Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 102A and 102B. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much agree with the thrust of what he said and look forward to the results of his eagle eye, which I am sure will come to your Lordships’ House over the next months and years. Like him, I also thank the Minister for her stewardship of the Bill. It has taken so long that I recollect that on our first day in Committee, the noble Baroness herself had laid many amendments which she seemed to have to refute later on in proceedings on the Bill. At least she knows how it feels to have a government Minister reject so many well-argued points.

I thank the Minister also for what she said about the Government’s view of the appalling atrocities being committed in China, with the removal of organs from a living prisoner of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned and widespread throughout China. The victims at the moment are known to be primarily Falun Gong practitioners, but most recent evidence suggests that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale, particularly in Xinjiang.

My amendment was supported by noble Lords all around the House on Report. Essentially, it gave a discretionary power to exclude suppliers from being awarded a public contract if they have participated in forced organ harvesting or unethical activities relating to human tissue, including where they are involved in providing a service or goods relating to such activities. The effect of the amendment would have been to prevent any service or goods that may have been involved in, or developed off the back of, the forced harvesting trade entering the UK. When it went back to the Commons, the Government took the provision out in Committee. This was challenged on Commons Report, led by my honourable friend Marie Rimmer. Despite support from MPs of all parties, that was not successful, so I am asking noble Lords to send it back to the Commons for further consideration.

My reasons, briefly, are threefold. First, the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China, specifically in Xinjiang, are becoming ever clearer and more horrific. Secondly, I believe that Ministers were wrong in dismissing the need for the amendment, both in the response they gave in the Commons to my colleagues and in the comments that the Minister has given tonight. Thirdly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the context in which this is being debated is, frankly, that government policy towards China is completely inadequate to the threats that country poses to the interests of the United Kingdom.

On the scale of the atrocities, I can do no better than to quote what Sir Iain Duncan Smith said on Report in the Commons. He referred to the 2022 UN report, which found serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. He said:

“They seem to be about the most significant human rights abuses currently happening in the world,”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/23; col. 205.]


whether we use the term “genocide” or not.

What the Minister has essentially said is first that we do not need to do this because there is a discretionary power in the Bill already, and secondly that there is no evidence, as far as the Government are aware, that a supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. On the first point, I believe that there is considerable merit in making explicit reference in the Bill to this matter, so that public authorities are in no doubt whatever that they can use a discretionary power to deal with companies that may be dealing, maybe inadvertently, in this abhorrent trade. Secondly, I think there is evidence of taxpayers’ money being spent on companies involved in forced organ harvesting. For example, pharmaceutical companies may be supplying immunosuppressant drugs to hospitals that have been reported to remove organs from prisoners of conscience.

As I have said, we cannot consider these matters without seeing them in the context of UK policy towards China. I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, nor to requote. We have now had our Lordships’ Select Committee, then chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its report only last month on the Indo-Pacific tilt policy. They all draw attention to the Government’s woefully inadequate response to the threat that China presents and to the very ambiguity there is in policy. We can see the obvious tension between our security, on one hand, and the willingness and wish of the Government to trade with China and to encourage Chinese investment, but I am afraid that, in trying to get a balance, we have ended up with a Government with a wholly inadequate and incoherent policy.

My amendment is very modest. All it does is give the decision-maker discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if it

“or a connected person has been, or is, involved in … forced organ harvesting, or … dealing in any device or equipment or services relating to forced organ harvesting”.

It would be the first piece of UK legislation to include and define forced organ harvesting. It would be a huge step in preventing UK complicity in forced organ harvesting, and I urge the House to support it.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I was a signatory to earlier amendments and we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, make a very cogent case for the Commons to think again about his amendments. I will be very brief, given the hour. The noble Lord built on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined just now, and his case is backed by international investigation and evidence. Thus, for example, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not an institution that would say this lightly, concludes in relation to Xinjiang:

“Allegations of … torture … including forced medical treatment … are credible”.


The Minister in the Commons and now the Minister in the Lords have argued that current legislation covers the problem identified in this amendment, but noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, make a very persuasive case that this is not so. My noble friend Lord Fox will comment further shortly but, if the noble Lord decides to put this to a vote, from these Benches we will support him.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour for my two amendments to be grouped with that in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra. As the noble Lord has discussed the supply chain, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, although I am not speaking on its behalf when it comes to my strongly supporting his amendment, which sets the context for my own two amendments.

We debated this issue very fully in Committee. I think that the House believes strongly that the commercial exploitation of body parts in all forms is unethical and unsavoury. When it is combined with mass killing by an authoritarian state, we cannot stand by and do nothing. In 2019, the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”


In June this year, 12 UN special procedure experts raised the issue of forced organ harvesting with the Chinese Government in response to credible information that Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians had been killed for their organs in China.

Currently, human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, where we have a very ethical approach, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants, and British taxpayers’ money will pay for anti-rejection medication regardless of where the organ was sourced or whether it was forcibly harvested from prisoners of conscience.

I shall not repeat all that I said in Committee, but I have had a helpful meeting with Ministers for which I thank them. In that meeting and in subsequent meetings, the Minister was concerned that my amendment in relation to organ tourism would penalise vulnerable people seeking to pay for a transplant. I have thought about that carefully, but, in the end—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, expressed so well why this Bill is highly appropriate for these kind of amendments—we have to draw a line in the sand. That is particularly so today, in the horrific circumstances that we meet. We have to draw a line in the sand and send out a powerful message globally that we will not support these abhorrent practices in any way.

My Amendment 162 comes later, but I shall seek the opinion of the House at that time.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has very effectively introduced the amendments to which I have put my name, Amendments 162 and 173, and I wish briefly to express the support of these Benches for those. We also support Amendment 108, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has put her name.

As noble Lords know, we have been inching forward on these matters with Ministers, and I welcome that forward movement. I note, however, recent warnings from Ministers that, for example, there are “opportunity costs” in implementing these measures, as ensuring that proper standards are enforced requires effort and potential cost. I understand that. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to become complicit in any way in organ tourism where the source of those organs is forced or where selling the organ is to address appalling poverty.

Some say that this trade may be declining in and from China. If so, that is welcome and might reflect international pressure, not least on the Chinese medical profession. It is not clear that those involved in the China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal would agree that it is declining.

Even if we were to accept that, and Ministers seemed to indicate that they thought that might be the case, we are also hearing now of an increase in the selling of organs in Afghanistan because of the dire situation there. There have been recent reports of journalists seeing the scars of those who have sold their kidneys. That is a terrible indictment of our walking away from Afghanistan and failing to address the appalling conditions that we have left there. How can we regard such potential “donors” as being anything other than the most extremely vulnerable? How can you put that up against the vulnerable who may need to have donations?

As for the bodies exhibitions, we have discussed before how distasteful they are—but then we realise with horror exactly where these bodies seem to have been sourced: among other things, from Chinese prisons. We should never have condoned that, turning a blind eye. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who argued in Committee that they should simply be banned. There is no reason whatever to agree to their continuation.

I now hear that the Government may argue—and this is incredibly familiar—that these amendments are flawed. As the noble Earl knows, often Ministers are given briefs that say, “This is a flawed amendment, so turn it back.” I am very familiar with them. In those circumstances, the best thing is for your Lordships to pass these amendments, because Ministers know, or should know, that the essence is extremely clear, and with government lawyers we can work out how best to sort out any unintended consequences. I hope that I do not hear anything about these amendments being flawed—and I say that to the Box. I therefore commend them to your Lordships.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that I do not slow us down again after the provocative words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, but I am going to talk about access to dental treatment and fluoridation. Although the House is somewhat empty, I expect that as the debate goes on it might fill up a little.

We had an Oral Question this afternoon about dentistry, and I do not want to repeat everything that was said then. I have enjoyed debating dental issues with the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for many years. He will know that there is widespread concern about the lack of access to dentistry. At Oral Questions the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to the £50 million that had been provided, but I am afraid that the 350,000 treatments that it will pay for are a drop in the ocean compared with the 38 million patient treatments that have been lost as a result of the pandemic.

Many people are finding accessing dentistry almost impossible at the moment. The Minister referred earlier today to people being able to use the access centres, and to the 111 service, but I am afraid that it has broken down in many parts of the country. One is led to the conclusion that dentistry issues are not a priority. Many adults and children are suffering in pain because of their lack of access. The Government must focus on this and develop a proper strategy. I pay tribute to Healthwatch for its work in this area—it has had a lot of interest from members of the public—and to the BDA for its briefings.

Treatment is one thing, prevention is another. Here, I must remind the Committee of my presidency of the British Fluoridation Society. This brings me to effective preventive measures. I welcome Clauses 147 and 148. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here to hear me say this, but essentially, giving this responsibility to local authorities has proved to be a failure. Not one local fluoridation scheme has gone through under the auspices of local authority leadership, and we must conclude that leaving it to local authorities is likely to mean that we will not see fluoridation developed in any part of the country.

So this is a national issue and it is right that the Secretary State should take over responsibility; it is also right to acknowledge that, in September last year, the four Chief Medical Officers stated:

“As with all things in medicine and public health there is a balance of risk and benefit.”


We have certainly learned that in the last two years. As they said:

“There is unquestionably an issue with tooth decay in the UK and an entrenched inequality which needs to be addressed. Fluoridation of water can reduce this common problem … On balance, there is strong scientific evidence that water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving dental health equality across the UK. It should be seen as a complementary strategy, not a substitute for other effective methods of increasing fluoride use.”


I think that is a very wise assessment of the situation. The effectiveness of fluoridation of water supplies to improve oral health has been evident for many decades. Some communities such as my own—Birmingham—have taken advantage and, as a result, we generally enjoy good overall oral health, but progress in spreading these benefits has been very slow. The transfer to local government, I am afraid, did not work.

So I strongly support the thrust of these clauses; in fact, they are the two most welcome clauses in the whole Bill. The question, however, is whether they will bite, and this is what lies behind my amendments. Amendment 260 concerns the consultation process. I do not think I have got the wording in quite the right place—frankly, trying to find my way through the Water Act and changes to it over the last 20 years or so proved beyond me—but the intent is to ask: if there is to be consultation about schemes, please can we move away from the local consultations that have to be gone through at the moment? They are an absolute nightmare. They bring out opposition from national bodies that causes mayhem in the locality.

The issue is not the practicalities of the scheme but about going back over the principle. The very fact that the Government have brought these clauses has decided the principle of the benefit of fluoridation. If there is to be a consultation, for goodness’ sake, let us have just one instead of the myriad local consultations that have obviously got in the way of progress in the past.

My Amendment 261 is part probing. Currently, the Bill gives the Secretary State power to make regulations to require a public body to meet the costs to the Secretary of State in relation to fluoridation schemes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the reasons and circumstances under which they would be used. My concern would be that asking too hard a subvention of local bodies might inhibit the progress of fluoridation schemes. Amendment 262 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that a programme for implementing water fluoridation schemes is established within 12 months of the Bill being passed. I would like to see a report every three years, laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, on the progress made in implementing new water fluoridation schemes. The basic purpose would be to ensure that the Government get on with this, establishing more schemes and spreading the benefits across the entire community as soon as possible. I beg to move, and hope that I have met the noble Baroness’s test.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 260, 261 and 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on water fluoridation.

The NHS rightly prides itself on being evidence-based. Nevertheless, when Ara Darzi became health Minister, he was concerned that, in a number of areas such as the treatment of diabetes, there was not a full assessment of regular outcomes, as opposed to the fantastic clinical trials on new treatments for specific diseases. Hence, he introduced his atlas of outcomes. It showed, for example, absolutely unacceptable different outcomes for diabetes if you lived in Cornwall—where you were more likely to lose a leg—compared with Essex. There were serious lessons to be drawn from that, which needed to be applied in other areas, too.

House of Lords: Labour Peers’ Working Group Report

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 19th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will give way on that point. He is really rather glossing over some of the difficulties of the 2012 Bill relating to the respective powers of the two Chambers. Surely in those Parliaments where there are two elected Chambers—

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I will let the noble Lord continue, but I remind the House that noble Lords who have signed up for this all have an opportunity to put their case. They should therefore be chary of eating into the time of other people.

[Baroness Northover]

Noble Lords will have their time. I will let the noble Lord continue his point, but I point out that noble Lords will have their opportunities later on to make the case that they wish to make and that they should be chary of eating into other people’s time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not in the noble Baroness’s gift to either let me intervene or not. The noble Lord is clearly well able to debate and wants to do so. The only point that I want to put to him is this: in those places where there are two elected Chambers, there tends to be a written constitution. Is that not really at heart the problem—that no one has yet resolved the balance of power between the two elected Chambers in the UK?

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 29th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that was a pretty persuasive case, to which I hope the noble Baroness will be sympathetic. The noble Lord made the particular point that early intervention will lead to better outcomes. That could be a message that relates to this Bill as a whole. The noble Baroness knows that we were not able to have our debate on services for deaf people last week because of the lateness of the hour. I wonder whether, between now and Report, she would be prepared to write to me about how she thinks this Bill might specifically relate to deaf people. Clearly, some of the issues the noble Lord has raised are apposite to deaf people in terms of early identification and assessment. I would not expect her to answer that point today, but it would be extremely helpful if she were able to write to me on it in advance of us coming back to the QSD in the early autumn.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his amendment. It raises some important issues. He emphasises that local authorities need to follow up those who have been newly certified as sight-impaired or severely sight-impaired in a timely manner where they have indicated that they wish to be registered or to have an assessment of their needs for care and support. Indeed, we have great sympathy with his concerns. We accept that people who have acquired a visual impairment should have an early opportunity to have access to information and advice so that they can adapt to their situation as quickly as possible and obtain any aids and support that will help them to manage their lives better.

As we have discussed, Clause 4 requires local authorities to make available universal information and advice on care and support, which will of course be relevant here. But people who lose their sight suddenly can also need more time to come to terms with their loss and engage with the support that might be available to them. If that is the case, it might be more appropriate to have a greater degree of flexibility around the timescales for when that support is offered or re-offered. Individuals differ in the way that they respond. We therefore believe that it would be better if the detail of this was covered in guidance, as it is for deaf-blind people, rather than in the Bill or in the regulations. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there may well be a parallel here for deaf people, I am happy to write to him in answer to his questions.

Covering this in guidance would allow greater flexibility to update and adapt the arrangements. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Low, that officials intend to work closely with the RNIB and other stakeholders to ensure that the guidance is as comprehensive as possible. He is absolutely right that the person needs to be at the heart of that guidance. In the light of what I have said to both noble Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Low, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

International Development: Diseases of Poverty

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

I remember colleagues being tested in one of those centres locally. I will take this back to the Department of Health and get an answer for the noble Baroness. It is obviously important to address TB here, where it is an increasing problem, as well as in developing countries.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. Does the noble Baroness think that the introduction of value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals in this country will lead to more research in those areas where at the moment there clearly is not a return for the pharmaceutical companies? They are often called orphan drugs. If they were incentivised it could lead to greater help for these diseases in poorer countries that noble Lords have been discussing.

[Baroness Northover]

I know that the noble Lord is very concerned about value-based pricing in the United Kingdom. We have to take a few steps back in terms of the support that needs to be given for the development of these treatments overseas. This is on a totally different scale. There is, in effect, no market, as the noble Lord’s colleague said, and we need to ensure that there is support for research and development before even the prospect of a market is taken forward.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this mini-debate on Amendment 73. We are sympathetic to the view behind this amendment —or what seems to lie behind it—which seeks to ensure that the new chief inspectors will be given a place on the board of the CQC. I echo here the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for Professor Mike Richards. I know that the professor’s cancer colleagues will miss him in that field.

Noble Lords are absolutely right about the importance of improving quality and in particular of trying to drive up quality within primary care. The Secretary of State announced the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals as part of the Government’s response to the Francis review into Mid Staffs. As has been referred to, since that time the Government have also announced the positions of a Chief Inspector of Social Care and a Chief Inspector of General Practice. These three chief inspectors will sit within the CQC and lead for it on the inspection and regulation of all registered providers of health and adult social care. They will be high-profile positions—as the appointment of Mike Richards demonstrates—and will speak for the CQC on the quality of care that they find. As such, it is likely, as noble Lords have indicated, that they will have a lot to offer the CQC board in knowledge, experience and leadership.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about the areas that the Chief Inspector of General Practice might cover and whether the post might be drawn more widely. In some ways, that rather bears out my point: setting this in stone in statute may not be the best way to make everything link up so that the new positions work as effectively as possible. The CQC needs to move this forward so that it can best drive up quality. It will be for the CQC to determine the exact remit of each of the chief inspectors. All providers of registered health and adult care services will fall within one of the chief inspectors’ remits. Perhaps that will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Hunt. The CQC is working up detailed proposals. No doubt it will pay attention to what noble Lords have said. Broadly, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals will cover acute trusts, including mental health trusts; the Chief Inspector of Social Care will cover providers of regulated adult social care, including care homes and domiciliary care agencies; and the Chief Inspector of General Practice will cover GP and dental practices as well as walk-in centres, private healthcare and independent ambulance providers. Clearly, the CQC will look at how it gets comprehensive coverage.

We have deliberately avoided requiring that these inspectors should have a seat on the board for two reasons. First, the aim of Clause 79 is to give the CQC more autonomy in determining which executive members sit on its board. This is in line with best practice, as no doubt noble Lords will recognise. We would not wish to remove this new autonomy by requiring that any executive, other than the chief executive, must sit on the board. Secondly, we have designed the chief inspector roles to be non-statutory. They are internal to the CQC, and the CQC will have the power to design, shape and adapt the roles in a way that best enables their operational effectiveness. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Does that mean that at the end of the day the chief executive of the CQC can overrule the chief inspectors? That must be the implication of what she said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

Clearly the noble Baroness has clarified matters, but whether she has reassured me is another question. I think the Government underestimate the profile of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals in particular. There is no doubt that this will be a very powerful and important post with an enormous profile. The idea that this person can be overruled by the chief executive and the board, as this legislation sets out, poses a problem I certainly want to think more about.

I also think that there is a gap here. Community health services are not clearly in anybody’s remit. I am sure my noble friend Lord Hunt would agree that if we were to identify one black hole where there is not a great deal of data on performance and quality, it would be community health services. It is an area that has not been probed well by independent inspection, and as far as I can see the game plan is to have no inspector looking into that area. Given everybody’s concern about integration, it seems a bit of a missed opportunity for there not to be some linking up there.

I want to consider this much further. It would be helpful if Ministers sent the Committee the job description for the three inspectors they propose. In my experience, it is rather difficult to appoint anyone to anything without a job description. It would be very helpful to our deliberations to have that before Report.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It seems to me that unless this is sorted out there will be problems in the future, notwithstanding the calibre of the current leadership of the CQC, which I readily acknowledge. If the chief inspector does not have total operational independence when acting as chief inspector, I see a recipe for potential trouble. We will not reach Report until October, so there is plenty of time. My noble friend and I would be very interested to have at least some discussion about how the CQC will avoid the kind of conflicts that clearly we would rather not have, if at all possible.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very happy to take back to the department the request for further descriptions of the jobs in these cases. We should also bear in mind that the aims of these chief inspectors, as part of the CQC, are to maintain safety and effectiveness and drive up quality. They have shared aims; it is not as if they have different ambitions in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether that then comes to the point that the noble Baroness raised earlier about needing to extend this duty to GPs and social care providers. The reality is that if the duty were extended to social care providers, most of those homes would not be viable unless they accepted either local authority-funded clients or clients from the health service. Is not the answer to extend the duty to make sure that we cover GPs, community health and so on?

[Baroness Northover]

In terms of the division that the noble Lord pointed to, if a provider decides that it does not want to take on NHS patients because it will have to reach higher standards than for private patients—which appeared to be part of what he was saying—once that is publicised and becomes apparent, that will not exactly encourage people to use those providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend says no. I can see that the van advertising litigation probably does not want to encounter the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as he comes out of whichever hospital it is.

In the light of what I have said, and anything else that we need to clarify, I encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. There are obviously a lot of issues that we may want to return to, but clearly the main debate is about the duty of candour. It has been a good debate because noble Lords have identified the problems of a statutory duty on individuals. This presents some real challenges, which clearly need to be thought out with great care and attention. I very much accept that there is a real risk of perverse incentives and discouraging staff doing the right thing because of the fear of prosecution.

However, I am puzzled about the duty of candour. I do not understand why the Government have included this offence of supplying false or misleading information in the Bill when the duty of candour, which is clearly much more important, will be relegated to secondary legislation. From the debate and the comments of all noble Lords who spoke, clearly this is not easy. It has to be got right. The best way to get it right is through primary legislation.

The problem with secondary legislation is that, at best, we will have an hour and a half of debate and we are not allowed to amend it. This issue is so complex and important that it warrants more. I strongly recommend that the Government to look at this again and bring back an amendment on Report in the light of Professor Donald Berwick’s recommendation. I think that they will find that the duty of candour is the flagship of the Francis report. Not to have it included in the Bill means that we are missing something. I suspect that patients will miss out in the end.

Having said that, this is a good way to conclude our discussions tonight and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Herbal Medicines

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover]

I am afraid that I cannot answer that very simple question. I may be inspired to do so shortly, but in the mean time I should say that this is a more complex area than that. Although I will be happy to come back to my noble friend, I think that there are a number of wider issues to look at.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may also intervene briefly. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her answers, but can she be absolutely clear? Mr Lansley, when he was Secretary of State, announced an intention to implement a register by 2012. Does that mean that the Government are not going forward with it? I am not clear about this. The noble Baroness has said that she is not in a position to consult and has suggested that the Government are taking a new look at the relative risks. Can she help the Committee to understand whether in fact these rumours that the proposal has been dropped are correct?

National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups—Disapplication of Responsibility) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the draft National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups—Disapplication of Responsibility) Regulations 2012 set out the persons for whom a CCG will not be responsible, where it otherwise would be. We are here to discuss them today because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that they be subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee advised that the power being exercised to make the regulations, Section 3(1D) of the National Health Service Act 2006, relates to a fundamental provision of the new commissioning arrangements. In theory it could be exercised in such a way that some groups of people were left without a body responsible for commissioning their healthcare services. But I hope to be able to reassure noble Lords that this has never been the policy intention, nor is it the effect of these regulations.

It may be helpful if I first explain these draft regulations in their wider context. As with PCTs, each CCG will cover a geographical area defined in their constitution, and the whole of England will be covered by CCGs, with no overlap. Under Section 3(1A) of the National Health Service Act 2006, CCGs will have continuity of commissioning responsibility for all patients registered with a GP practice member of the CCG, and anyone usually resident in the CCG area who is not registered with a GP practice anywhere. They will be under a duty to commission secondary care health services to meet the reasonable requirements of the people they are responsible for, with the exception of certain services commissioned directly by the NHS Commissioning Board, and those public health services commissioned by local authorities.

Additional provision relating to the responsibilities of CCGs is made in the NHS Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012. This includes imposing on CCGs responsibility for every person in their area in relation to the provision of ambulance services or accident and emergency services. That instrument also makes provision about the services to be commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board. Taken together with this affirmative instrument, this will ensure that the board and CCGs do not have overlapping responsibilities for particular services or particular patients. There will be no gaps, and a commissioner will not be able to dispose of a commissioning obligation by moving the patient out of area.

It is also important to emphasise that both sets of regulations concerning commissioning responsibilities do not introduce any new policies, but apply the existing principles of PCT responsibilities to CCGs, taking into account, of course, some necessary differences to reflect the responsibilities of the board and local authorities.

These draft regulations for affirmative resolution prescribe, by way of exception, categories of people and circumstances where CCGs will not have the duty to commission services. I will briefly describe the provisions set out in these regulations. Regulation 1 defines the terms used throughout the regulations and sets out a coming into force date of 1 April 2013.

I have already explained that under Section 3 of the 2006 Act, CCGs will have commissioning responsibility for all patients registered with a GP practice member of the CCG, and anyone usually resident in the CCG area who is not registered with a GP practice anywhere. However, within the categories of people for whom a CCG will otherwise be responsible, there will be some for whom, and some circumstances under which, it is appropriate that the responsibility will lie with another CCG or another health body. These are set out in Regulation 2, which has the following provisions.

People registered with a GP in England, but who are usually resident in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will not be the responsibility of the CCG of whom the English GP practice is a member. Instead, under Regulations 2(2)(a) to 2(2)(c), the responsible body will be the health body in the relevant Administration – the Scottish Health Body, the Welsh Local Health Board or the Health and Social Care Board in Northern Ireland.

Where a person, normally the responsibility of one CCG, becomes the temporary patient of another, the first CCG will not be responsible for them; instead, under Regulation 2(2)(d) the patient temporarily becomes the responsibility of the CCG where they access GP services. This is to ensure that the patient can access any subsequent care he or she needs while remaining a temporary patient; otherwise, there could be delays in their receiving prompt treatment. The provision also ensures that the receiving CCG has responsibility for commissioning services to meet the needs of temporary patients—particularly important in CCG areas with significant numbers of such patients, for example in areas containing holiday resorts.

Regulation 2(2)(e) provides that, if a person is provided with primary medical services by a member of a CCG and these do not include essential services within core hours, that CCG is not responsible for that person. Instead, they would be the responsibility of the CCG, a member of which does provide those services, or, if not, the CCG in whose area they usually reside. This reinforces the principle that a core requirement of CCG membership is to be a provider of essential services.

Under Regulation 2(2)(f), CCGs will not be responsible for people detained in an immigration removal centre, secure training centre or young offender institution. In such cases the responsible commissioner will either be the board or another commissioning body such as the Home Office. Under Regulation 2(2)(g), a CCG will not be responsible for people for whom another CCG is wholly responsible under Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 of the corresponding negative responsibilities regulations.

Where another CCG or a local authority has placed a person in a CCG’s area, the second CCG will not be the responsible commissioner. Like the other provisions in these regulations, this continues the current policy under PCTs. This occurs, for example, for the purposes of NHS continuing healthcare, whereby the responsibility remains with the placing commissioner. However, in these cases the disapplication of responsibility relates only to the services for which the other CCG is responsible. For example, where a person receiving continuing healthcare is placed outside a CCG’s area, the placing CCG would be responsible for nursing care but not for secondary care.

Regulation 2(3)(a) makes it clear that a CCG that has responsibility for a person on the basis of GP registration or usual residence in its area is not responsible for securing the provision of ambulance services or accident and emergency services if that person is present in the area of another CCG. Responsibility for this falls to the CCG of that other area. For the avoidance of doubt, Regulation 3 sets out the rules for determining where a person is usually resident for the purposes of Regulation 2.

Noble Lords may have noticed that these regulations cross-refer in places to “the Responsibilities Regulations 2012”. These are the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012 that I mentioned. We are not here today to discuss them, but since they are so closely related I will briefly set out the content of relevant parts so that the noble Lords may have the full picture before them.

Regulations in Parts 2, 3 and 4, with their associated schedules, make provision about additional commissioning responsibilities for both CCGs and the board. Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 make provisions effectively mirroring Regulation 2 of the draft National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups—Disapplication of Responsibility) Regulations 2012, in prescribing the categories of people for whom a CCG will be responsible for commissioning—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She said that we were not here to discuss the standing rules today, but are they not subject to the regulations that we are debating? I would like to clarify that.

[Baroness Northover]

My understanding—no doubt I will get clarification on this—is that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee picked up certain elements of this and thought that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. What I seek to do here is lay that out, but also lay out a fuller picture so that noble Lords can set it in context. I will continue and seek clarification. It is to give that fuller picture, which I hope will help noble Lords, that I am outlining this.

Regulations in Parts 2, 3 and 4, with their associated schedules, make provision about additional commissioning responsibilities for both CCGs and the board. Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 make provisions effectively mirroring Regulation 2 of the draft National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups—Disapplication of Responsibility) Regulations 2012, in prescribing the categories of people for whom a CCG will be responsible for commissioning health services in addition to those set out in the 2006 Act.

The list in Schedule 1 includes people placed by their local authority or a CCG in a care home, children’s home or independent hospital outside the CCG’s area. It also includes two other categories of person: the first is all persons in the CCG area who are resident outside the UK and who are not provided with primary medical services by a member of any CCG. The second is all persons resident in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and present in the CCG’s area who are “qualifying persons” within the meaning of Section 130C of the Mental Health Act 1983 and who are not provided with primary medical services by a member of any CCG. Qualifying persons are broadly those persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, conditionally discharged restricted patients, those subject to guardianship under the Act and supervised community treatment patients.

Paragraph 6 of the schedule also includes provision for continuity of responsibility where a PCT has made arrangements and is then succeeded by a CCG. Part 3 of the regulations sets out additional services that will be commissioned by the board under Section 3B of the 2006 Act. Under Regulation 6, the board will commission all hospital and community dental services; a list of the hospital services is included in Schedule 2.

Regulation 7 provides that except for emergency services which are, of course, the responsibility of CCGs, the board will be responsible for all secondary and community services for members of the Armed Forces and their families where they are registered with Defence Medical Services. This includes fertility treatment services. Regulations 8 and 9 require the board to commission fertility services for those who have lost their fertility in service, generally due to injury caused by a blast, and are in receipt of compensation from the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

Regulation 10 sets out the requirements for prisoners and other persons detained in prescribed accommodation. The services concerned are, except for emergency services, all community and secondary services. The prescribed accommodation includes all prisons, whether public or private, all but one young offender institutions and, as specified in the schedules, some secure children’s homes, secure training centres and immigration removal centres. Regulation 11 and Schedule 4 require the board to commission specified specialised services for rare and very rare conditions. Regulation 12 requires the board to make arrangements for the continued provision of services currently provided by certain independent sector treatment centres under contracts currently held by the Secretary of State. Regulation 13 requires the board to commission specialist mental health services for people who may pose a risk to prominent people or locations.

Finally, Regulations 14 and 15 require CCGs and the board respectively to commission mental health aftercare services for certain groups of people who have been detained in hospital for treatment of their mental disorder after their discharge from hospital; this is under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. These regulations make it clear that the responsibility for commissioning aftercare services should, wherever possible, sit with the CCG commissioning services to meet that patient’s other healthcare needs. However, the board would be responsible for commissioning services as part of a person’s aftercare under Section 117 if it, rather than any individual CCG, would otherwise be responsible for commissioning the NHS part of the aftercare package.

I realise that I have described these regulations at some length, but I hope that I have demonstrated that CCGs’ commissioning responsibilities under the 2006 Act, when looked at as a whole and as supplemented by regulations, form a coherent set of responsibilities. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I realise that it is a complex question. However, I am concerned about this order going through the House without me knowing the answer. The key question here is whether, under these regulations, CCGs are allowed to provide NHS services for persons normally resident in Northern Ireland, including abortion services. It is a very important question. I do not know when this order is going back to the Chamber, but if it goes back tomorrow it does not give me very much time to decide whether or not to call for a debate in the Chamber. It might be a matter for the usual channels to deal with. I accept that the noble Baroness will need to write to me, but the question is: how soon?

[Baroness Northover]

I would like to be able to give a fuller answer. I hope that BlackBerrys are buzzing behind me and that, perhaps while I respond to his other questions, I will be given a fuller answer because I would prefer that. I will speed along any such response, bearing in mind what he has just said.

[Baroness Northover]

I shall be very happy to copy it to anyone who would like to see it.

I think I may not have answered fully my noble friend Lady Jolly—I hope that I did—when she asked about where a patient might come in terms of who is responsible. I would like to emphasise what I said in my introductory remarks, that the default position is that the 2006 Act applies, covering everybody. So a CCG where the person’s GP is a member would be responsible for them, and if they are not registered with a GP, it would be a CCG in which the person usually resides. Perhaps I may emphasise, in relation to temporary patients, that if a person is registered with a GP in England but is not resident here, the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish body commissions secondary care, assuming the person is in one of those areas.

I am seeking answers to some of the other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, flagged up the point about Healthwatch England, and I remember very acutely giving the assurance that Healthwatch bodies could campaign. He asked whether any public comment on regulations has been published. I am looking for an instant answer to that, which seems not to be coming. I may need to return to him on that in a moment.

In terms of local accountability, the noble Lord wanted to know whether a member of the public might be able to insist on an appeal if certain treatments were turned down. CCGs will be under a statutory obligation to arrange for provision of care to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom they have responsibility. The CCG must work closely with the local authority through the health and well-being board to assess local needs and to develop a strategy to meet them which will inform their commissioning plans. Where a CCG chooses not to commission a service, as in the kind of instance the noble Lord is talking about, it would have to be satisfied that it was not necessary to do so in order to meet the reasonable requirements of its patient population. The CCG will be under a duty to involve patients in the planning of their commissioning arrangements. The noble Lord will be aware that not everything is possible under the NHS and never has been, but obviously, as before, it is important that all reasonable requirements are provided for, and the CCGs, just like the PCTs, have that responsibility.

The noble Lord asked about the membership of panels. Again, I am hoping that a light bulb will suddenly come on and I will be able to inform him as to why there should be those differences and answer some of his other questions.

To clarify further on Northern Ireland and the issue about abortion, but unfortunately I have some difficulty reading writing that is not as clear as it might be, so I do not think I will provide that answer in case it is not what it is supposed to be. I can assure the noble Lord that I will not move the approval Motion until he gets his response.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is very helpful. I thank the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is extremely welcome.

I am hoping that clarification will suddenly appear in my brain for the answers to the other questions that the noble Lord has put because I would like to be able to answer as much as I possibly can. My brain is moving very slowly, I am afraid, and I will write to him to address anything that is outstanding. We will not expect anything to be finally agreed until we have those answers for the noble Lord. I hope that, with those reassurances, noble Lords will accept the regulations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course, I do not want to detain the Grand Committee any longer. The issue of the panels that are to be convened to hear appeals by members of the public against decisions to restrict treatment made by clinical commissioning groups is something that I hope will be given further thought. CCGs are different from primary care trusts. A CCG is essentially a group of professional people. Most CCGs will have only a limited number of lay people who could be said to represent the public interest. If those CCGs make decisions that restrict drugs or treatment, there should be some mechanism whereby a member of the public can refer such a decision to an independent panel. I hope that this will be given some consideration by the noble Baroness’s department.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very happy to take the noble Lord’s suggestion back for it to be given further consideration.

NHS Commissioning Board: Mandate

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservatives.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, there was an agreement between the usual channels that it is the Government Benches, then the Opposition and then the Cross Benches. The noble Baroness is seeking to reinterpret what has already been agreed.

[Baroness Northover]

It is the turn of the Conservatives.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

If noble Lords are happy, I will continue. I will be happy to answer any questions. All public health specialists, including those not currently subject—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, wanted an early indication as to whether the noble Baroness was going to accept the amendment and then allow the debate. He is not looking for a winding-up speech at this point.

[Baroness Northover]

Noble Lords will know that the Government have already announced their intention to regulate all public health specialists so that we address the anomaly whereby some were regulated and others were not. If that is the answer that the noble Lord was looking for, put briefly, I hope that he will welcome it.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 8th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

As we are on Report, perhaps noble Lords will allow the Minister to develop his argument and then put brief questions in the light of what he said—otherwise he will lose his train of thought.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I hesitate to take issue with the noble Baroness because clearly she is in a position to help the House. However, interventions on Report are quite allowed. I am very puzzled that the Government are trying to seek to rule that Report stage procedure should change so that we simply listen to the Minister. That is not Report.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I am not saying that short questions cannot be put. However, it might be beneficial to the House if the Minister were able to develop his argument. Then, if noble Lords had questions that he had not addressed, that would be the relevant time to put them.

[Baroness Northover]

That is what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, preferred when he was a Minister. I hear from around the House some sympathy for the point. If the suggestion does not work, no doubt we can take the matter to the Procedure Committee and look at a different way of doing things.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is not in a position to dictate to the House that it should change its procedure on Report. Surely the beauty of debate lies in interventions, and responses by Ministers. When I was a Minister for 10 years at the Dispatch Box, I always took interventions and welcomed effective and proper debate. I am on my feet—

[Baroness Northover]

For clarification, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the Companion sets out that a Member shall not speak after the Minister on Report,

“except for short questions of elucidation to the minister”.

I realise that noble Lords are putting short questions of elucidation. The Minister made it clear that he wishes to make progress and that at the moment he does not wish to take interventions so that he can develop his argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

Again, my Lords, what shines through is a great commitment to public and patient involvement at a local level; the only dispute is over the form of that. Again, noble Lords are familiar with the fact that various models have been tried, and I emphasise once again that we are seeking to build on the strengths of what has worked and mitigate some of the problems that have been encountered.

My noble friend Lady Jolly has tabled Amendments 234 and 235, the result of which would be to replace references to “people” with “local people” in Section 221 of the 2007 Act and insert the definition of “local people”. We talked about the difficulty of organisations— LINks in particular—reaching groups that were defined as hard to reach. The definition in my noble friend’s amendment says that when carrying out its functions, local healthwatch has to be representative of people who live in the area, service users and people who are representative of the local community. That applies to people of all ages and emphasises the need for local healthwatch to champion the views of the whole breadth of the local community. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend for this contribution, and I am happy to support her amendments.

Although I am sympathetic to the sentiment behind my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s Amendments 232, 236 and 237, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that, as corporate bodies, local healthwatches will have the flexibilities to make their own arrangements for securing staff, accommodation and so on, so the local authority should not have to make such arrangements on their behalf. There is no need for express provision on payment of expenditure because the legislation requires local authorities to make arrangements to ensure that the relevant activities can be carried on in their area. Necessarily, that means providing adequate funding to enable the functions to be carried out. This is an important point that I hope reassures noble Lords: the statutory functions must be delivered, and that is a protection of these bodies.

My noble friend Lady Cumberlege is quite right about local healthwatches working out their own priorities and work, and they will no doubt be doing that in conjunction with what is found to be good practice around the country, information coming from HealthWatch England and so on. I assure my noble friend that staff are there to help to facilitate such work, not to dominate it. My noble friend Lady Jolly is right: local healthwatch is a partner with local authorities—the eyes and ears, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and others have said.

My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was concerned that government amendments would damage local healthwatch’s independence. I do not agree: the amendments do not dilute in any way the statutory functions of local healthwatch, including the ability to give advice to local authorities among others. In response to concerns that local authorities may try to suppress local healthwatch, we specifically brought forward Amendment 236E giving the Secretary of State the ability to publish conflicts of interest guidance that both local authorities and local healthwatch would have to have regard to.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised a number of issues. He regretted the fact that yesterday he was not at the seminar that I mentioned. I regret that he was not there. It was interrupted by a couple of votes, but I am sure that he would have engaged with those who were speaking there. That would have helped to inform everybody. All Peers were invited and some from his group attended. I see a few shaking heads.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the seminar was held during the regular meeting of Labour Peers which has occurred at 5 pm on Wednesday evenings since time began.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very sorry if there was a conflict of timing. Obviously it is difficult to schedule all the various meetings. My noble friend Lord Howe has had 100 meetings on this Bill.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, noble Lords have raised a number of issues regarding Public Health England, many of which we discussed in Committee. Both then and today, we heard serious points very cogently argued, which we greatly appreciate. We have considered all these issues very carefully. Since Committee stage, the department has published more detail on the new public health system, including its operating model for Public Health England. The views expressed in Committee influenced the tone of those documents, and I hope that I can now reassure noble Lords that our proposals will give the agency the operational independence that it needs to become the leading organisation of its kind in the world.

The first point I want to stress is that Public Health England will function openly and transparently. Its operational freedom will be formalised in a clear and published framework agreement between it and the department. My noble friend’s amendment proposes that the PHE board must have a non-executive chair and a majority of non-executive members. We have considered this at length and understand what the amendment aims to achieve, but we do not agree that this is the best option.

The Public Body Review was clear that Ministers should take more responsibility for arm’s-length bodies. Cabinet Office guidance is also clear that nothing should undermine the direct accountability of an agency chief executive to the relevant Minister. We believe that there are sound and pragmatic reasons underlying that position, which could be put at risk by a governance structure dominated by non-executive representatives.

The public will look to the Secretary of State for leadership and accountability in protecting the nation from threats to health and they will be right to do so. The buck must be seen to stop with him. In the past, public health has too often been pushed to the fringe, which has been recognised by noble Lords. This arrangement brings public health centre stage. Instead of the NHS simply being a treatment service, public health in its widest sense will be central to the new arrangements.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Does the noble Baroness not recall the reason why the Food Standards Agency was set up? The agency was given complete independence because the public had lost confidence in the role of Defra in relation to food safety. On public health issues, surely she can see that when she simply says that it should be a Minister who responds, the risk is that people will lose their faith in the fact that public health advice will not be impartial and independent. The Government are really putting at risk the integrity of the public health advice that is received.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

I have heard what the noble Lord and other noble Lords have said in that regard. There have been very interesting debates over the role of the Secretary of State in the whole of the NHS. Public health is one part of that. It is interesting to see that in some areas noble Lords would like the Secretary of State to be closer.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may come back on that. Surely, it is very different. In relation to the National Health Service, we have been arguing that because of the need for parliamentary accountability, it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should have the responsibilities that are now in Clause 1. But here we are talking about critical issues around public health where the need for independence is very important. Having professional advice on issues such as public health is very different from there being direction over the operation of the NHS.

[Baroness Northover]

As I have outlined, there is independence. It is key to the changes that we hope to put in place in terms of public health that it moves to the centre stage and that the Secretary of State has a much more direct line of sight in terms of promoting public health and the protection of the public. The Secretary of State will lead and have direct accountability for public health, which many people have welcomed.

Inserting an independent chair and board between him and the individual charge for the day-to-day running of Public Health England could blur those clear lines of accountability and undermine the chief executive without enhancing the agency’s flexibility, responsiveness and effectiveness in dealing with threats. This is not to say that the chief executive should not face independent challenge from the board. On the contrary, the board will include at least four independent—

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

I thank noble Lords for that extremely brief and consensual approach to this issue. We debated this in detail in Committee, and I commend all noble Lords for their work in this area.

We certainly agree that the rates of tooth decay in children and adults is an important public health measure. I point noble Lords to the public health outcomes framework, which my noble friend Lord Colwyn might like to have a look at, which is a document to which local authorities will have to have regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked whether, in terms of the public health funding allocation to local authorities, if a local authority has a fluoridation scheme, whether it will be covered within the budget. I can assure him, as I did in the meeting that we had earlier, that indeed it will be covered in the budget, which will look at the public health needs of the area—and that will be reflected in the grant. Those are the current schemes. The noble Lord asked about future schemes. Public health funding is ring-fenced, and the Government look at the needs of the area. However, local authorities will be deciding how they prioritise various issues, so it would not be appropriate for us to say that they must address this issue through a fluoridation scheme. They might be looking at all sorts of other public health issues and seeking to address their responsibilities in terms of dental health in some other way. However, I point out something that I did not know before—and I do not think that the noble Lord knew before—which is that just about all fluoridation schemes currently in place have been initiated by local authorities over their history.

I recognise the commitment of noble Lords to dental health. I appreciate it and realise that noble Lords want to speed it along. I hope that reassurances about the level of funding for current schemes will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, so that he feels able to withdraw his amendment. We continue to be very keen to engage in this area.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I should have declared in moving my amendment that I am president of the British Fluoridation Society. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, reminded me by making her own declaration. I am most grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 21st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this is a bit like Lords reform. If you deal with the bells question, you then have the Bishops. Is this part of a process of disestablishing the Church of England? I hope not.

We debated this in 2007 during the passage of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act. At the time, on behalf of the Government, I said that it was a matter for the House of Commons and that it was best that the Commons dealt with it. The fact is that the House of Commons has not dealt with it in four years. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will accept this amendment. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find support on Report if not.

I have been looking at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill and I have quickly skimmed Part 7, which covers the whole range of disqualification of Members. I might have misread it, but I cannot find any reference to disqualification on the grounds of mental illness. Quite clearly, the Government do not think that it is relevant to an elected second Chamber. It certainly should not be relevant to the House of Commons.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that the Government are publicly committed to the repeal of Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983. On 3 February 2011, the Government announced that it would be repealed when a suitable legislative vehicle became available. Section 141 sets out a process by which an MP’s seat is vacated if they are authorised to be detained under mental health legislation for a period of six months or more. There is, however, no parallel provision for the automatic disqualification of those who might be hospitalised or on sick leave with physical ailments for six months or more, as the noble Baroness has indicated, even if those people might be equally incapable of fulfilling their duties. The noble Baroness is absolutely right in that regard.

Even those who are imprisoned are not automatically disqualified unless their sentence is more than 12 months. This is an unwarranted discrimination against those with mental illness. With the repeal of Section 141, being detained in hospital for mental health reasons would no longer lead to the automatic loss of a MP’s seat.

However, the Government believe that the most suitable vehicle for this reform would be a stand-alone Bill, allowing both Houses the chance to debate this important issue. There are some outstanding questions on the extent and effect of repealing this provision, which we are still discussing with the devolved legislatures. The Government do not feel it is appropriate to accept this amendment while these questions remain unanswered.

The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill, had its Second Reading on 25 November 2011. The Bill aims to repeal various pieces of legislation that discriminate against the participation of those with mental health conditions in public life, including Section 141. At its Second Reading, the Government indicated their support for this Bill and we continue to support the Bill as an appropriate means for removing several pieces of discriminatory legislation.

We have already announced our intention to repeal, setting out the Government’s position that this sort of discrimination is not acceptable. While I applaud the noble Baroness’s intention, this important reform should be part of a stand-alone Bill, not inserted here at Committee stage. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the issue should be given the parliamentary attention it deserves, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

These amendments on whether the clauses should stand part relate to the transfer of the regulation of social workers in England from the General Social Care Council to the Health Professions Council, and I thank noble Lords for them. The regulation of social workers in England is a very important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, having played a key role in the establishment of various of these bodies, argues his usual very strong case. We are committed to the development of the social work profession and the transfer of the regulation of social workers in England to the Health Professions Council as part of the ongoing work to reform the profession and to ensure that such regulation is effective and sustainable. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I, too, pay tribute to those who have been involved in these changes. I have met a number of them and find impressive their commitment to the profession and to making sure that, whether they supported the changes in the first place or do now, they are doing their very best to make sure that this works as effectively as possible. The noble Baroness’s tribute to them is well deserved.

The purpose of compulsory statutory regulation is to assure the quality and safety of the regulated professions. That, of course, is separate from the development of the profession itself. We are clear that if we separate professional regulation from professional representation, action needs to be taken to ensure that social work has a strong professional voice, and that is why we are supporting the development of the College of Social Work and the appointment of a chief social worker. The proposed transfer of functions to the Health and Care Professions Council will bring a number of further benefits in the form of standards of proficiency, many of which will have been developed by and tailored for the profession, and a fitness to practise process that will look at conduct and competence in the round.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised some issues about the General Social Care Council and the costs and so on. The council has made progress in developing the organisation since the discovery of a backlog of contact cases in June 2009. However, while the council is improving, there is still a lot of work to be done to bring it into line with the other professional regulators, such as the Health Professions Council. In addition, the council estimated that its costs would significantly rise as a result of these changes, and it would have been challenging for individual social workers to meet those costs.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Baroness says that, but my understanding is that the latest estimate given by the GSCC is that as an independent regulator, the cost to registrants would be no different from that to the cost of registrants under the HPC, so I just do not understand the costs issue.

[Baroness Northover]

As the noble Lord will be aware, the figures provided by the General Social Care Council indicated that the costs would rise from £21 million to £25 million per annum, which would indeed cost about £250 per social worker. I realise that the council later revised this downwards, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do that those were the original figures based upon what the council estimated at the time. Even with the revision downwards, it was still not in line with the HPC, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware.

However, it is extremely important to make sure that the arrangements that are in place regulate the social work profession properly and separate out the professionalisation of social work. The noble Lord will remember that he asked a question on this, and I drew the distinction for the medical profession with which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will be familiar; the GMC regulates the medical profession, and the royal colleges do a fantastic job in promoting the profession and taking it further. The original arrangements that the noble Lord introduced were an earlier stage for social work, and the task now is to take it to the next level of development.

Regulation by the Health and Care Professions Council will bring social work regulation in England within the scope of the professional standards authority, with the added scrutiny that that will bring. It is our view that it would be wrong to require the Health Professions Council to move away from its tried and tested system of regulation solely for the social work profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

As I just said, the HPC is currently consulting. I strongly suggest that the noble Baroness feeds into the consultation her recommendations and the evidence on which they are based so that they can be properly considered.

The question was raised of how social workers might be linked to the wider reform programme. The Health Professions Council is represented on the reform board and will be able to contribute its expertise to the ongoing reform of social work. Moira Gibb, chair of the reform board, is also a member of the Social Work Regulation Oversight Group. Her professional expertise and knowledge is contributing to the transfer process. Many organisations on the HPC’s professional liaison group, which has developed draft standards of proficiency for social workers in England, are also on the Social Work Reform Board, which has ensured that the development of standards has been informed by wider developments in social work in England.

I hope that noble Lords will see that a lot of attention is being focused on trying to ensure that the change will operate as effectively as possible and will be in the interests of those with whom social workers work. It is exceptionally important that we protect the vulnerable people whom social workers look after, and we are acutely aware of that. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendments in this group.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s response. Of course I agree with her last point that the end result will be the impact on people to whom social workers provide a service. However, she did not respond to her noble friend Lord Newton, who asked whether creating this new body would not repeat some of the issues that were faced by the CQC. I am left with puzzlement. I have not heard one point in favour of this happening. It is beyond me to understand why it is being done. No argument with any thought behind it has been put to suggest that this will improve the regulation of social workers.

On the question of costs, whatever the original estimate, the General Social Care Council produced new work. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Is she saying that the General Social Care Council is misleading Parliament on the issue? It stated clearly that it can produce a regulatory system that will cost the Health Professions Council very little.

Thirdly, on the question of student registration, the problem is that I know what the outcome will be of the work that the HPC will do. It will continue with the system that it applies to the health professions. It is clear that the HPC, although it is a good body, is completely inflexible and will not change its approach because a new profession has been added to it. There is no trust out there—I have fallen into the trap set by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I am talking about the professions. There is no trust because the record of the HPC is simply to embrace profession after profession, which all have to be moulded into the system that the HPC has set. While that will work for health professions, my concern is that social work is a completely different profession. This point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.

I understand why my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is concerned about an amendment that stresses the importance of having social workers on the council of the HPC. However, because of the very new nature of the body, when one brings in a completely new profession some protection needs to be given. There needs to be some assurance that the HPC will have people at a very senior level who understand social work. I still do not know why a new council is not being appointed. If good faith was being shown by the Government to the social work profession, the current council would have been stood down and a new council appointed. That is why I tabled my amendment.

Finally, I turn to the name. The noble Baroness said that we cannot put “social work” in the name of the organisation because none of the other professions covered by the HPC is in the current HPC name. If that is the case, why does Clause 210 refer to the Health and Social Work Professions Order? The Government have no problem whatever recognising “social work” in an order before Parliament. Surely it is not up to the HPC to depart from that view. Clause 219 refers to the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. Therefore, if the noble Baroness does not like “social worker” in the title of the organisation, why would she not accept “health and social care professions”? Why is there an attempt to completely remove the concept of social work and social care from the title?

Unfortunately, an existing health body is simply taking over the social work profession without any genuflection whatever to the need to embrace social workers in the new organisation, whether in governance, remit or title. It is very disappointing that the Government are not prepared to reconsider the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is a very helpful offer from my noble friend. I welcome the debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for moving the amendment. It seems to me that there are two issues. First, we have already had a debate about whether certain professions, particularly healthcare assistants, should be statutorily regulated. No doubt, the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, will bring that back on Report. Secondly, notwithstanding whether one might agree or disagree about which profession should be statutorily regulated, is there some benefit in a voluntary register alongside statutory regulation or is there a halfway house, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has suggested, of strengthening what voluntary registration means? I have not sought to amend on the principle of voluntary registration. However, if it is accepted that there is benefit in having a voluntary register—the noble Baroness gave some powerful reasons in relation to healthcare assistants in our debate before the Statement—and if it is taken further and statutory bodies such as the NHS say, “We won’t employ you unless you are on a voluntary register”, there is then the problem that people could move on to other places and work in other care settings. Such people might have been sacked or removed by a trust. There is no guarantee of safeguards for the public. I have a sense that, once you have gone down the pathway of acknowledging that there is benefit in voluntary regulation, you are acknowledging that there should be statutory regulation.

I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, had to say and he will know that I have a particular interest in prison healthcare. I think that the involvement of the National Health Service in prison healthcare has led to a great improvement but more needs to be done. The points that he raised are very important.

I have put my name to Amendment 339BZA, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today. Perhaps I may briefly say that he has some strong arguments in relation to rehabilitation officers for the blind. He has pointed out that such officers work within the same legal framework as occupational therapists and social workers. They case-manage clients, devise and manage packages of care, oversee the work of lower skilled workers and manage risk-intensive situations with already vulnerable people. In Wales, statutory regulation for rehabilitation officers is due to be finalised at the end of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Low, would like some recognition that at least voluntary registration could be considered for this profession under the terms of the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give some positive response to the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments, which raise important issues about the ways in which we assure the quality and safety of our health and social care workforce. It is another bite of a very important cherry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, put it, which is a wonderfully graphic image. We had a full discussion of this issue earlier. Perhaps I may emphasise again that the Government are committed to embedding quality of care and patient safety at the heart of health and social care provision. These are the key drivers of our policy on workforce assurance.

I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that we need to drive up quality, which has run through a lot of our debates today. In considering how we achieve this, we need to ensure that any system is proportionate and effective and properly balances the need for local responsibility for providing high-quality, safe services, and the need for consistent and rigorous national standards. I assure noble Lords that we are not ruling out compulsory statutory regulation for any groups of workers. Compulsory statutory regulation will be considered where there is a clear body of evidence that the risks presented by specific groups cannot be mitigated by assured voluntary registration alongside other existing systems of assurance of standards, such as supervision of workers by qualified professionals, enforcement of standards by employers, registration with the Care Quality Commission, and the vetting and barring system.

However, compulsory statutory regulation, as we discussed earlier although we did not all agree, is not a panacea. It is no substitute for good leadership at every level and proper and visible management of health and social care services. The best protection for the public is, of course, well run services focused on the individual and delivered by qualified staff and appropriately trained and supervised care workers. Employers, commissioners and managers must take responsibility for ensuring this and we need to make sure that local service providers and commissioners are held to account for managing problems effectively and promptly.

The Care Quality Commission sets standards of care for all providers of regulated activities and takes action when they are not met. These standards include a requirement that providers use suitable numbers of appropriately trained and qualified workers. In the rare cases where health and social care workers present a risk of harm to service users, the vetting and barring system can be used to ban individuals from working with vulnerable adults and children. In this context, our view is that the standards of unregulated groups of health and social care workers can generally be assured without imposing compulsory statutory regulation. However, we recognise that we need to ensure that commissioners, employers, supervisors and individual users of services have the knowledge needed appropriately to employ, delegate to and supervise health and social care workers. The Government believe, as noble Lords have clearly picked up, that assured voluntary registration enables this to be achieved.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to enable regulatory bodies to establish and maintain voluntary registers of unregulated rehabilitation officers for the blind in England. The assured voluntary registration of this important group of workers would enable standards to be set for entry to and practice of the profession. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Low, through the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the amendment is unnecessary as we are confident that the provisions which enable voluntary registers as social care workers in England to be established by the Health and Care Professions Council and accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care are already wide enough to include such officers.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, flagged up key areas with his particular concern about prisoners’ mental health and the mental health of those coming out of the Army. The Health and Care Professions Council will be given the power to set up voluntary registers of workers. Perhaps I may clarify for him the possible confusion over the roles of the various bodies. The council can set up voluntary registers of workers. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care will not hold registers, but will have the function of accrediting them to ensure that they are robust. However, I am happy to write with further details to clarify the situation for the noble Lord so as to ensure that he is quite happy with the way that things will be organised.

In referring back to our earlier debate, perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lady Barker, who is absolutely right in terms of training, that we place great importance on improving the training of health and social care workers, and especially on further integrating it, something flagged up not only by my noble friend, but also earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and others.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our commitment to assuring the quality and safety of health and social care workers and the contribution assured voluntary registration can make to the existing systems of assurance of the standards of health and social care workers. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for her perseverance and determination in this very important area. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I am clear that the role of healthcare assistants has to be seen in the context of a much more general debate about nursing care, including the compassion that he talked so eloquently about.

As the noble Baroness said to us rather earlier this afternoon, we had an excellent debate on nursing on 1 December, and we are presented with something of a paradox: on the one hand, we should not ignore the huge advances in the nursing profession over the past 20 years. There has been the move to a graduate profession and nurses have taken on much greater responsibility, including for complex care and specialist care, and I think that, overall, the public have welcomed that increased responsibility. At the same time, there has been real and mounting concern about basic standards of care and issues to do with hygiene, feeding of patients, nutrition, dignity and even face-to-face contact—the kind of compassion that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has just spoken about. We have seen the reports from unannounced visits of various bodies. Recently, the CQC has undertaken important visits to many of our hospitals. There seems to be real evidence and concern about a falling of standards of basic care.

The reasons for that are not clear. It is possible that nurse training is now too focused on academic performance rather than on practical nurse training. It is also at least possible that the drive for specialist nurses and modern matrons has taken from the ward the many experienced nurses who, in retrospect, might be better placed in leading their ward as ward manager or senior sister. What is not in doubt is the need for serious thinking about how we can enhance the overall quality in standards of basic care that nurses give.

That brings us to the role of healthcare assistants. Again, in our debate on 1 December, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in responding, referred to the concerns that had been expressed about nursing in the acute sector in particular. He said he felt that that,

“related to inappropriate delegation by nurses to healthcare”,

assistants. He continued:

“Wherever there is a multidisciplinary team of regulated professionals and unregulated healthcare workers, appropriate delegation and supervision is vitally important. This is an area ripe for formal review”.

He also said that the Government welcomed,

“the NMC’s plans to update its guidance on delegation”,

and that they have,

“asked Skills for Health and Skills for Care to accelerate production of a code of conduct”.—[Official Report, 1/12/11; col. 419.]

I am sure that those actions by the Government are very generally welcomed. The question before us is whether they are sufficient. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has said, it is clear that she does not think that they are. Powerful support for that argument has been received from the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which argues that a system of regulation for healthcare support workers should contain provisions for consistent UK-wide standards of training and practice that would assure the public and employers that they have the knowledge and skills to practice safely. It further suggests a mandatory register to ensure that workers who have been struck off the nursing and midwifery register are not re-employed in a healthcare support role, which has been the subject of some concerns. It is also notable that the House of Commons Health Committee supports mandatory statutory regulation of healthcare assistants, which it believes is the only approach that would maximise public protection.

However, we have heard from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, who has put a different view. It will be interesting to hear the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on why she thinks that a voluntary register for healthcare assistants is the way forward. I should like to ask her whether she would support NHS bodies which require healthcare assistants to be voluntarily registered as a condition of employment. If that were the case, what safeguards does she think could be put in place as regards a worker who was dismissed because of poor conduct towards a patient? How could we ensure that in those circumstances that person could not then work in another part of the care sector? That seems to me to go to the heart of the issue of whether a voluntary register could work.

I have no doubt that NHS employers could be encouraged to make it mandatory but the problem with that is that too many people could slip through the net. I would also ask the noble Baroness to respond to my noble friend Lord Warner. I share his view that, clearly, we are crying out for a fundamental review of these issues around nursing quality and care, compassion, and dignity of care being given to patients, and that relationship to healthcare assistants. If the Government are not prepared to move on this and on the point about only going as far as a voluntary register, can they at least give some comfort and assurance that they recognise that this matter needs close attention?

I am not a great believer in royal commissions—I think it was Harold Wilson who said that they could be established in a minute but take years—but there is a strong case for a fundamental review of the nursing profession, embracing healthcare assistants. Would the Government be prepared to give us some comfort on this?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, these amendments seek to extend compulsory statutory regulation to healthcare support workers. I thank noble Lords for the amendments because they raise important issues about the ways in which we assure the quality and safety of those who work in support of our regulated health professionals. The Government are publishing a fact sheet on this issue that will contain further details about their proposals, which I hope will be helpful to noble Lords.

There are more than 200,000 nursing assistants and approximately a further 1 million people working in similar jobs in adult social care in England alone. The majority of support workers give the highest quality of care. However, a minority let patients down. This is rightly a cause for concern, although as a former historian I have to say that I do not fully recognise the notion of everything having been perfect in earlier periods but everything breaking down at this point. One needs only to look at what has been said from Florence Nightingale onwards about what happened during the interwar periods, during times of war and so on. This has always been more varied than perhaps noble Lords are allowing for. Nevertheless, it is extremely important that we try to drive up quality and ensure that quality holds good right across the health service and social care. It is right that there is discussion and debate about the best way of ensuring that high standards of care are delivered at all times.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, pointed out, there are already existing tiers of regulation that protect patients and service users. Professionals struck off by their regulator or sacked by an employer who pose a risk to vulnerable adults or children should be referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which has been very clear that it expects this to happen. In the same way, employers should make referrals about individuals from unregulated groups where they pose a risk of harm to vulnerable adults or children. Providers and employers also play a key role in ensuring safe, high quality care that patients and service users can be confident in, being both responsible and accountable for the staff they employ. Under the registration requirements of the Care Quality Commission, providers must take steps to ensure that at all times there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced persons employed for the purpose of carrying on any regulated activity.

An individual being on a list does not alter this and would not remove employers’ responsibility to undertake a range of checks on the suitability of any persons who they appoint, including qualifications, relevant registrations, employment history and reference checks to ensure that an individual is competent for a specific role. Equally, appropriate delegation and supervision is a necessity within teams made up of both regulated and unregulated professionals and workers. Guidance by the Nursing and Midwifery Council is being updated so that nursing staff know how to delegate appropriately and safely.

We are not ruling out compulsory statutory regulation for healthcare support workers, but our view is that the case has not yet been made for imposing further compulsory statutory regulation, given the tiers of existing regulation and the duties on regulated professionals. There is no solid evidence that demonstrates that healthcare support workers and adult social care workers should be subject to compulsory statutory regulation. Research by King’s College London concluded that little evidence could be deployed to show that regulation of healthcare support workers would reduce the risk to the public, although it was clear that some healthcare workers were undertaking roles that had traditionally been done by nurses. The point is that quality is not always what is delivered. Therefore, we have to try to tackle that concern and not simply assume that regulation will deal with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned, there are regulated professions which are in some instances letting us down. We must focus on the real problem and figure out ways of tackling it.

The Government’s view is that high standards for healthcare support workers and other professional occupational groups can be assured without imposing compulsory statutory regulation. That is why, in the wider context of supporting providers, we are creating through the Bill a system of external quality assurance for voluntary registers. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, there are various examples of voluntary registration for groups of professionals. We are proposing a quality-assured voluntary approach, looking at how those registers are set up and operated and what training is offered and so on. A quality-assured voluntary register will set standards for training, conduct, competence and ethics that all registrants must meet.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, if the Government are putting so much faith in the quality-assured voluntary register, surely the evidence from King’s College would show that that was not necessary. They cannot have it both ways. Either regulation, and what comes with it, provides advantages or it does not.

[Baroness Northover]

Regulation and training are often put as two words in one sentence. Regulation may indeed include training; assured voluntary registers may also include training. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, talked about that. Perhaps I may come on to it, because it is potentially relevant here.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution to this debate, not only today but throughout her time in the House of Lords. We agree that common standards of training are needed for those working in both health and social care, as well as more role-specific training, and that this will lead to a more capable and flexible group of support workers. As we seek to integrate health and social care more effectively, this area deserves a lot of scrutiny.

We expect work on the standards to begin by April 2012 in terms of training, and for them to be agreed ahead of the establishment of voluntary registers for healthcare support workers and adult social care workers, which could be operational from 2013. This will allow unregulated workers to demonstrate that they meet a set of minimum standards for training and are committed to a code of conduct.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I still do not understand this. If it is so important that the voluntary registers are established, for the reasons that the Minister has given, why on earth not go the full hog and make registration compulsory? If the Government do not think that it is important, they would not be pursuing the voluntary register approach. However, by taking that approach, they will leave lots of people outside the net.

[Baroness Northover]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and others have indicated, one has to be proportionate about this and not think that simply going down the route of regulation is going to crack it. Nevertheless, training and making sure that people are well prepared for the work that they are doing is clearly of great importance. We would expect a voluntary register, quality assured in the way that I have described, to provide a way for employers to assure what they are offering in terms of staff. There will therefore be greater take-up. Those who are on the quality-assured register will find themselves more employable, which will move things forward. Meanwhile, if, as we continue to debate this, voluntary registration does not seem sufficient and regulation seems the route to go down, the Government do not rule that out. However, it is extremely important to focus on the end point, which is to try to drive up quality, and not simply be deflected by thinking that this would crack it.

I assure noble Lords that we will keep this issue under constant review. We are well aware of people’s concerns and that standards need to be driven up in a much more even way across the board. As I say, we are developing the education and training which I hope will go some way towards this.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lady Gould, on their perseverance. I think they have been waiting for about three days for this amendment. Clearly, they have pointed out the anomaly in the law and the perverse incentive under the current situation; in particular, the fact that if charges result in no treatment, there is danger to the individual and risk of spreading the disease, and that knowledge of charging prevents people from coming forward for testing and treatment. As my noble friend Lady Gould has just said, the contrast with other infectious diseases such as TB clearly points this out as an anomaly.

I too was interested in the answer to the question about health tourism. We have been given a pretty convincing response. The experience of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is very clear. I also found very interesting the question of cost against benefit. It appears that very little money is raised by the charge, but that it is a disincentive for people to come forward. If they do not come forward, the cost to the system in the end is much greater. It seems to me a pretty convincing argument. I know there is a review, but we encourage the noble Baroness to anticipate that review and give good news to your Lordships tonight.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Fowler for the constructive way in which he has raised this amendment and I pay credit, as others have to done, to his continuing, enormous commitment to improving HIV services for all. I also pay tribute to other noble Lords who contributed to this debate and to this long battle over many years. I will commit to having considered by Report the arguments and proposals set out by my noble friend.

The Department of Health is indeed currently concluding an internal review of the current policy to charge some people for HIV treatment. We will be concluding this review by the new year, including any discussions with the other government departments which will have an interest. The review has considered many of the issues raised by noble Lords today. These include the increasing evidence of the public health benefits of early diagnosis and the role of HIV treatment in reducing onward transmission of HIV.

In the UK, around 25 per cent of people with HIV are unaware of their infection, which means they are unable to benefit from effective treatment and risk transmitting HIV to others. Promoting HIV testing to reduce undiagnosed HIV and late diagnosis remain important priorities for HIV prevention. We would be very concerned if our current policy were to deter people from testing for HIV, even though testing has always been free of charge to all. Those already entitled to free HIV treatment and care include asylum seekers and, from 1 August this year, failed asylum seekers receiving specific support packages from the UK Border Agency. Further, failed asylum seekers who are already receiving HIV treatment when their asylum application and any appeal fails continue to receive free HIV treatment up to the point that they leave the country, regardless of whether or not they receive the UK Border Agency support.

However, I acknowledge that a small number of vulnerable people will not be covered by the current exemptions and they may be deterred from accessing HIV testing services because they cannot afford treatment or are confused about the entitlement to free NHS treatment.

The world has made huge progress against the HIV epidemic in the 30 years since AIDS was first identified. Globally, new infections have fallen, and nearly 7 million people are on ARV treatment. While there is currently no significant evidence of health tourism in relation to HIV, in considering any changes to our current policy we must make sure we that we do not create an incentive for people to come to the UK for the purpose of free HIV treatment, without compromising our overriding responsibility for public health. I stress again that our overriding responsibility is to public health. As my noble friend Lord Fowler said, the Select Committee on HIV examined the issue of health tourism.

In conclusion, the department's review identified and considered many of the issues raised today. We are now looking urgently at how these can best be addressed. I assure my noble friend that we will provide a clear position in time for Report. I hope that in the light of this he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

General Social Care Council

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received about their proposal to abolish the General Social Care Council.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, a small number of representations has been received regarding the abolition of the General Social Care Council from the council itself, the British Association of Social Workers, the Social Care Association, Unison and individuals. Most of the comments focus on ensuring the effective regulation of social workers by the health and care professions council under the proposed new arrangements.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. She will be aware that yesterday the Munro review was published, containing a number of recommendations for enhancing the quality and status of social workers, particularly in relation to child protection. How does the Minister square that with the abolition of the General Social Care Council and the placing of the regulation of social workers under a health body that has absolutely no experience of social work?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord—who I believe was the Minister responsible for setting up the General Social Care Council—is, not surprisingly, challenging us on this. As he will know, in 2009 there was a review of the council which concluded that it lacked focus. In essence, there was a muddling together of the regulatory function and the professionalisation of this area. One of the things that the review strongly recommended was that the profession of social workers should be regulated in the same way as the independent Health Professions Council has done. This change introduces that. The noble Lord expresses concern about whether it will reduce the effectiveness of that regulation. I do not think that it will; I think that it will make it clearer. It is very important that other bodies which, as he knows, currently exist, take forward the separate professionalisation and strengthening of the profession of social work.

Socioeconomic Equality Duty

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

I am sorry. I did not realise the time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

With respect, the noble Baroness rose on the 19th minute.

Women: Deaths in Custody

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

Yes, that is the case. Quite a lot of investment has gone into training prison officers; if I can find the page in my brief, I will find how many have been trained. I seem to remember that something like £600,000 has gone into supporting them and a large number of prison officers are now trained to look for the tell-tale signs. Clearly, though, that is still insufficient.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Baroness will be aware that one of the reasons for the encouraging reduction in the number of tragic deaths has been the enhancement of the health service provided by primary care trusts within the prison setting. Is she as concerned as I am that, as a result of the abolition of primary care trusts, the replacement GP consortia will not be in a position to provide the kind of enhanced services that we have seen introduced in the past few years?

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Looking after prisoners will come under the national commissioning board rather than the GP consortia. The board will work in conjunction with the GP consortia to deliver the best possible care to those in the locality, working with other specialists and the public health service, which will be much more locally based.