 that would have helped 400,000 people, not the 100,000 who will be helped by this Bill—if, indeed, it ends up being 100,000. Is my right hon. Friend, like everybody else, totally disappointed with the Government’s lack of ambition to help people?

[Andy Burnham]

I completely agree, and it is unfair that older people have not been given a full picture. People need proper information to plan for the future, and they have not been getting that today. People need the facts. Spin is of absolutely no use to them whatsoever, but that is all that is on offer from this Secretary of State. The truth is that in the end, the Bill will not stop catastrophic care costs that run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, or stop people losing their homes. It will not improve services now as it promises only a vague review of the practice of 15-minute visits, and strips the Care Quality Commission of its responsibility to inspect local authority commissioning, which is often responsible for such things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Care Bill already seems like a wasted opportunity. I worked for four months, alongside right hon. and hon. Members of this House and Members of the other place, on the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Care and Support Bill, and I pay tribute to its members for their work. We now have a Bill that contains some measures that are welcome but others that are seriously flawed.

I will talk first about the burdens the Bill places on local authorities and argue that they must be resourced by the Government. Some people—Ministers or Government Members whose southern local authorities are not being cut in the same way that ours are, for instance—might think that perhaps times are okay, but there could not be a worse time to place extra financial burdens on local authorities. Indeed, the situation for my local authority, Salford city council, will be even bleaker in 2016, the planned date for implementation of the Bill’s reforms. As I said earlier, Salford has already lost £100 million in funding since 2010, and it knows that it will lose another £75 million by 2016. I hope that the Minister is listening—he does not seem to be—because funding for adult social care in Salford has fallen by 20%, from £67 million in 2010 to £53 million this year.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has already alluded to the fact that that is the picture up and down the country. The Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities has said that Stoke-on-Trent has been hit the hardest, but the impact is on constituents across the country.

[Barbara Keeley]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Changing eligibility from “moderate” to “substantial” this year will mean that the number of people in Salford receiving council-funded care packages will fall by 1,000, to 7,500. To give credit to Salford city council—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has already done so—it held off making the eligibility cut until the third year of Government budget cuts, but now it must join the nine out of 10 local authorities setting eligibility at the higher level. I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s earlier claim that they do not have to set it at that level will have sounded very hollow indeed.

Talking of things that sound hollow, the new rights for carers set out in the Bill will sound very hollow to carers in my constituency at a time when many of them are losing the few hours of support they have that give them a break. I want to cite the example of an elderly couple in Salford who have cared for their adult son for over 30 years and who have relied upon respite care for a rest or a break. At the last review of their son’s care package, the respite care element was reduced, which has had a detrimental effect on their physical and mental well-being. They are now not even sure whether they can carry on caring for him. I fear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and I will hear many more such cases as 1,000 people in Salford lose their care packages over the next year.

Many organisations involved in social care have raised fears about the crisis in care and their view that the eligibility level should be set at “moderate”, rather than “substantial.” Over the past five years, the number of people over 65 receiving publicly funded care has fallen from 1.2 million to less than 1 million, and for people aged 18 to 64 it has fallen from £570,000 to £470,000. That is a serious fall in the number of people receiving care. Some of those who have lost publicly funded care have funded the care themselves, but in other cases the care workload will have fallen on unpaid family carers.

The number of unpaid carers caring for more than 50 hours a week has increased by over a quarter in the past 10 years. As my right hon. Friend said, Carers UK has told us that 1 million carers have given up work to care, which costs the Exchequer £1.3 billion a year in extra carer’s allowance and lost tax receipts. I believe that reliance on unpaid family care with those heavier carer workloads might also have an impact on the health of those carers, particularly those caring at the heavier end.

The Government plan to set the national eligibility threshold at “substantial”. The Care and Support Alliance says that this means that 105,000 working age disabled people will be left without the support they need to live independent lives. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and she is right to do so. We focus an awful lot on adult social care and older people, but we need to think about working-age disabled people as well.

[Norman Lamb]

I absolutely respect and appreciate the hon. Lady’s concern for carers; she has campaigned vigorously on their behalf for a very long time. Does she accept, though, that when her party left office, 108 councils set “substantial” as the eligibility criterion for support from local authorities? Do we not all face the same incredibly difficult financial circumstances and have to examine the innovation that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked about? There is not simply a pot of magic money that will appear if ever Labour returns to government.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not agree at all. These cuts are far too swingeing, and there is nowhere else for my local authority, Salford, to go. After 20% cuts, the £100 million loss of funding that we have sustained cannot be found with any amount of innovative thinking. Ministers are now at the point of kidding themselves. I am sure that the Minister, like all his predecessors, goes round the country and is shown all kinds of examples of innovation, but innovation without funding will not work.

The eligibility issue interacts with the cap on care costs. The vast majority of older people will fail to benefit from the £72,000 cap on care costs; it will help only those with the most complex needs. As has been said—we need to keep repeating it—a cap set at £72,000 ignores Andrew Dilnot’s warning that it would work only if it were set at a much lower level and if the underfunding of social care were addressed. It is clear from the Government’s own impact assessments that the number of people whose costs will be capped are a tiny minority. It is estimated that just over one in 200 people aged over 65 will be helped in 2016 and that fewer than one in 200 will be by 2026. It is an incredibly sad reflection of this Government’s ambition that they will have spent the whole of a five-year Parliament—in fact, longer than a five-year Parliament—introducing measures on the long-term funding of social care that eventually help only one in 200 people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles talked about being ambitious; this is not ambition.

On the support needs of carers, I will repeat some of the things that we heard from the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). Full-time carers are more than twice as likely to be in poor health as people without caring responsibilities. I point out to the Minister that this Bill does not do enough to support those full-time carers. The Government have said that carers are the first line of prevention in that properly identifying and supporting them prevents the escalation of demand on statutory services. Given the A and E crisis, we need that prevention. However, identification of carers is not happening and the Bill does not do enough to change that. Macmillan Cancer Support, which has been carrying out surveys on this, tells us that 70% of carers of people with cancer come into contact with health professionals, who are the people who should be identifying them and signposting them for information and advice. Only 5% of that group of carers receive a carers assessment, and only one in three of those surveyed by Macmillan had even heard of a carers assessment. It is meaningless to suggest to people that they have a right to something they have never heard of and are not going to get.

In Salford, we have a project run by the Carers Trust centre to identify carers within the primary care system. I want to pay tribute to the work that the centre does and to mention its manager, Dawn O’Rooke, who is leaving this month after several years of work in this field. Over the years, the project has established a network of links within GP practices to identify carers. Last year, GPs made only 300 referrals to the carers centre, yet we have 23,000 carers in Salford, over 5,000 of whom will be caring at the heaviest levels. The Carers Trust tells us that, nationally, GP practices are identifying only about 3% of carers, but it should be 10% or more. Health bodies must be required—this Bill is the place to do it—to take on the task of identifying carers and referring them for advice and support, because carers are mainly seen in health settings and not by local authorities. The figures I gave about people losing packages mean that 1,000 fewer people in Salford will be seen by, or go anywhere near, the local authority because the person they care for is not getting a care package.

The Minister is aware of my private Member’s Bill, the Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill, which had clauses to tackle that issue. I am happy to show them to him again and explain how he could go about tackling the issue in his Bill. The clauses would ensure that NHS bodies have procedures in place to identify carers and ensure they receive information and advice. The Government’s own care and support White Paper stated that there is

“still an unacceptable variation in access to tailored support for carers”

and that NHS organisations should

“work with their local authority partners...to agree plans and budgets”.

The right hon. Member for Banbury made that point. Why are there not more robust measures in the Care Bill to make sure that this happens? As things stand, it will not happen. The NHS has been going through an agony of reorganisation and is now going through an agony of finding efficiency savings, and its staff do not have the time, unless they are directed to the right procedures, to take this task on.

As has rightly been said, clause 2, with its requirements for local authorities to provide preventive services, makes no explicit mention of the NHS, and the only duty on NHS bodies is one of co-operation. Anyone who has tried to work in local authorities on co-operation with health bodies, as I did years ago, knows that it does not go anywhere when there is no budget and no duty. Without effective procedures and systems within health bodies, the identification and signposting of carers will stay as it is now—patchy and inconsistent. It is questionable whether cash-strapped local authorities will be able to assess the needs of large numbers of carers alongside giving information and advice to self-funders and doing a lot more assessments. They will not be able to do that in any way that makes it a worthwhile exercise for carers, and carers will not bother with it if it is not doing anything for them. Indeed, the Joint Committee on the draft Bill received many comments via its web forum from people who said that local authority assessments are of little practical help in their caring role.

GPs and other health professionals are best placed to help carers when they start caring, which is when they most urgently need help and advice. During carers week here, I met carers who told me about a whole variety of things that they needed help with but nobody helped them. Nobody told them that there were schemes to help them with the cost of parking at the hospital. One mother had to buy a hospital bed and nobody told her where to find one; she was looking for one on eBay. She had no advice and support on that whatsoever. GPs deal with dementia patients, stroke patients and patients with cancer. The GP and primary health care team is best placed to establish whether there is an unpaid family carer or whether they live in another town or city. The GP can then refer them to sources of advice and support and, if they are local, give them regular health checks. A new duty on the NHS professionals is the only thing that would make it easier for social care and health services to work together to support carers. I believe that that is wanted by Members in all parts of the House.

Given everything that we are talking about, carers are clearly being placed under ever greater strains. It is essential that the Bill is used to ensure that carers are identified and signposted towards the support they need. It is clear from all the statistics that unpaid carers are the most vital providers of care in this country. I urge Ministers not to miss this chance to improve the support that we give them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I want to echo the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears): we must keep the dignity and well-being of those who need care and, indeed, their carers at the forefront of our thinking in this debate and as we seek to implement the Bill.

Like the right hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made a very interesting speech. I thank her for her service on the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. I had the pleasure to chair that Committee, which had a very strong team from both Houses. It made some recommendations to which I will return in a minute.

What struck me during the speech from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is that if so much in the Bill appears to be wrong, surely he should have the courage of his convictions and go through the Lobby to oppose it. There is apparently so much awful stuff in it—so much of it is inadequate, does not reach far enough or does not do enough, or if it does enough, there will not be enough money—that the Opposition should perhaps have the courage of their convictions.

At the same time, we have heard really interesting examples of where social care should be celebrated. Too many speeches have suggested that the picture of what is being done on the ground is uniformly bleak, but examples have been given of dementia-friendly communities, Unlimited Potential and the “garden needs” scheme in Salford. Those are just a few examples, and I am sure that every hon. Member could go back to their constituency and find such initiatives. Many of the initiatives do not require substantial resources because, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) just said, they can lever in additional resources by enabling communities to respond to need. That is an essential part of the Bill.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Burstow]

I give way to the hon. Lady because she tried to intervene first.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is about a year since the right hon. Gentleman and I started four months’ work on the Joint Committee, and I was prepared to commit that time although I still find some aspects of the Bill disappointing. The reality of our situation in Salford now and over the next year is that—week in, week out—I, as a local MP, will find that people and their carers have lost care packages. I invite him to think about the situation of the very many MPs who now see the heart-breaking decisions that families face when they suddenly find themselves without care, respite care or support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Today’s debate has been about one of the most important issues facing Britain today: how we care for the increasing number of older and disabled people. The Care Bill is the result of the Law Commission’s review of adult social care legislation, which was initiated by the previous Government. The Opposition welcome the Bill’s emphasis on prevention, promoting well-being and new rights for users and carers.

I want to pay tribute to the work that has already been done to improve the Bill by members of the Joint Committee on the draft Care and Support Bill and by Members of the other place. It now promotes the integration of care and support with health and housing, which is really important, and requires local councils and the NHS to work together in relation to the needs of young carers and, in that regard, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), in particular, for her tireless efforts.

The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), and my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Worsley and Eccles South all spoke about further changes that should be made to the Bill, for example to ensure that NHS staff identify carers, to support parent carers, to improve the safeguarding of people in social care, to improve the assessment process and advocacy, to ensure an effective transition of support from childhood to adulthood, to transform end-of-life care and to deal with portability, particularly of community care packages, in the devolved Administrations. I am sure that we will return to those issues in Committee.

The main concern, raised repeatedly by hon. Members today, is that the Bill does not address the fundamental issue facing elderly and disabled people and their families or put in place the really bold reforms we need to tackle the growing care crisis in England. It is true that council care budgets have been under pressure for many years, but this Government’s decision to impose the biggest reduction in any Department on local councils has the pushed care services that hundreds of thousands of people rely on to “the brink of collapse”—not my words, but those of Age UK.

Adult social care budgets have been cut by £2.7 billion under this Government. The result is that fewer people are getting the care they desperately need, particularly at home, which is the key issue for the future, as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) pointed out. Frail, elderly people are receiving home visits that last barely 15 minutes, or in some cases only five or 10 minutes, as we have heard. Disabled people are being trapped in their homes, denied the basic opportunities to work, train, volunteer or have a social life that other people take for granted, a point powerfully made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). Paid care staff on zero-hours contracts are not even earning the minimum wage, let alone a living wage, and unpaid family carers have been left struggling without the help they need to look after their loved ones, which means that their own health suffers, too. At the same time, more people are being charged more for vital services such as home visits and meals on wheels, which are up by £740 a year since the election.

Reducing care budgets by that scale hurts some of the most vulnerable people in society. It is also a false economy, because as more elderly people do not get the help they need to stay at home, they are ending up in hospital in increasing numbers, which costs the taxpayer far more. Delayed discharges from hospital have soared by 42% since the election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) rightly said. Delayed discharges have costs taxpayers £225 million this year. That could have paid for almost 17 million hours of home care. It is spending money in the wrong place in a way that is not good for the people using the services and does not provide value for money.

Families are also paying the price. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, one in three carers now has to give up work or reduce their hours because they cannot get the help they need to look after their loved ones, and this costs the Treasury £1 billion in lost tax revenues alone. The Bill will not solve these problems. The new rights it contains and the new focus that it places on prevention and well-being risk being meaningless as care budgets are reduced to the bone.

Nor are the Government being straight with people about their plans to reform long-term care funding in future. Any measures that protect people from catastrophic care costs are welcome, but Ministers have not spelled out the reality of their plans. They have repeatedly claimed that no one will have to pay more than £72,000 for their care, but this is not the case. People’s care costs will start to count towards the so-called cap only if they are assessed as having eligible care needs. Nine out of 10 councils provide care only for those with “substantial” or “critical” needs. If someone needs help to stay living at home but their council assesses their needs as “low” or “moderate”, what they pay for home visits will not count towards the cap.

With regard to residential care, the cap will not be based on what someone actually pays for their home care but on the standard rate paid by their local council. I see that the Secretary of State is being informed by the Minister about the reality of these plans, so I hope that he listens to more of my speech. The standard rate paid by local councils is currently, on average, about £470 a week. Government Members, as well as Labour Members, will know that many of their constituents pay far more than £470 a week for their care home, but these extra costs will not count towards the so-called cap. People will also, rightly, have to contribute towards their hotel and accommodation costs. The Government are setting this contribution at £230 a week—much higher than Andrew Dilnot recommended—and these costs will not count towards the cap either. Taking both those factors into account, it will take elderly people almost five years, on average, to hit the so-called cap, during which time they will have clocked up, on average, £150,000 for their care home bill, and much more in many cases. Because elderly people stay in a care home for about two and a half years, on average, six out of seven people will be dead before they hit the cap.

Ministers have repeatedly claimed that people will not have to sell their homes to pay for their care; again, this is not the case. The Bill puts a duty on councils to offer deferred payment schemes—care loans that will have to be paid back by selling the family home after the person has died. The loans will not be universally available, as Andrew Dilnot recommended, but means-tested. Interest will be charged on the loans, but that interest will not count towards the cap. Although the Government are raising the upper level of the means test, that will not help many pensioners on average incomes because of how the test works, whereby councils take a notional income from the remaining assets in a person’s house and add it to what they get from their pension and any savings or second pension. For many pensioners on average incomes, this combined total will take them over what their local council will pay for care, and they will therefore not qualify for any extra support.

Elderly people and their families deserve to be told the facts about the Government’s plans so that they can properly plan for the future rather than have Ministers attempt to pull the wool over their eyes. One of the main claims made by the Prime Minister about the Government’s reforms is that they are so clear and straightforward that lots of insurance products will emerge so that people can insure themselves to pay for their care in future. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister how many of these new insurance products have emerged so far.

[Barbara Keeley]

I chair the all-party group on social care and when the Dilnot recommendations were made we implored the Government to have a national debate so that all the issues my hon. Friend is raising so well could be explored. Judging by the look on the Secretary of State’s face, he needs to be given some of that information, too, so perhaps we need a national roadshow on what his Bill will actually do.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend makes her points diplomatically. It is only owing to the efforts of Members in the other place that the Bill includes a requirement for councils to provide people with clear information. These are huge issues for elderly people and their families. We are asking the Government to be straight and I hope that when the Minister responds he will confirm what I have been saying.

On top of everything—I hope the Minister will also address this—we learned in June that the Government will top-slice £335 million from existing council budgets to pay for the start-up costs of the new scheme in 2015-16. They propose to take money from existing users who are already desperately struggling to pay for reforms that will benefit a small number of future care users in five, six or seven years’ time. I think that many people will be astonished, particularly after the Government had claimed that all the additional costs for their proposals would come from elsewhere. I hope the Minister will explain whether I am correct in saying that that £335 million will be top-sliced from council budgets.

Labour Members will continue to focus on the reality of this Government’s actions, not on their rhetoric, and we will continue to expose their true record on the NHS and social care. Instead of making the real reforms needed to improve front-line services, they have wasted three years and £3 billion on a back-room NHS reorganisation that nobody wanted and that nobody voted for. Instead of working with clinicians and patients to make difficult decisions on the future of hospital services, they now want to give the Health Secretary unprecedented powers to impose changes without the consent of local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, the Government are taking away control from the very people to whom they pretend they want to give power. Indeed, National Voices—the voice of patients—says that the proposal is

“wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice”.

Instead of championing the full integration of health and social care to enable a powerful shift towards prevention and fully personalised care, as Labour proposes, the Government’s unambitious proposals bring together only 3% of the total NHS and social care spending. Instead of holding serious cross-party talks on long-term care funding reform, the Government chose to go it alone, water down Dilnot’s proposals and spin the results beyond recognition. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment and why I urge hon. Members to join us in the voting Lobby tonight.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I thank everyone who has taken part in what has been a lively and interesting debate on a subject of the utmost importance for the future and for many very vulnerable people in our country. I absolutely share the view of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), on that. Incidentally, I also share her view that it is not possible to get great care on the back of exploiting low-paid workers. We have been very clear about that.

I do not anticipate having time to be able to respond to every point that has been raised—there were many excellent contributions—but I will write to hon. Members who participated in the debate so that everyone will get a full and proper response, including on the cross-border issues raised by the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) among others.

The effect of passing the reasoned amendment would be to defeat the Bill, which is why the Government are so dismayed by the decision taken by the Labour party on what we regard as a Bill that will be groundbreaking in its overall impact. It seeks to modernise the law on care and support, shifting the focus from a very paternalistic system to one that is acutely personal and focused on an individual’s well-being. The Chair of the Health Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) both focused on the important principle of well-being, which will be new in legislation, but is absolutely central to what we seek to achieve. There is also a focus on preventing ill health and—

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I will just finish this point.

There is also a focus on protecting everyone from catastrophic care costs, ensuring that people will no longer have to sell their homes during their lifetimes to pay for care. The Bill reforms a fundamentally unfair system, drives up standards in GP surgeries, hospitals and care homes through the new chief inspectors, adds a new statutory duty of candour so that hospitals, care homes and other care providers are open with patients when mistakes are made, and introduces valuable new rights to carers. Of enormous significance is that it signals the first ever big step, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, towards joining up our health and care systems through the better care fund, which is worth £3.8 billion.

The best description of the Bill was in a letter forwarded to me by a Labour MP, which said that the Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that has the potential to make a big difference for older people. Despite that, the Labour party is declining to give it its support.

[Hazel Blears]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears).

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I note the challenge, but I have been passionate about integrating care for many years. I made the case for it on many occasions when I was my party’s spokesman in opposition, and I remember not getting much of a response from the right hon. Lady’s party when it was in government. The Bill is really ambitious and marks the potential for a fundamental change in how our system works.

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) welcomed the principles of the Bill and rightly said that it is the duty of the Opposition to challenge and to probe. However, to use her expression, I think that many Opposition Members have been “churlish” in their response, with a few honourable exceptions, including the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I say that because in 13 years, Labour had two manifesto commitments, one royal commission, another promised commission, a Select Committee report, a White Paper, a Green Paper and numerous independent reviews on the issue, and what was the net result of all that talk? Absolutely nothing. In 1997, Tony Blair told the Labour party conference:

“I don’t want our children brought up in a country where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home.”

That is exactly what happened throughout Labour’s time in government. In contrast, the coalition Government are getting on with reform.

Even now, we have no idea what the Opposition’s policy is. The shadow Health Secretary has hinted that he prefers an all-in approach—everything free, paid for by new taxes on death and by cutting hospital beds—but he has clearly failed to persuade his own colleagues about the plan or to set out how he would pay for it. Opposition Members’ criticisms can only be of any real value if they can answer the question about how they would pay for anything that costs more. So it was good to hear the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who seemed to be about the only Opposition Member who recognised the scale of the challenge that we face, whoever is in power, and the fact that we need to think afresh about where money can come from. Her ideas about innovation using social investment bonds are welcome, and I would like to talk further to her about them.

We want to reshape care and support so that it is focused on enabling people to live more independent lives and giving them a good life. The Bill provides a new framework that places people’s well-being right at the centre and empowers them to take control of their care and support. It consolidates 60 years of legislation and pulls a dozen Acts together into a single legal framework, and it has been roundly welcomed. The King’s Fund has said:

“The government’s proposals for funding reform are an important achievement against the odds in a daunting fiscal and economic climate.”

Baroness Pitkeathley of Carers UK has described the Bill as the “most significant development” in the history of the carers movement.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I did not get much of an impression of that in the hon. Lady’s contribution, but I give way to her.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Minister for eventually giving way. I am surprised and disappointed that he is repeating the same type of inaccurate information that we heard from the Secretary of State earlier. Will he think about the point that I made in my speech? How hollow is it to talk to carers in Salford, 1,000 of whom are involved in families who are losing their care packages, about new rights? What rights are there for someone whose family member has lost their care package? That is what people face this year.

The Minister has also just repeated the ridiculous notion of the £3.8 billion for the integration of health care. That is not new money. It includes care—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

The Care Bill will introduce a right to an assessment for all carers, which I think is an incredibly important advance for them. We are also giving money—£1.5 million—to the Royal College of General Practitioners and other bodies, including nursing bodies, to raise awareness of the vital role of carers in working with GPs to improve the care of those who need it.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I think the Minister is missing the point, though, in that carers of people with cancer do not have contact with local authorities. Macmillan Cancer Support found that half of those carers are not getting any support at all and do not know where to go for it. They do have contact, however, with GPs and hospital doctors, so what is the Minister going to do to make sure that GPs and hospital doctors identify carers and make sure that they get that support and advice?

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on those pressures. We have been thinking about this very hard. Over the summer we announced £250 million to be distributed to the 53 A and E economies where the most difficulty is being experienced in meeting high standards for the public, and we are doing more. We are talking to the College of Emergency Medicine. Anything that my hon. Friend can do at a local level will be greatly appreciated. This is going to be a difficult winter and we need to stand full square behind our front-line staff.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State just said that Salford Royal hospital is one of the best hospitals in the country and we should learn from what it does. What it does is support minimum safe staffing levels for patients and then publish the actual-versus-planned staffing levels on the wards every day. Staffing levels published on websites is a little step forward, but it is not enough. Why do we not learn from what Salford Royal does? I do not think that patients and their families are interested in what the staffing levels were a month ago; they are interested in what they are today.

[Mr Hunt]

We have based our recommendation today precisely on what Salford Royal does. It uses the kind of model to ensure minimum recommended staffing levels on every ward that we want every hospital to use. We say that we want those data published monthly, but that is a minimum. Salford Royal publishes them every day, which is very impressive. Given that most hospitals are not using tools anything like as sophisticated as that, it will be a big step up for most hospitals to do that. We want to do it. What is significant about our announcement is that we want to assemble those data for every trust in the country so that they can be compared on a monthly basis and so that people can know how many wards and how many shifts are being safely staffed at their local hospital compared with neighbouring hospitals.