Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself in something of a dilemma because I have already said that I am very anxious about the role foreseen for care home managers in this Bill. I am also getting the heebie-jeebies about how we are criticising the Bill because of how we have got here in the first place. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have already mentioned that we are here because at the moment we have a bad piece of legislation; it is not being implemented appropriately because we cannot afford it. The Law Commission, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice have tried to bring forward a piece of legislation that makes it a lot simpler.

We are used to having conflicts of interest in public sector services. Every time a GP refers somebody for a hospital appointment or surgery or prescribes expensive medication they have a financial conflict of interest, but we live with that because of the way that the system works. We are used to it—we take account of it day by day.

I am not going to oppose these amendments but we have to say to ourselves that the care home manager is there and we know that the local authority has not got the resources. Would it work better if we could give care home managers proper training? I do not know, but I know that we must at every stage think very carefully about the alternatives that we propose instead of the departmental proposals. We have to make the process simpler. We have to reduce the numbers of people who are subject to it. Perhaps if we reduced the number of people subject to it, we could put in place these better arrangements. Maybe then we can take out the care home manager. Until we do so I still have this great anxiety that we have not come up with an alternative that will really work.

Although I share the anxieties about how care home managers will discharge this responsibility, I have some anxieties about the alternatives. We have to make the process simpler and more affordable. I neither support nor oppose these amendments. We need to give some very careful thought to making sure that we do not end up with a more complex and difficult process than is implementable and affordable.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I was not planning on speaking to this amendment at all. I am certainly not an expert on the Mental Capacity Act, but it was suggested to me by BASW that the Bill will cover people in domestic situations. It questions whether those people could be taken out of the Bill. I very much follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that it might be a good thing to do something really well for people in institutions while maybe avoiding duplication for people in domestic situations. There is the safeguarding procedure, which, as has been suggested by my medic daughters, is already incredibly bureaucratic, but I will leave that to one side for the moment. If at least the people in domestic settings were left to be assessed by the safeguarding system, that would achieve something and reduce the number of people covered by the Bill. This is particularly true because, as we go along, more and more people will be looked after in domestic settings rather than in care homes.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is our job to look at how things will and will not work and what the alternatives are. The noble Baroness takes a perfectly legitimate position that says, “If this won’t work, what will?” In a way, that underlines a lot of the discussions we have been having in this House: we need some time to discuss this Bill and we have not been able to have that.

My name is to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt. We are questioning the ability of the care home manager to be able to do this at all. The words that have been used to us by the stakeholders—we have now talked to dozens of stakeholders in the last month or so—are “capability” and “capacity” of care home managers. Professionals question the capability and local government and other institutions question the capacity. Those words are being used constantly while we discuss this issue.

It is also worth mentioning the voice of the care home managers themselves, which is starting to emerge. We recently had a briefing from a large group of care home managers who feel that they are not qualified to take on this role or to carry out assessments and that the administrative burden they could carry could mean that they will not have the capacity to take on the extra work to carry out liberty protection safeguard assessments.

There is some confusion here with what the Minister said during the first day in Committee and in the letter he wrote to us all following Second Reading. I admit that I am confused as to whether we are talking about initiating and carrying out assessments and what the powers of the care home managers are. It seems that the Bill team and the Minister have given us several different descriptions of what those roles might be. That has not helped our consideration of our concerns.

Mencap has stated that it believes that the views of the cared-for person have to be at the heart of this part of the Bill and that it should be refocused accordingly. The comments made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suggest that that has not yet been achieved, and that the role of the care home manager makes it less rather than more likely. That has been said to us not just by Mencap but by many stakeholders. They are concerned that the cared-for person is not at the heart of the Bill. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether the Government have got this aspect of the Bill right and whether they need to find a different way of delivering it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I again refer noble Lords to my interests in the register. I am revisiting an area that we covered at Second Reading. Many of the issues we have been discussing, as we have just discovered, weave in and out of my comments, but this is about the appropriateness of the care home manager to carry out pre-authorisation reviews.

I should make it clear, given previous comments, that I recognise that DoLS needs replacing and that, in finding that replacement model, professionalism and expertise are important. This is not a personal, solo crusade—I do not fail to understand what a manger of a care home does and I recognise their professionalism in doing it. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, had it spot on when—it seems like hours ago—she used the description that they had used to her around the concerns about their capability and capacity.

Many of us have been supportive of this Bill, with briefings from and meetings with household-name charities, providers, royal colleges, academics, lawyers and interest groups. The two amendments in my name were drafted by a charity whose reputation for policy on older people is respected and admired—Age UK. It has several concerns about areas of the Bill and would welcome a meeting with the Minister to discuss them.

The cared for person’s interests are central to the Care Act, and I am delighted that the Government will bring forward amendments which will allow the voice of the cared-for person to be heard in this process, including 16 and 17 year-olds, and will do away with the term “unsound mind”. I join with all noble Lords in that.

At Second Reading, conflicts of interest were debated and we agreed that the cared for person’s interests must come first. However, this could be at odds with the care manager’s duty to keep their care home viable. Vulnerable people are at the heart of the Bill and how they are reviewed at a critical point in their care—the pre-authorisation review—sets the tone of the professionalism within their care. These reviews should be carried out by a trained professional—an AMCP—but, as currently drafted, only those objecting to the proposed arrangements will be provided with an AMCP. Generally, care home managers have not received professional training other than in running a care home—as the Minister mentioned, they may well have had that kind of training—and if they have, I would have no objection whatever to them carrying out the review.

However, many AMCPs have a first degree—possibly a masters—and professional training, with regular supervision and refreshers, and, whether they are social workers, mental health nurses, OTs or clinical psychologists, all will have the professional ethos and expertise instilled into them in their daily working. It is what they do. The proposed half-day familiarisation course does not really measure up.

This amendment will also protect the care home manager from accusations of conflict of interests or vested interests. It was a manager who made that point to me. I had not thought of it because I was looking at the issue from the point of view of managers considering their care home to be a business that needs to operate at 99% capacity for it to be effective. Managers have said that they would welcome an amendment similar to this one because it would give them some sort of cover. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that, in mental health legislation, an assessment made in a private setting must be carried out by an independent assessor. This amendment does not break new ground or indeed set a precedent.

While we are on the issue of finance, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, repeated a concern expressed in the sector about the costs of assessments and reviews being added to the bills of self-funders, which might be seen as a licence to print money. We know already that some care homes are charging £250 for a referral, but an assessment is a much more complicated piece of work and might well cost £1,000. People in the sector are concerned about this. Fee levels are not regulated, so I wonder whether the Minister could take the issue away and look at it. I welcome his willingness to listen and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for tabling this amendment and I will add a few comments to those she has made. In my view, all pre-authorisation reviews should be undertaken by a professional who really understands the assessment of capacity. I accept that the amendment goes further than the Law Commission recommended, but it is not clear that the commission envisaged care home managers undertaking or being responsible for assessments and pre-authorisation reviews.

The whole point is that too often it is just assumed by everyone that somebody with limited capacity does not have a view or that they are content. Also, the person may not even have adequate information on which to base a view or make a comment. They may therefore not feel able to make an objection. It is not reasonable to expect care home managers to know about all the alternative and possibly less restrictive options available; why would they? As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, argued, the care home manager has a job to do in keeping costs down and filling beds.

It is not a criticism of care home managers to suggest that independent scrutiny is essential in all cases to ensure that those imperatives do not lead to an understandable failure to focus on the needs of the individual. Again, we should not expect care home managers to put the interests of the individual ahead of their business imperatives. I understand that many care homes close because they cannot cover their costs. They are desperate to fill their beds, and that is going to take priority. We just have to respect that that is simply how life is.

In the letter from the department to noble Lords dated 24 July following Second Reading, the Minister said that the local authority would undertake the authorisation itself, thus providing independent scrutiny and oversight. I think that the Minister will recognise, however, that if no concerns are raised during the pre-authorisation review, the local authority will be in a very poor position to question the conclusion of the care home manager. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggested that there might be a form of to and fro between the local authority and the care home manager, but I am not sure how meaningful that can be when all the work and the pre-authorisation review has been done. Given that, I would have thought that the local authority would just not be able to get at it.

Another concern is that it is in the gift of the care home manager to identify whether a person would benefit from advocacy. It seems that most of these people will, but the current proposals are unclear about who will pay for the advocate. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that issue.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, this group is all about training the professionals referred to in the Bill for the new world. I completely support the amendments from my noble friend Lady Barker and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. They fit well together. As a group of amendments they cover many training bases. Under the Bill, care home managers will be required to undertake assessments currently conducted by the responsible body, such as the local authority, the NHS or the CCG. While some care home managers and staff will possess a significant knowledge of procedures, the fact that they will now be required to carry out an assessment of whether somebody’s liberty is being lawfully deprived and is in the person’s best interests will require a much deeper level of qualification and understanding.

At present there are no fewer than six assessments for a DoLS application: age assessments, no refusals assessments, mental capacity assessments, mental health assessments, eligibility assessment and best interests assessments. For care home managers to be able to conduct these assessments to replace the DoLS scheme, they will need the appropriate qualification. In considering what is requisite to become best interests assessors, social workers must complete specific and complex training in addition to their university education. We wish to avoid the inadvertent authorisation of care and treatment arrangements that do not comply with the Mental Capacity Act, so training must include in-depth consideration of that Act and be of a depth that reflects the existing training of best interests assessors.

Other professional training has its roots in secondary legislation in the same way as outlined in the amendment, so we believe it is totally appropriate that training for care home managers in this regard should follow the same pattern. However the Bill ends up, training will be required. I would welcome an indication from the Minister about current plans for training individuals referred to in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 91, to which I have added my name. There is concern out in the field that care home managers will not be in a position to identify who will undertake the assessments under the Bill. It is not clear what training will be required for assessors. In his earlier comments, the Minister alluded to best interests assessors becoming the assessors under the Bill, but can he confirm exactly who will be undertaking the assessments? Only then can we be clear about what training they need.

The Minister also seemed to give the House an assurance that care home managers would not undertake pre-authorisation reviews. Again, could he confirm that and explain exactly who will undertake the pre-authorisation reviews? Again, the training of these people will depend absolutely on what their role is.

The 2008 regulations define who can undertake assessments. An assessor must be a qualified social worker, psychologist, nurse or occupational therapist. Also specified is precisely what training and testing the deprivation of liberty assessors have to undergo. Even though they are professionals and are required to have two years of experience in their profession, the deprivation of liberty training is also very precise. We need to know the extent to which the professionalism of the present system will be replicated.

The aim of the Bill is to streamline the process for authorising the deprivation of liberty. Any streamlining has to be thoroughly welcomed. I mentioned one idea of the British Association of Social Workers for streamlining. It has another interesting idea: that some streamlining could be achieved if the existing practice frameworks for care assessments and the Mental Capacity Act assessments were combined. The result would be that a trained professional undertook the deprivation of liberty assessments in the course of their other assessment work rather than having separate people. It would require revision of the codes of practice for the Mental Capacity Act and the Care Act, but it could be a useful way forward. Can the Minister explain whether this option has been considered? If not, would he be willing be to meet the British Association of Social Workers, and possibly me, to explore whether it has merit?

At present, we are clear neither about the roles of different people—assessors and pre-authorisation reviewers—nor about what their training might and should be. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify some of these things.

[Baroness Hollins]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for my Amendment 91, which calls for a comprehensive training strategy to be published to accompany the Act. The amendment comes about in part because little has been said of the training that those in the care sector will receive and on whether they will be resourced to undertake it.

The impact assessment estimates that care home managers will need only half a day’s “familiarisation” regarding the new regime. Given my own difficulties in understanding the Government’s intention despite spending considerably more than half a day reading and researching it and attending many briefings—many of this during recess—I doubt that half a day would be enough.

One reason for the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act being slow is that health and care professionals probably did not receive enough training effectively to embed the Act in practice. This Bill extends liberty protection arrangements to a much larger group of people, including those living in the community. My concerns in this group of amendments, as in previous groups today, focus on the needs of people with learning disabilities and their families, who make up the second largest group of people who will be affected by these changes—in care homes, in hospitals and in the community. Many of them may have been in receipt of such care for a long time, so we are talking not about a sudden referral for care but something which has been long established and where their current deprivation of liberty may be coming to attention now.

Despite this, the impact assessment does not put a figure on the number of people with learning disabilities who will be affected and thus the number of people in a rather wider range of settings who may need training—I may be wrong about this, but I could not see that.

Any training strategy must also consider ongoing training needs and how they will be resourced. We know that the sector is stretched to breaking point, so any additional, unfunded responsibilities will undoubtedly be keenly felt. The training will also need to address the current power imbalance where people with learning disabilities and family voices are often ignored. The fear is that training will be unable to change this culture and that the power imbalance could become worse when care home and hospital managers are able to choose whom they consult. So there is a real concern about the culture.

For this reason and others, my amendment recommends that vulnerable individuals and their families be included in developing and delivering the training. Having co-delivered training for health professionals together with people with learning disabilities and families, I know what a difference this makes in bringing pertinent issues to life for those being trained. If the wishes and feelings of cared-for people are to be at the heart of the system, they must be consulted and involved in the training. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on this and for explanations to noble Lords about how those responsible in the sector will be trained and the resources made available.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. My concern is that a failure to meet the person directly might lead to a desk-based review, which would not enable the necessary scrutiny of the appropriateness of the care arrangements.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to which I have added my name. These amendments strengthen the human rights-based duties of the approved mental capacity professional.

As it stands, the Bill weakens considerably the abilities of a person or their family or friends to exercise the convention right, under Article 5.4, of any detained person to take their case speedily to court. I think that all noble Lords understand perfectly well how this has come about. Paragraph 36 of Schedule 1 seems to indicate that an IMCA will be appointed only if the care home manager gives the relevant notification. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify in what circumstances an independent mental capacity advocate would not be appointed under the new system.

At Second Reading, I raised my concern that the Bill was going ahead before we knew the outcome of the Mental Health Act review. The Law Commission urges the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals to review the question of the appropriate judicial body to determine challenges to authorisations of deprivation of liberty under the Bill. The Law Commission also urges the establishment of a single legislative scheme governing non-consensual care or treatment of both physical and mental disorders where there is a lack of capacity.

At that point I have to delete chunks of my speech, having just had a meeting with Sir Simon Wessely, head of the Mental Health Act review, and Judge Mark Hedley, a former head of the Family Division, who knows all about mental capacity and everything associated with it. The Mental Health Act review will recommend that there should not be a bringing together of the Mental Health Act and this legislation. Therefore, I hereby withdraw my concern expressed at Second Reading.

As I said, following that meeting, I have deleted chunks of my speech, and I am not quite sure where I can pick it up again. Basically, they agreed with me—we agree about everything, in fact—that appeal to a court should be an absolute last resort. It goes without saying that court cases are incredibly time-consuming, stressful and expensive. It has to be seen as a failure of the system if recourse to a judge is needed. I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that, as far as humanly possible, we need to focus all the resources we can on the care of individuals, whether in the community or elsewhere.

We know that, if a court demands reports, the care of the patient has to come second to those reports being produced. This comes at a time when 10% of psychiatrists’ posts are not filled and vast numbers of all doctors’ and nurses’ posts are not filled, and it is proving more and more difficult to recruit—we will not mention the reason why. It seems to me, following discussion with Simon Wessely, that it is crucial to get the process right to minimise the need to access the courts. That is what his Mental Health Act review will concentrate on, albeit it will be a lot more liberal and professional than the current Act. It is an excellent process so that we can reduce the need for access to the courts.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 31 and 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. Apart from supporting the amendments and regarding the approved mental capacity professional as an issue of great importance in the Bill, I did so to be able to ask a few questions.

It might be simply that I do not understand, but my concern is this: how will the person who cannot object, but who needs to object, do it? The Bill states that people can automatically access the approved mental capacity professional if they object, but what happens for the person who cannot object but probably ought to? Who decides that a person’s family or those around them will be consulted to make sure that, if there is a need for an objection, it is heeded, which then puts them in the right place to access the AMCP? Those concerns have been expressed by lots of our colleagues in different ways. It is still not clear to me how that will happen. How will that person be protected under those circumstances?

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I am hesitant to speak in this debate, having not been involved in earlier work on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, having worked in mental health services and as a Mental Health Act commissioner over a number of years, and having overseen the Mental Health Act appeals of Mental Health Act managers, I do have an interest in deprivation of liberty decisions and, in particular, the justification and proportionality of them.

This is clearly an important Bill, and I applaud the Government for bringing it forward. The DoLS scheme was clearly cumbersome, little understood and in many ways deficient. It is, however, far from clear to me that the new system will be as simple for patients and carers to use as the Minister seemed to imply in his opening remarks. As other noble Lords have indicated, a key issue will be the interface between this Bill and the review of the Mental Health Act, which I understand will report in the autumn of this year. Both relate to non-consensual care and treatment and may apply to some of the same people. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists says, it is the overlaps between the two systems which to some degree explain why the current arrangements are so complicated and why staff struggle to use them. Changes to address problems in one system will surely have unintended consequence for the other. Clarity will be needed about when a patient should be subject to one Act rather than the other. It will be vital that no patient should be deprived of their liberty under both Acts at the same time. I understand that this happens at present, and it is important that this situation be brought to an end. Can the Minister give the House some assurance about how the Government propose to achieve that end?

Another rather straightforward point, which was made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the GMC and with which I strongly agree—other noble Lords have mentioned it—is on the use of the term “unsound mind” in the Bill. The term, as others have said, dates back to the 1950s and is stigmatising and out of place today. The college suggests that this term be replaced by “has any disorder or disability of the mind”, which would certainly be greatly preferable. Will the Minister agree to bring forward an amendment to that effect? Perhaps he will be able to comment on that today.

As other noble Lords have said, it is difficult to understand why the Government have not extended the new scheme to 16 and 17 year-olds, as recommended by the Law Commission. Case law has established that the parents of a child under 16 can give consent to what would otherwise constitute a deprivation of that child’s liberty where the matter falls within the “zone of parental responsibility”, but a parent cannot give consent on behalf of a 16 or 17 year-old. Surely the Bill should apply to the young person themselves rather than assume that the parents will make decisions on their behalf. Again, maybe the Minister can explain this apparent contradiction this afternoon.

On the appeals process, under the DoLS system, appeals must be made to the Court of Protection, which can be complex, slow and expensive. Can the Minister explain why the Bill does not introduce any changes to that system? In particular, is there any reason why the appeals process should not replicate the system under the Mental Health Act, which seems to work pretty well? It is worth noting that the Joint Committee on Human Rights made the point that a tribunal system would be more efficient, accessible and cost effective, and would enhance the rights of the individual concerned to be directly involved in the proceedings. In addition, of course the Mental Health Act provides for a tribunal system, so we have a nice model to follow—and why not? Non-means-tested legal aid should be available in such cases but, again, it would be less costly to the taxpayer if tribunals were established to do that job.

The GMC has raised a concern about the lack of clarity in the Bill regarding precisely who should be consulted before an LPS authorisation is made. This apparently includes,

“anyone engaged in caring for the cared-for person or interested in the cared-for person’s welfare”.

Does this mean that both a GP and a hospital doctor should be consulted? Is that necessary? Surely the doctor who knows the patient best would be sufficient. How many others involved in the care of the patient should be consulted?

A particular issue in this context is the power of a decision-maker to decide who is consulted from the proposed list. Surely some are far more important than others. For example, if there is a holder of a lasting power of attorney with decision-making powers in relation to the care of the patient, surely that LPA must be consulted. Yet it seems that the decision-maker can decide whether that person is consulted. The same should apply to the next of kin, who surely must be consulted—it cannot be a choice.

An obvious gap in the Bill, as others have said, is any provision for a person to be able to consent in advance to specific care or treatment arrangements so that authorisation under the new safeguarding scheme could be avoided; it would also save a whole lot of resources and avoid delays for the individual. Advance decisions, with effective safeguards, would reduce bureaucracy and cost and enable more involvement of patients and their families. The Minister will be aware that advance decisions to prepare for end-of-life care are increasingly used—although as yet, not at all sufficiently. But where these advance decisions are in place, the problems for physicians and next of kin are greatly reduced in relation to decisions about whether life-prolonging treatment should be continued, for example. The need to respect the wishes of the individual is similarly important under this legislation. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government would object to including a system of advance decisions in the Bill, and if so, why?

In conclusion, is there any prospect that later stages of the Bill could be held over until the report on the review of the Mental Health Act becomes available, to try to ensure complementarity between the two? I also very much look forward, with other noble Lords, to hearing the Minister’s response to the points that have been made.

Health and Social Care Act 2012

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I join the noble Lord in congratulating Trafford General Hospital. I think that one of my colleagues is there today, unveiling a plaque. I am grateful to him also for raising the devo deal for Greater Manchester. It is a very important deal that goes further than any other in the area of health and social care. If it is the case that it is impeded by the Act—and I do not think that that is necessarily a given—I would say that the changes that need to be made ought to be promoted and proposed by Greater Manchester and by the clinicians themselves. That is exactly the sort of thing that the Prime Minister has asked for.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to which the Minister responded, “Yes, we need to look at regulation”. The Minister knows that GPs are leaving the service at an unprecedented rate, and a large part of the reason for that is the regulatory burden. Will he make a commitment to undertake a full investigation of the regulatory burden on NHS staff, with the terms of reference being to reduce that burden?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of bolstering our GP workforce—that is one thing we are absolutely focused on. It is part of the five-year forward view and clearly of the long-term plan as well. I will identify one area where we are trying to make a big difference, which is indemnity insurance. We know that this has been a financial burden on GPs and we are looking at creating a state-funded scheme to provide reassurance. This is just one way in which GPs are looking for support from government.

Cannabis-based Medicines

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what the terms of reference will be for the expert panel of clinicians to advise ministers on applications to prescribe cannabis-based medicines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the commission from the Home Secretary is clear: he has asked Professor Dame Sally Davies to set up an expert clinical panel to provide advice to Ministers on licence applications made by a patient’s medical team for the use of cannabis-based products. Professor Dame Sally Davies is currently establishing a clinical panel that will agree the terms of reference.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I applaud the Home Secretary for his decisive action on medical cannabis. My Question relates to the second part of Professor Dame Sally Davies’s review. Bedrocan cannabis medicines have been used very safely and successfully in Holland for more than 20 years and are used increasingly across Europe. These medicines are currently subject to 23 random controlled trials and are also approved by European manufacturing standards. Can the Minister assure the House that the terms of reference for the wider review—I am not referring to the initial piece of work—will include the need for the MHRA, which regulates medicines, to consider defining a special category for whole-plant cannabis medicines? This idea came from within the MHRA, so I do not think it is unreasonable. If the review fails to make these medicines available in this country, is the Minister aware that 200,000 people in the UK with uncontrolled epileptic seizures will continue to be further brain-damaged every single day? This is a matter of urgency.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Like her, I applaud the speed with which the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary have acted in this matter. It is incredibly important to think about the various stages and actions that have been taken. First, there is an urgent need for the panel which Professor Dame Sally Davies is setting to consider specific licence applications. The second part is to review whether there are therapeutic benefits of cannabis and cannabis-derived products. Then there is the evidence-gathering process, and all the relevant evidence, including the major piece of work done by the US National Academy of Sciences and the paper to be published by the WHO, will be collected as part of that. As the Home Secretary set out on Tuesday, it will make recommendations to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs subsequent to proposals for rescheduling. That will happen this autumn, if those proposals come forward.

If I may just take the time to say this, the noble Baroness raises a third issue, which is long-term horizon scanning for Schedule 1 drugs for which a therapeutic benefit has not yet been demonstrated but which may be demonstrated in future. We clearly need to set up a device to do that, and the MHRA may be the right vehicle. That is something we are considering.

Gosport Independent Panel: Publication of Report

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness. Clearly, improvements have been made—freedom to speak up guardians came out of the Francis review into the Mid Staffs tragedy—but I reiterate the point that I made earlier: we cannot be complacent and just assume that what exists now is up to the task, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, of guaranteeing that this will not happen again. Looking at complaints procedures, protections for whistleblowing and so on will be part of the investigations that we make.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the events at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital all those years ago are indeed shocking, but will the Minister consider that they are perhaps a symptom of the fact that we do not have an assumption in end-of-life care that patients’ wishes must be respected? One aspect of this, perhaps slightly removed from Gosport but nevertheless relevant, is that, if people are terminally ill and enduring unbearable suffering but are mentally competent, they have no way of ensuring that they, the patients, can take control and decide when they have suffered enough. In this culture of paternalism—and this really does apply to Gosport—doctors take matters into their own hands and, in a situation such as that in Gosport, paternalistic decision-making by doctors can become extremely dangerous. Does the Minister agree that we need to bring to an end paternalistic decision-making by doctors without reference to patients’ wishes, particularly in end-of-life care?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Giving patients and of course their families much more control over the circumstances in which their lives end is clearly the right thing to do. Some very good practice has been going on—for example, Coordinate My Care across London makes sure that somewhere between 70% and 80% of people who would prefer to die at home are able to do so, as opposed to in hospital. However, it is important to emphasise that in this case by and large we are not talking about palliative care; only a small number of the people concerned whose lives were shortened were in a position where they were, in an objective sense, near end of life. Many were in after a fall, a hip replacement or something else from which they could easily have recovered and lived for many more years. That is the tragic fact. So, while I agree with the noble Baroness, it is important that we do not view the tragedy just in those terms; unfortunately, it is much broader.

Health Inequality: Autism and Learning Disabilities

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on tabling this debate, and it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—a bit humbling, actually, because she knows far more about this than me.

I pay tribute in my short contribution to June Felton—not a name noble Lords will know—who pioneered an intensive educational approach to very young children with severe autism. They were non-verbal and very badly affected, but nevertheless had underlying abilities, as many severely autistic children do. June Felton successfully prepared those severely autistic children to go to their normal schools—quite an achievement if one saw the children at the start, as I did, and then a few years later. Anyone involved in the design of education for that group of children—the very autistic, but able—would do well to try to find the carefully kept records of June Felton’s small but extraordinary Family Tree school. Sadly she died rather young, and the school closed.

I fully support the Autistic Society’s call for an autism and education strategy. An appropriate educational environment for a child can really make the difference between ultimately leading a reasonably normal life on the one hand—even for some severely affected children—and lifelong institutional care on the other. For children with autism and a limited IQ, of course the goals will be different, but in every case education is the absolute key to maximising ability and reducing dependence as far as conceivably possible. For the NHS and social care, that is critical.

The impact on families of a severely autistic child cannot be overstated. Family life is likely to be disrupted every minute of every day, in my experience. The strain on the parents’ own relationship and the child’s siblings is immeasurable. The normal reward of parenthood—the display of love from one’s children—has a horrible tendency to be a little limited from these children; so it is a tough, tough world that these parents live in. Of course, the cost of a comprehensive autistic education programme to meet the needs of children across the whole autistic spectrum would be considerable. However, I urge the noble Lord, who I know understands these things, to make sure that a good cost-benefit analysis is incorporated into the strategy development. For instance, £200,000 spent on an intensive education for a child may save the NHS and social care millions over that child’s lifetime. It is never going to be a waste of money.

As others have done, I want to touch on the mental health of autistic people. If we put ourselves in the position of an autistic person—probably feeling rather cut off, perhaps having no friends, very likely unemployed or in a job in which they really do not belong or feel completely disconnected from—it is not at all surprising that 70% finish up with depression or anxiety, as a number of other noble Lords have mentioned. I think that I certainly would, were I in that position. Others have mentioned the NHS England mental health five- year forward view and the care pathway for autism that they are recommending. I ask the Minister, when is that work going to begin? Others have asked a range of questions, but I do not think that it has begun. It is absolutely crucial. I hope that the Minister can give some assurance to these children, families and adults—not only for themselves, though that is crucial, but for the sustainability of the NHS and our social care. This is a large group of people, and the potential savings from a really good strategy are immeasurable.

The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Patel for his thoughtful report. I will focus on primary care and consider the compounding challenges of the primary care workload, the GP workforce, the nurse workforce, the budget and the blame culture.

First, the GP workload has increased by 16% over the past seven years as a result of the ageing population, the shift towards community care for certain illnesses and the dearth of capacity in hospitals. As noble Lords know, there are fully 1 million more people over the age of 65 than there were a mere five years ago. This means a more complex and time-consuming workload. The fact is that 10 minutes just does not do it for an awful lot of patients these days. The cut of 11% in the social services budget in five years just makes matters worse.

At the same time as the workload has increased so dramatically, GP numbers are under threat. The number of GPs taking early retirement has risen sharply following the clampdown on GP pension pots, bringing the retirement age down by two years to 58 and a half years. This means a huge and growing waste of expensive, highly trained GP resources. GP practice closures have been at record levels recently, and things can only get worse—considerably worse. An RCGP survey found that 39% of doctors in England said that they are unlikely to be working in general practice within the next five years. I find that terrifying. Doctors warn that a town without any GPs has become a real possibility. GPs talk about not wanting to be the last person standing when all their colleagues have left. The main reasons GPs give for their plan to leave general practice early are stress and excessive workload.

The Government say that the answer is to bring in more nurses. Absolutely, if only it were possible. A recent Pulse survey showed that one in eight practice nurse places in the UK is vacant. The shortage is expected to get worse if the Government go ahead with the plan to make nurses pay for their training. The nursing profession is anyway facing a demographic time bomb with mass retirements. The average age of practice nurses is 55. The GP nurse crisis is also linked to the historic failure to invest in primary care nurse training, and the long-standing neglect of community care nurse recruitment—a bundle of problems.

In this situation, an appalling fact has been the decline in the proportion of the NHS budget going to general practice, from 10.7% in 2005-06 to a record low of 8.4% in 2011-12. How can any Government justify that in the context of a major policy shift towards community care? Yes, the NHS England’s General Practice Forward View, as others have mentioned, acknowledged at least some of the difficulties, and committed £200 million to some schemes. That is a small step in the right direction, but the need is for a serious assessment of the overall financial requirement of general practices to enable them to build the multi- disciplinary and multifunctional integrated organisations to meet the demand.

Another very significant problem in general practice, I have to say, is the blame culture. The sooner the GMC and the ombudsman adopt the airlines’ approach of learning lessons from errors—yes, terribly important—rather than crucifying anyone who makes a mistake, the sooner we will reduce the very high level of stress among GPs, and reduce the trend towards early retirement and quitting really quite early on in their careers. If a GP sees anything between 60 and 100 patients a day, which they do, the chances of a mistake must be high. Of course legitimate complaints must be taken seriously, but a lot of patients would be very happy if they felt that their complaint would lead to some improvement. A complaint undermines morale and takes many hours of a GP’s time—time that no GP has. Will the Minister agree to ensure that this issue of the blame culture is addressed?

I am very concerned that several witnesses to the committee talked about the anticipated drastic fall in GP and nurse numbers and the extraordinary fall in the general practice budget share, and came to the crazy conclusion that the general practice partnership model should be shaken up. Any top-down reorganisation of that kind would further undermine and demoralise general practice. No, general practice is transforming services, despite the pressures and lack of funding to facilitate change. These are the issues that need to be looked at.

The absolute priorities must be correcting the funding balance between primary and secondary care and increasing funding overall, as I think pretty well every contributor to the debate has said. The £50 billion figure is probably a useful guide, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prior. There also needs to be proper financial support to encourage the developments already under way in many areas—such as I have already mentioned, enlargement of practices, federation of practices, and crucially including psychological therapists, who could save GPs a great deal of time. That could be closely integrated with adequately funded social services. There are also innovations like the development of online services which I know the Minister supports. Then we have a chance of a sustainable primary care service. Can the Minister give an assurance that this is the approach that the department will take?

Children and Young People: Mental Health

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Lord hits on an important point. Not only is mental illness unfortunately rising in prevalence, but it is everybody’s responsibility to try to help young people who suffer from it. That is what lies behind the proposals in the Green Paper, which contains a number of elements. He is quite right: there is additional training that will be applicable for all teachers, in mental health first aid, for example. It will also make sure that pupils understand it, changing the PHSE curriculum for more focus on mental health and well-being. That is why the designated leads are so important, because they bring that together at school level. So I agree with the noble Lord that schools have a critical role to play in dealing with this problem of mental health.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that young people with severe mental health problems can wait up to four and half months for treatment when a young person with severe physical health problems can expect to be seen within the day. Of course we all want equal treatment of these two groups. I very much welcome the Government’s plan to spend £1.25 billion extra in this area. However, does the Minister have an estimated average waiting time for young people with severe mental health problems once the £1.25 billion is in place?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I do not have a specific time, but I point to two things. First, there are now waiting time standards for early intervention in psychosis and eating disorders. Those waiting time standards will become more exacting over time, but they are being met at the moment. The Green Paper also proposes a pilot of four-week waiting times for access to specialist services in the NHS. We have a long way to go—average waits are 12 weeks—so we are inevitably starting incrementally, but the ambition is that over time, we will roll that out as a nationwide ambition. However, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness a deadline.