Skills for Care Report

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take in response to the report by Skills for Care The state of the adult social care sector and workforce in England 2022, published on 11 October, which shows that there are 165,000 vacancies in the social care workforce and that this workforce has shrunk for the first time in 10 years.

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

My Lords, we are investing in adult social care. We have made £500 million available to support discharge from hospital into the community and bolster the workforce this winter; that is on top of record funding to support our 10-year plan as set out in the People at the Heart of Care White Paper. We are backing recruitment at home and abroad with a £15 million international recruitment fund and a new domestic campaign, which we will launch shortly.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. I expected him to mention the £500 million workforce fund, of course, but he will know that it has been described as a drop in the ocean and that councils are calling for far more to be pumped into better pay and recruitment in the social care workforce. I do not want to be disrespectful to the new Minister, who I know has a lot on his plate, but I wonder whether he and the Government really understand the scale of the crisis in social care. Some 50,000 people left an already inadequate workforce last year; that is not surprising when they can get better pay and conditions in Tesco, and when one in five care workers is in poverty despite being in full-time work.

The previous Prime Minister told us that he would fix social care. The current Prime Minister has withdrawn the levy that would eventually have provided extra funds, with no indication of how those funds will be replaced. Is the Minister aware that, meanwhile, thousands of older and disabled people, both in their own homes and in care homes, are being neglected and deprived of services in a way that no decent society should tolerate? Will he acknowledge both the depth of the crisis and the fact that we need a step change in the way we value social care and the dedicated people who provide it?

Primary and Community Care: Improving Patient Outcomes

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for leading this debate and, beyond that, for the leadership that he provides to this House on all matters health related. Although he used the words community care to refer to community care health services, I know that he will forgive me if I slip over into the other bits of community care, which are so vital when we consider healthcare and which work in collaboration with primary care.

Patients and carers must be the focus of this debate, because improving outcomes for them is what primary and community care services are all about. But I must put in a word of warning here on behalf of those patients and carers: if you ask a typical patient or carer to define primary or community care, they would struggle, as the noble Viscount so ably and vitally reminded us. I must say it is a pleasure to see him with us, not at all past his sell-by date. A typical patient simply does not know the difference and why should they? They refer to “my doctor”, “the hospital” or “the carers who come in to see my mother”. They do not know about different streams, different types of training or regulation; they are puzzled only by why test results take so long to reach their GP, why some care is free and other care has to be paid for.

I have lost track of how many friends and neighbours I have advised should be in receipt of NHS continuing care funding for their elderly parent, when they have immediately been advised to seek a place in a private and very expensive nursing home, without any reference to possible alternatives. What puzzles patients and carers most of all is the lack of communication and integration between services. “Why on earth do they not talk to each other?” they say. “Why do I have to tell my story all over again to every new person I see? Why did my GP not know that I was being discharged from hospital?” Every time I speak to a patient or carer, I find myself at a loss to explain why these things happen.

It is not as though they are new problems or that we do not know how to solve them. We know about integration, shared budgets, joint training initiatives, more realistic funding and better workforce support. We had great hopes when the integration White Paper was published earlier this year: it promised shared planning and delivery for health and social care and making access easier. But there was little to explain how a joined-up system would be managed, be accountable to the public and balance what is delivered locally with national standards and entitlements. That is another cause of bewilderment among patients: “Why does my sister in Devon or Doncaster get something that I have been told I can’t have where I live?”

I must turn to the disaster area of social care, because you cannot focus on any problems in the NHS without fixing social care. I was amazed, as many of your Lordships would have been, to hear the outgoing Prime Minister claim, on Tuesday, that he had fixed it. You could have fooled me or anyone else who works in the system. Why are ambulances in short supply and taking longer to reach those in need? It is obvious: they are queuing at hospitals because there are no beds to move people into from A&E. One in seven hospital beds is now occupied by a patient who is fit to be discharged but cannot be, because there is nowhere for them to go, because of chronic underfunding in the system. With such long-term shortages in the workforce, even those who have a care home place may be neglected, while unpaid carers carry even more burdens, as I have reminded your Lordships on all too many occasions.

I was grateful that the Minister was able to secure a concession for carers in the recent Health and Care Act, enabling them to be consulted at the point of discharge. However, all too often, local services to support them are sparse or non-existent. The charitable sector, which is often the main source of support, is also under severe pressure.

One reason is Brexit—so many former employees were from the European Union—while another is poor wages and another is lack of respect for the social care professions, which are always seen as the poor relation when compared with health services. The Minister referred to that in his Answer to a Question earlier.

The new Prime Minister said that she will stop the health and social care levy, which was meant to fund, first, backlogs in the NHS and, secondly, social care. Will she now give all that money to social care? If so, how much will it be and how many constraints will be placed on how it is used?

The lack of attention to and funding of preventive services is a constant problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, reminded us. Small amounts of money spent early in a patient journey can head off many problems, but too often we wait for a crisis, which requires far more resources and has poorer outcomes anyway. GPs can be vital in identifying such early-intervention opportunities, but are often denied the opportunity to do so. We must remember too that the cost of living crisis will only make problems of access worse and there will be more demand because of cold homes and inadequate diets.

Many have mentioned problems with primary care and the supply of GPs. The reason there are so many patients who walk into A&E is often the difficulty they experience getting a GP appointment. I know this is a major problem in many areas, but I must put in a word for some GP practices, such as my own, which provide services way beyond those we expect and attempt to support their communities with services and initiatives for the homeless, the lonely and those with mental health problems.

I turn to the reforms needed. We need more progress on integration, taking note of some of the local initiatives, which are fine examples, and not being constrained by the “not invented here” syndrome, which is a problem for many people who work in the health service. We must also face up to the workforce crisis. The Public Services Committee, on which I serve, has been mentioned, and it showed that no recruitment targets are being met. It was a great pity that the Government did not accept the amendments for regular reviews of the workforce put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, when the Health and Care Act was going through. To address shortages, Governments, regulators and employers must succeed in retaining existing professionals and recruiting and training additional ones. This may mean that they have to challenge conventions about education and training and be far more flexible in how we deploy that workforce. How many times have I heard calls in this House for integrated training across health and social care, but has any real progress been made?

Being more flexible about patient need requires some professions to give up their protected status and to recognise that a nurse, physiotherapist, pharmacist or healthcare assistant can meet patient needs as well as or—dare I say it?—even better than a doctor. It is a pity that radical reforms of the regulation of the health professions have never been tackled, in spite of many promises.

The new Prime Minister said that the NHS will be a strong focus for her Administration. She will always find those who work in health and care committed, dedicated and willing to embrace change. What they ask for in return is honesty about the problems they face and recognition of their devoted service.

Care Homes: Energy Costs

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As my noble friend will be aware, many care homes are privately owned and run. Quite often, we do not get into that level of detail but I will take the question back to my department once we are aware of the package that is announced.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, to add to the problems of care homes to which noble Lords have referred is the report in today’s newspapers that the new Secretary of State for Health intends to use them as places to discharge people who cannot have a social care package in their own homes. Can the Minister assure the House that, if this happens, all attention will be paid to the huge problem that care homes already have in recruiting enough staff to carry out their existing functions?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

All noble Lords will be aware of the challenges facing care homes and their owners, including recruiting sufficient staff. People have referred to a number of different issues; one is vocation and feeling valued—quite often they feel as if they are poor relations. Another issue is supply, which is one reason we have looked at a visa to try to encourage more workers from overseas. If we make it a proper vocation, people will want to train in it, get those qualifications and feel they have a valued career.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in very much welcoming my noble friend’s introduction to her amendment, I refer to Motion A, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks and to which he has brought Amendment 11A in lieu. This relates to potential conflicts of interests within membership of committees or sub-committees appointed to exercise commissioning functions on behalf of integrated care boards. This is important because those committees will form the basis for what is widely described in the NHS as place-based decision-making.

The Minister in Committee—which must seem a long time ago to him—referred to his hope

“that the ICB will exercise functions through place-based committees, where a wider group of members can take decisions”.—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1852.]

This was in relation to the series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about primary care and the need for it to be round the table. I see the potential of that, but as they are given increased responsibilities, there are questions about how placed-based committees are to be held to account. It is important that they are transparent, have robust governance arrangements in place and are properly held to account. Equally important is to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are avoided —particularly that members with private sector interests who could undermine the independence of decision-making should not be appointed to such bodies.

I welcome the Minister’s amendment in lieu but there are a couple of points I want to raise with him. First, in Lords Amendment 11, to which the Commons disagreed, there is in proposed new subsection (c) a reference to members of a committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board obtaining

“information that might be perceived to favour the interest or potential interest”

of that member. However, in the noble Lord’s amendment in lieu there is no reference to access to information which could undermine the independence of the health service. Is this point regarding information implicit within his own amendment? Can he assure us that the issue must be covered when each ICB sets up its governance arrangements?

I also want to ask him about the chair of an integrated care board committee or sub-committee. His Amendment 11A follows the approach of the Bill and prohibits the chair of an ICB appointing someone who would undermine the independence of the health service. Can the Minister confirm that no chair would be appointed if they were also someone who would undermine the independence of the health service because of their involvement with the private healthcare sector?

I conclude by reiterating to the Minister that there are clearly more general conflicts of interest within integrated care boards that are going to prove challenging in the future. With NHS healthcare providers playing an increasing role in the commissioning and funding of local services through ICBs, there is a blurring of the line between those procuring a public service and those being paid to deliver it. It is very likely that conflicts of interest issues will emerge, with decisions potentially taken to benefit providers, with limited due process and transparency.

It is vital that, alongside the Bill, there are very strong governance arrangements to ensure that ICBs and their committees and sub-committees make decisions in the best interests of local populations. I hope the Minister agrees.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to express support for the Motion in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench but principally to comment on Motion E. I know that the Minister and his officials listened carefully and took note of the strength of feeling about unpaid carers expressed on all sides of your Lordships’ House in Committee and on Report. I am most grateful for that strength of feeling and the wise advice given by this House, which has resulted in what I would describe as a satisfactory outcome in the form of a new amendment.

The other place has replaced the amendment passed by a large majority in your Lordships’ House and put forward its own, which was accepted there and brought to us today. I am most grateful to the Minister and all his officials for the work that they have put into drafting this amendment, and for the understanding shown for the position of unpaid carers and the importance of involving patients and carers in discharge planning, as soon as is feasible in that process.

I seek the Minister’s further assurance on a couple of other points. The first is that parent carers are not excluded when a disabled child is discharged from hospital. This is referred to in the guidance when their own discharge is happening but not when the child they care for is being discharged. We need to ensure that services across different disciplines are married up. I know that other Lords and colleagues will be seeking assurances about this and about young carers.

My second point is that the guidance contains references to checking that a carer is willing and able to care. I hope that the Minister may be able to enlarge on this a bit. There will be occasions when the carer’s own situation makes caring impossible: they may simply be too ill to take on the responsibility, for example, however willing they may be. We need to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear in such a situation and that no assumptions are made in the discharge process about the carer’s ability. We have all seen too many examples of where this was not acknowledged, inevitably leading to the readmission of the patient.

We all seek to make hospital discharges as safe and efficient as possible, while not exerting undue pressure on the most important components: the patient and their carers. Of course, we shall need to monitor carefully how the guidance is applied, and we have to be sure too that carers are informed about their rights. I hope that the Minister’s department will promote suitable publicity as the reforms are implemented. I assure him that I, Carers UK and, I am sure, other Peers will be constantly on the case to ensure that carers and patients can trust the discharge system to support them.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to contribute to this group and speak to Motions G1, G2 and H. As context, I say that my noble friend, the Front Bench team and their Bill team have gone to enormous efforts to try to reach a number of compromises; at this stage it is incumbent on us to recognise that. If we were to send further amendments to the other place, we should confine ourselves to doing so only in circumstances where we believe that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a compromise on them.

I was a signatory to Amendment 80. There was a compelling reason to send that to the other place and ask it to consider again the question of excluding local authority contributions from the calculation of the social care cap. The reason was, very straightforwardly, that it was introduced in the Commons at a late stage in the passage of the Bill. At that point—on Report—MPs themselves complained vociferously that they had not had an opportunity to consider it for any period of time, so it has gone back. In sending it back, we have done our job, but I am afraid I see no evidence that the Government, given their majority in the Commons, are going to reconsider the central question of excluding local authority contributions from the cap. I think they are wrong but, particularly given the substantial financial consequences it would entail, it would be wrong for us to think that we could insist—and if we cannot insist, we should not send it back.

Where Motion H is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who kindly moved my amendment—which was entirely in my name— as at that point I was down with Covid for the first time. I would not now insist on that provision, not least because it entails financial privilege. From my point of view, it was to say, “Would you please get on with it?” My noble friend said in his introduction that the Government are getting on with it. I can promise him that, if they do not get on with it by the latter part of next year, we will be complaining and will be right to do so.

I turn to Motion G. Why have I tabled Motion G2? I confess that I have done it not in the expectation that we will send it to the other place because, as my noble friend said, that would be to intervene with quite a significant argument at this very late stage. However, I think the development of these arguments on the part of the Government has been quite interesting. First, they said, “Well, we are doing something and something is better than nothing.” Indeed, something is better than nothing, but it is not necessarily the best thing. So we said, “Hang on a minute. You said you would do this last September and introduce the cap.” We thought they were doing something that was very much in line with the Dilnot recommendations, even if the cap was set at a higher level, but it then turned out that they were not and that they were excluding local authority contributions.

On the financial implications of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, set out very well, if it saves £900 million, from whom principally is that saving to be derived? It is from those who are otherwise the beneficiaries of local authority contributions and who, as a consequence, are not asked to pay towards the cap. As the noble Baroness said, particularly if they have dementia and long-term care needs, over the years their assets will be substantially more depleted than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think we should kid ourselves: the Government are planning to do something which, in my view, exacerbates significantly the inequitable characteristics of the way the cap works. It is regressive in its effects.

Curiously, when they were debating this at the other end, they looked at the risk that incorporating local authority contributions would mean that, in different places across the country, different local authorities would provide different levels of contributions and therefore people would end up with some inequity in the amount they had to pay. This is no doubt true, but it feels like the Government shrieked at the mouse of inequity that would result from that and ignored the elephant of inequity that is in the removal of the local authority contribution to the cap.

I am always rather amused when the Minister is briefed—this happened at the other end as well—to tell us about what happened in 2012 or 2014 on the Care Act. Yes, Andrew Dilnot looked at whether the cap should be expressed as a percentage of people’s assets and did not recommend it, but that is not what is proposed in Motion G2. The model that was rejected was that there would not be a cap figure and that the cap would simply be expressed as a percentage—the so-called limited liability model. We did not support it, but the Dilnot model also had a lower cap and its structure, with the changes in the means test, would have had the effect that nobody would have lost more than about 45% of their assets. The structure the Government are now bringing in will mean that people with relatively few assets will continue to lose, in effect, 100% of their assets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, correctly said, people who have substantial assets will only ever lose a modest proportion of those. It is not fair.

I am going to retreat, but I tell my noble friend that I think the Government should say, and I hope he will say in response, that if this turns out to be inequitable, which I believe it will, and the Government want to find the money to do something about it, they have the means to do so. I think that using the concept of a percentage of one’s assets is a legitimate way of doing it. Finally, just to put this on the record, my noble friend said that we cannot do that and that it is unworkable because people’s assets are constantly changing. No: if you do it in the context of the cap, people whose assets are significantly in excess of the requisite calculation of the amount of relevant assets would never have to be checked again. It is therefore perfectly possible to do it in relation only to those people whose financial means have to be regularly assessed for the purposes of the local authority means test in any case.

It is entirely workable; it could be done. Frankly, I think that with the passage of time the Government will realise that it is a better way of managing the cap; saying, for example, that 50% or 60% of one’s assets may be required to meet the cap but never as much as 100%. So I am retreating, and I encourage noble Lords not to insist on something that has substantial financial implications and on which the other place—as was quite clear from the debate—is not willing to shift. I hope my noble friend will say that, if this or indeed any future Government were to decide that they wanted to ameliorate the regressive effects of the exclusion of local authority contributions, there are other routes to doing so. Setting a percentage of the assets of people who are subjected to the means test as their contribution to the cap would be an effective way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I should inform the House that if Motion G1 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Motion G2 by reason of pre-emption.

NHS: Abuse of Nurses

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

We are looking at the way in which abusers are treated. On 13 November 2018, the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 came into force, and since 2020 we have also been working with the Ministry of Justice in consulting on doubling the sentence for such assaults to two years. The Government are now legislating for this through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In addition, a Joint Agreement on Offences Against Emergency Workers was agreed between NHS England and NHS Improvement and the Crown Prosecution Service in January 2020.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister outline how the training of nurses is being adjusted or extended to take account of this regrettable violence towards them? Does he agree that when we are thinking about training, we must include all nurses—not just those who work in hospitals but, most especially, those who work in communities and therefore go individually into people’s homes?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As well as various programmes such as the NHS violence prevention and reduction standard, against which trusts are measured and held accountable, there are a number of different local initiatives to see what works and what does not in different places. There are a number of innovative ones, and I will give one example, rather than take up too much time. The No Force First initiative at Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust has resulted in a 46% reduction in physical assaults against staff. There are a number of other examples that I could lay out in detail.

Care Homes: Evicted Residents

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point. When we look at the current landscape in the social care sector, it is clear that people do not really understand the overall sector. One thing that we are looking at in regard to the voluntary register is encouraging care staff to come forward to register. Registration includes their standard of education and the qualifications they have received. We will look at how we can improve and have a more consistent qualification system, so that being a care worker is a more rewarding vocation in the future.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that restrictive practices about visiting in care homes extend not just to relatives and friends visiting but to the outside people who come in to provide stimulation to residents? These include people who bring in animals, for example, and people who do physiotherapy or all sorts of word games and so on. Those people are also restricted now by some homes, though not all. That results in further deterioration in the mental and emotional health of residents, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

One thing that has clearly upset a lot of people is that they are unable to visit. This means not just relatives but, as the noble Baroness rightly said, people who enter care homes to offer healthcare, stimulation and other services to residents. These issues were brought up, I understand, in a meeting with my colleague, the Minister for Care and Mental Health, when she met residents’ associations. It is very important that we recognise all the problems and that we tackle this in a holistic way to make sure that, as we improve the quality of our social care system, and make it more joined-up and integrated with the health system, we are aware of all these problems so that the patient experience is far better all the way through.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

113: After Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
“Carers and safe discharge from hospital
(1) This section applies where—(a) a person (“the patient”) is a qualifying hospital patient at a hospital, and(b) the responsible NHS body considers that it is unlikely to be safe to discharge the patient from hospital unless care provided by one or more carers is available to the patient.(2) It is the duty of the responsible NHS body to—(a) consult the patient about their preferences regarding their care following discharge from hospital, and(b) take reasonable steps to identify and consult any carer or potential carer of the patient about to be discharged.(3) The NHS body must consult any carer or potential carer identified under subsection (2) to ascertain—(a) whether the carer is able, and is likely to continue to be able, to provide care for the patient needing care, and(b) whether the carer is willing, and is likely to continue to be willing, to do so.(4) Having consulted the carer, the NHS body must cooperate with the local authority in relation to their duties under the Care Act 2014, the Health and Care Act 2006 and the Children Act 1989.(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) a “qualifying hospital patient” means a person being accommodated at—(i) a health service hospital, or(ii) an independent hospital in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body,who is receiving (or who has received or is expected to receive) care.(b) a “carer” means any person, including any child under the age of 18, who provides or intends to provide care in respect of a patient to whom the NHS may provide services, but a person is not to be regarded as a carer if they provide or intend to provide care under or by virtue of a contract, or as voluntary work.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provision retains the principle and duty on a hospital, whether it be an NHS hospital or an independent hospital, to ensure that a patient must be safe to discharge from hospital and mirrors carers’ rights which were established in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc) Act 2003.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 113 focuses on carers and safe discharge for hospital patients. The amendment defines the patient and the carer and is focused on safeguarding the rights of unpaid carers when the person they care for is discharged from hospital. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is sadly unable to be in his place because he is isolating, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollins, and all the other Peers who have expressed it. My thanks go also to Professor Luke Clements, professor of law and social justice at the University of Leeds, for his wise advice on the drafting of this amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time and effort they have put in to meeting Peers and Carers UK—I declare an interest as its vice-president.

I continue to be amazed at what I am going to say next because, as it stands, the Bill revokes the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, which includes a requirement to consult carers prior to discharge. Thus, for the first time, the rights of unpaid carers will be removed without being replaced by additional or improved rights. Many people, me included, have been fighting to get rights for carers recognised for over 30 years. We first achieved rights through Private Members’ Bills over several Parliaments and under Governments of all colours. No one could have been more delighted than I when these were later enshrined in government legislation such as the delayed discharges Act and the Care Act, but here there is no question of enhancing carers’ rights.

On the contrary, the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill recognises that carers may be asked to take on additional hours of care, which could mean they have to reduce their hours of work or give up paid work entirely. It states that while the Government anticipate that in some cases

“carers may choose to … There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier.”

I should point out that “may choose to” is a late addition to the impact statement. Originally, it said simply “There is an expectation that” carers may allocate more time, with no reference to choice at all.

Perhaps this may remind some of your Lordships that the Secretary of State for Health has said that families must be the first port of call for caring responsibilities. I always found that puzzling, since families always are the first port of call. Whatever reforms we make, the bulk of health and social care will continue to be provided by the so-called informal army of family, friends and neighbours. The contribution they make to the economy is now estimated at £193 billion annually—almost the cost of the NHS itself.

The point of hospital discharge is often the most vulnerable time for patients and carers. Carers UK research shows that more than half of carers were not involved in decisions about discharge, two-thirds were not listened to about their willingness or ability to provide care, and 60% received insufficient support to protect the health either of themselves or of the person being discharged. Anyone who speaks to a carer will hear horror stories about hospital discharge. I am reminded of Norman, a man in his late 70s and a carer for his wife who has multiple disabilities—Norman spoke to a group of your Lordships by Zoom recently. His wife went into hospital for a procedure, which was a relief to him as he himself had been diagnosed with cancer and was having chemotherapy. While he was actually hooked up receiving the chemo, he received a call from the hospital saying that they were discharging his wife. He received no prior notice that she was ready to be discharged. “Okay,” said Norman, “but could you just wait till I get home to receive her?” “No,” was the reply, “she is already in the ambulance on her way home.” Norman’s response was not, “Well, please take her back again,” as I suspect many of us would have been tempted to say, but to ask the oncologist whether the drip that he was on could be speeded up so that he could get home quickly. As it was, he arrived home to find his wife had been left in a bed, frightened and alone. Many of your Lordships will have heard similar stories.

This amendment would place a duty on the NHS to ensure that carers are consulted and to check that they are willing and able to care, as well as ensuring that the patient is fit to be discharged—I emphasise not just medically fit but fit to be at home—and putting the right support in place. It would avoid the experience of another carer, who said, “We knew she was on her way home only when she was on hospital transport. We had to drop everything and rush around to try to get a commode just so she could go to the toilet when she got home.”

The Government suggest that rights in primary legislation will be replaced by statutory guidance. I have been assured of this by the Minister and officials, and I know they are sincere in the belief that this will be more than adequate. But guidance, however strongly worded, is not the same as having concrete rights in legislation that can be quoted and used. I cannot express how disappointed I and all who work with carers are that the Government are for the first time rowing back on the rights of carers, for which we have fought so hard.

With the leave of the House and at his request, I shall quote some of what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would have said had he been able to be present. As your Lordships know, he is especially concerned about young carers. He says—

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, while I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Young wanting to contribute to the debate, in order to do so, he needs to be in it.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I apologise to your Lordships. I will just say that the noble Lord said it was a “backward step” to leave only guidance.

This is not only morally wrong but very short-sighted. If a discharge is unsatisfactory, the inevitable consequence is readmission—and think how much that costs. The Government believe that the new discharge to assess procedures will deal with discharge problems, but carers report that discharge to assess takes place as the discharge itself is happening, with no chance to order suitable devices, equipment or changes to the home, let alone to consult the carer. I must point out that two earlier versions of the discharge to assess guidance did not even mention carers and did so only after pressure from Carers UK.

I am sorry to say that the Government and the NHS have form on ignoring carers. They were not mentioned in the health and care White Paper, which set out the foundations for the Bill and only marginally in the integration White Paper, yet I have never heard any Minister say anything other than that carers are essential, that they must be valued and respected and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. Similarly, I have always heard Ministers and officials agree that carers must be supported to combine paid work with caring to help them financially now and to avoid future poverty, yet here we are with a Bill which states baldly that carers must allocate more time, requiring a reduction in work hours and associated financial costs. I asked the Minister at Second Reading and I ask him again: does he expect carers to go on benefits in order to provide care?

Carers and patients need this amendment badly, and I hope the Minister understands that. I have no doubt of his good intention, but I fear for the plight of carers and patients if he does not accept the amendment, which is essential if we are to ensure that all carers, including young carers, are not overlooked in the hospital discharge process but retain concrete rights and recognition in primary legislation. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her continuing championing of carers.

Discharging people as soon as they are clinically ready is increasingly recognised as the most effective way to support better outcomes. The evidence shows that the “discharge to assess” approach reduces time spent in a hospital bed and supports people to remain independent at home wherever possible. Although the hospital discharge clause does not mandate discharge to assess, the Government are supportive of local areas that choose to implement this best practice model. We believe that carrying out long-term needs assessments at a point of optimum recovery leads to a more accurate evaluation of people’s abilities and needs and more appropriate care packages. Many people discharged from hospital require longer than two weeks to recover. Requiring social care needs assessments to be completed within two weeks of discharge would not necessarily be in the patient’s best interests.

I understand that noble Lords are concerned about safe discharge from hospital and safeguards for patients and carers. However, relevant NHS bodies are expected to ensure that patients’ health needs are met safely in hospital and in the community. Local authorities also have duties to assess patients’ and carers’ needs and, where relevant, ensure that appropriate support is put in place for them. In addition, the CQC monitors, inspects and regulates services to make sure that they meet the fundamental standards of quality and safety, which are set out in legislation.

The Government do not believe that these amendments are in the best interests of either carers or patients. They would create new burdens on NHS bodies and local authorities, and Amendment 144 would create new penalties for local authorities for failing to carry out assessments within a specified timeframe. In doing so, the amendments would undermine the entire purpose of Clause 80 and hinder the ambition, shared across the health system and by Members of this House, to ensure that people are discharged in a safe and timely manner. The creation of significant bureaucracy between local authorities and the NHS risks damaging relationships and would go against the spirit of integrated working that this Bill seeks to support. We agree, however, that accountability and transparency are key to ensuring that local systems deliver high-quality and safe discharge services, which is why we welcome the fact that NHS England now publishes hospital discharge data.

Additionally, a duty on NHS bodies and local authorities to co-operate with one another is already set out in Section 82 of the NHS Act 2006. To specify how this duty will apply to hospital discharge, we are co-producing guidance with organisations including Carers UK, the Carers Trust and Barnardo’s. This will set a clear expectation that, where appropriate, unpaid carers should be consulted during the discharge process. As noble Lords have acknowledged, this guidance will be statutory; NHS bodies and local authorities will therefore be required to have regard to it or risk claims for judicial review potentially being brought against them. We agree that, where we can do more to “think carer” across the NHS, we should. With this in mind, we can commit that we will consult with the public, staff and carers on including a stronger reference to the role and regard of unpaid carers in the NHS constitution, for which a review will be launched this year.

I am also mindful of the specific concerns that have been expressed in relation to young carers. As well as using the guidance to include a much broader definition of carers than that set out in Schedule 3 to the Care Act, I can inform the House that the new Explanatory Notes for the Bill provide clarity that young carers and parent carers are included within the everyday definition.

In response to a number of noble Lords’ questions, I repeat what I said earlier: our new guidance includes a broader definition of carers than Schedule 3 to the Care Act, which applied only to adult carers of patients requiring a long-term needs assessment before discharge. Adult carers’ rights to an assessment of their own needs, under Section 10 of the Care Act, and young carers’ rights, including those as part of the Children Act, remain unchanged under the proposed hospital discharge arrangements.

We believe that statutory guidance is more appropriate here. At the moment, current guidance is not statutory; this will be statutory. Where a young carer is identified, or staff have concerns, the local authority should be notified. Local authorities must then carry out a needs assessment if it appears that the young carer needs support. We are not imposing new duties on local authorities; the existing legislative duties placed on local authorities to assess and meet patients’ and carers’ eligible needs remain unchanged.

I recognise the good intentions behind Amendments 113 and 144, but we believe they would have the effect of undermining the ability of local areas to adopt best practice for hospital discharge. I am not confident when I say this, but I hope that, having heard what I have said, noble Lords may feel able not to press their amendments when reached.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his responses, particularly about consultation and about broader definitions and identification of carers. I was a little puzzled when he mentioned transparency, since the latest updated version of the impact assessment says:

“The level of support required as well as the associated impact on work hours and salary would vary significantly case-by-case and the impact on unpaid carers is difficult to assess. We are therefore unable to quantify the impact on unpaid carers at this stage.”


I am very concerned that, if we cannot quantify the impact on carers, we cannot really do anything to support them.

The problem with guidance, good practice guidance or statutory guidance, is that we have been here before. I have seen other bits of guidance—the identification of carers by GPs, breaks for carers—I have seen those bits of guidance fall away when another priority takes over. Therefore, I am very concerned that we need to have the rights of carers enshrined in primary legislation, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My goodness—I thank noble Lords for their brevity. I am afraid that I shall not be as brief as I would want to be. I would like to confine myself to single-word answers, but I do not think that would give the reassurance that noble Lords are looking for.

I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have engaged with me on this, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt. As they know from our discussions, this issue is very close to my heart and something I feel very strongly about, so I welcome their pressing the Government on this and their continuous engagement—in fact, right up to this morning. I do not think that this is the end of that engagement but I hope to give some reassurances. I completely understand the interest in the integrated care boards’ power to disclose information that is personal data. I hope I will be able to clarify some of the intentions.

New Section 14Z61, inserted by Clause 20, recreates the section that applies to CCGs, which sets out the circumstances in which CCGs are permitted to disclose information obtained in the exercise of their functions. The clause in question already restricts ICBs’ powers to disclose information, by limiting these to the specific circumstances set out in the clause.

In addition, the existing data protection legislation, including UK GDPR, provides several key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s data, including strict rules and key data protection principles for the sharing of personal data. Health data is special category data—that is data that requires additional protections due to its sensitivity. For this type of data to be processed lawfully, a further condition must be met as set out in UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act.

In addition, the common law duty of confidentiality applies to the use of confidential patient information. This permits disclosure of such information only where the individual to whom the information relates has consented, where disclosure is of overall benefit to a patient or is in the public interest—for example, disclosure is to protect individuals or society from risks of harm or where there is a statutory basis for disclosing the information or a legal duty, such as a court order, to do so.

Every health and care organisation has a Caldicott Guardian—a senior person responsible for protecting the confidentiality of people’s health and care information and making sure that it is used properly. Caldicott Guardians decide how much information it is appropriate to share—they may decide that even legally permitted information may not be shared—and they advise on disclosures that may be in the public interest. They act in accordance with the eight principles, which are the framework to ensure that people’s confidential information is kept confidential and used appropriately. The UK Caldicott Guardian Council works closely with the independent statutory National Data Guardian, whose role is to advise and challenge the health and care system to help ensure that the public’s confidential information is safeguarded securely and used properly.

Nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law that provide key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s personal data. I can also confirm that NHS England’s power to issue guidance for ICBs will apply to their functions relating to data sharing, and that may be a helpful route in making it clear to ICBs what their duties and responsibilities are, in respect of any confidential data they may hold, in a way that illustrates how legislation applies.

The effect of the amendment is to prevent the effective operation of the clause as drafted. This would prevent the ICB from effectively discharging its functions where it may be necessary to disclose personal patient data, including investigating complaints, making safeguarding referrals for patients whose welfare is at risk, complying with court orders and assisting criminal investigations. It would also risk a confusing data-sharing system where different rules apply to different organisations.

On Amendment 116, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this issue before this House. Our aim is to put data and analytics at the heart of NHS delivery and remove incoherence in the organisational leadership, for the benefit of patients and their outcomes. It is a solid recommendation for improving how health and social care data is used more effectively, closing that gap between delivery and the use of data to inform and improve services.

I understand that noble Lords fear that the movement of the statutory data functions from one world-class arm’s-length body, NHS Digital, to another, NHS England, which indeed runs the NHS itself, would result in a decline in the exercise of those functions. We feel that this fear is perhaps overexaggerated but I would be very happy to continue discussions on this.

However, that movement would be accompanied by the transfer of several thousand expert staff and all their supporting expertise and technology, along with the existing statutory safeguards, which would be preserved. NHS Digital and NHS England have a history of very close working on data, most recently of course in how the management of data has underpinned efforts to defeat Covid-19, through the protection of shielded patients and the management of data on vaccinations. The Government and Parliament held NHS Digital to account for the delivery of its functions, and they will continue to hold NHS England to account for the delivery of any functions which transfer.

As to the concern about a conflict of interest, the data collections which NHS Digital undertakes are the result of directions from either the Secretary of State or NHS England, and obviously the direction-making power of the former will continue to be relevant should the proposed merger take place. Directions include details of how data must be shared or disseminated. NHS Digital is required to publish details of all such directions and maintain a register of the information it collects. There is also a rigorous process for external data access requests and audits of how data is used.

The intention here is that such safeguards would continue when the functions transfer to NHS England and would make it very difficult for the organisation to suppress or otherwise refuse to make available any data which it is required to collect and disseminate in fulfilment of its statutory role. I hope, perhaps overoptimistically, that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Warner—clearly not—in terms of suppressing information.

There is a rigorous process for external data access requests. NHS England’s Transformation Directorate will be assuming responsibility for NHS Digital’s functions, and for accomplishing the alignment of delivery and data proposed in the Wade-Gery review. There will continue to be external, independent scrutiny—for example, by the Information Commissioner and the National Data Guardian—of the use by the NHS, and NHS England in particular, of health and care data.

I hope that I have given noble Lords some reassurance that these important issues have been considered by the department, and that they will feel able not to move their amendments when reached. Of course, given my strong interest in this subject, I am prepared and happy to have further conversations to make sure that we close any remaining gaps and for me push the department and NHS England as appropriate.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely, to reply to the debate.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular for their brevity given the long day we have ahead of us. In particular I thank the Minister for his helpful response.

My Amendment 60 is very specific and I asked for a specific response. The Minister has confirmed what I wanted to hear: that health data is special category data, and that it requires additional protections due to its sensitivity, which would be applied by any ICB when it has had that request. The other key phrase that stuck out was that nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law to provide those key protections and safeguards regarding individual personal data. I am therefore satisfied on that basis.

Briefly on Amendment 116, which is much broader in scope and very important for the future of data use with the proposals that are coming down stream, I agree with all the comments that were made by noble Lords. One particular thing that stood out for me was the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the publication of the Goldacre review is vital before any final version of Data Saves Lives is made public.

We will not get to a vote on Amendment 116 today. However, could the Minister assist the House and confirm that guidance will be issued, rather than a looser “may be” issued? With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I want to respond to Amendment 64.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

Amendment 64 has already been spoken to.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

But I did not withdraw it. I was waiting for the response; nor did I have a chance to say whether or not I would divide the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak shortly to Amendment 168, but want briefly to refer to Amendment 80, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and so eloquently introduced by her, and supported across the House. Workforce planning is critical. Frankly, it is surprising that Ministers resisted amendments in Committee which called for formal long-term workforce planning for the NHS, social care and public health to be embedded in legislation.

The noble Baroness said that that current arrangements can be a bit like sticking plasters, and she is right, but it is not just about the use of bank and agency staff but about planning healthcare professional education. We all know how long it takes to train a doctor, but most of the other professionals also cannot just be turned on and off at election time. There have been too many times when this Government have said at elections that they would suddenly magic thousands of extra doctors and nurses. We need to build timescales into that workforce planning. The noble Baroness also talked about population demand, but I want to make another point: this is not just about population numbers; it is also about demographics. We will need more GPs and hospital professionals managing our rapidly ageing population. If we do not encourage people to go into those specialisms, we will not be able to look after our population in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that if government resistance is because of the funding implications with delivering such a plan, that is very short sighted. Not planning will be even more catastrophic. Amendment 80 is more modest in nature but is a critical minimum to achieve a commitment to plan effectively for the NHS, social care and public health.

I turn now to Amendment 168. Given that there are a number of speakers on this important group, I will be very brief here too. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, echoes the one he laid in Committee, and I am pleased to have signed both. We heard in Committee about this frustrating loophole that meant that it was not possible for certain members of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to be added to the list of colleges which could be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants. This is now slowing down the appointment of NHS consultants. I am very pleased to support the amendment and hope the Minister will be able to give good news to the House on this amendment too.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

Now I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is also speaking remotely, to speak.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 168. Amendment 80 is very important and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for being so persistent. Throughout the country there is a workforce shortage in hospitals, the community and social care. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, warned that:

“Unless expressly required to do so, government will not be honest about the mismatch between the supply and demand of healthcare workers.”—[Official Report, 7/12/21; col. 1814.]


This amendment would give an independently verified assessment of the workforce numbers to meet the growing needs of the population.

Patients who have serious, rare and specialised conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, spinal injuries and all sorts of conditions need expert, specialised staff and equipment so they get the treatment they need. Otherwise, their conditions can deteriorate and result in added costs to the NHS and the taxpayer. Delayed treatment also means unnecessary pain and suffering for the patients. I hope the Government realise the need for Amendment 80.

I was surprised when I received a letter from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh telling me that, along with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, it was excluded by omission from participating in the process of helping trusts in England recruit much-needed consultants. I wonder what the reason for this extraordinary discrimination is. Does England think it is superior? These royal colleges have been contacted by multiple trusts in England seeking help to recruit the necessary surgeons but, unless this regulation is corrected, they cannot help in this process. This sharing of important selection is more important than ever at this difficult time.

The royal colleges of medicine in Scotland have a good reputation worldwide. I have a personal interest in this amendment, as one of my grandfathers trained as a doctor in Glasgow and one of my cousins trained in Edinburgh and is now a professor of microbiology. I hope the Government can rectify this lacuna in the regulations by accepting this amendment.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

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

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too would have preferred to speak later in the debate. I am sure that there are other noble Lords who have tabled amendments from whom the Committee would have preferred to hear nearer the outset, but I understand that the Deputy Chairman of Committees does not the flexibility to allow this, and I am of course grateful for the opportunity to speak.

As we know, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial rise in mental ill-health across the general population. Not surprisingly, this effect has been particularly hard-felt among unpaid carers. Many carers, already leading confined lives, have struggled with lockdown. Young carers have suffered with the loss of schooling and, when schools returned, trying to ensure that the people they care for have been shielded from the virus. Many were unable to go back to school for fear of bringing the virus home. Many from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the digital resources to enable home schooling to be effective.

As we consider these amendments, I would like briefly to bring to the attention of noble Lords some remarkable work with carers being developed in Kingston upon Thames by Kingston Carers’ Network. KCN provides a range of crucial services to some 4,000 adult carers and 700 young carers from five to 18 years old. An important element of this support is nurturing the creativity of carers. Recognising, from the SHAPER research programme, which I mentioned in a previous debate, the positive effects of the arts on mental health and well-being, KCN is working with Rosetta Life to introduce three arts programmes for carers. Poetry and conversation provides co-created poetry workshops for adult carers, demystifying poetry and making it easier to approach. Participants have written and shared online poems about the challenges of caring. They have all said they would like more sessions.

KCN is trying to secure funding to participate with Rosetta Life in an international project called HeArt of Care. The idea is to offer master classes in dance, art making, photography, poetry and song writing for both adult and young carers. The project will create a website showing positive representations of the grace, dignity, compassion and joy of care and caregiving. The groups that would participate with KCN are a network of carers from Tyneside, Bristol Black Carers, Caregivers India and the End of Life Care Centre, Rwanda.

Another project is Room2Dream. Rosetta Life has a partnership with Dream a Dream in India, which works with 18 to 21 year-old carers who live in extreme poverty. This is one of 16 partnerships between young people in the UK and young people in refugee camps, conflict zones, hospices and adolescent psychiatric care. Young carers are offered poetry and song-writing workshops; they are given classes in film-making to enable them to create films about their poems and songs, and share them with other young carers not only in India but in, for example, Rwanda, Syria, Zimbabwe and Nepal. KCN is currently trying to secure funding for this initiative too.

These fledgling projects highlight the potential of the arts to improve the lives of unpaid carers and to enable them to have a voice that will be heard nationally and internationally. We should ensure that the system created through this legislation will underpin such ways to strengthen the resilience of carers and, beyond that, to enable them to flourish. These amendments will help. I look forward to a time when public policy, far more reliably and generously, supports unpaid carers to have better lives while they do their crucial work.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, for 25 years, I have been trying to bring the voice of carers into your Lordships’ House. I know, from the great amount of support I have received over those years, that the whole of your Lordships’ House agrees that we should recognise and value the enormous contribution of millions of people caring for families and friends, who do so much to support others, often at great personal cost. I make no apology for repeating the statistics: up to 13 million carers provide unpaid care worth £530 million a day, or £193 billion a year. They are indeed the backbone of our health and care system.

Ensuring that the health system identifies and supports carers in return is the least we can do, and that is the objective of the four amendments to which my name is added in this group. I am also very supportive of Amendment 217 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I thank her for her excellent introduction. I am strongly supportive of Amendment 219 and am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling it.

As Members will know, I have long called for the NHS to have stronger duties towards unpaid carers. The NHS depends heavily on the role and input of people who care unpaid, usually family and friends but quite often neighbours, in supporting people with long-term conditions and disabilities in the community. Research by Carers UK shows that more than half of carers say they feel invisible to the NHS; more than half of carers providing significant amounts of care were not involved in decisions about hospital discharge; and the majority of carers, over 60%, were not given enough information and advice to care safely, at the point of hospital discharge, for the person they care for.

Placing a duty on the NHS with regard to carers is needed, as there is currently neither a systemic nor systematic approach towards carers in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, a duty to carers would help greater integration between services. Currently, local authority social care sees carers as equal partners in care and very much part of the system, whereas carers can be invisible to the health system. This duty would also lead to direct benefits to the health system, including improved health and well-being, improved satisfaction with services, and reduced admissions and those all-too-frequent readmissions. More practically, it would avoid the significant omissions of carers in recent guidance on hospital discharge, to which I now turn.

Amendment 221 proposes to insert a new clause to protect carers’ rights. As it stands, Clause 80 is of great concern. Almost incredibly—I can hardly believe I am saying this—it removes from carers rights that have been hard fought for over many years and which were enshrined in the Care Act 2014 and the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. Many of your Lordships will remember those Acts and the many hours we spent on them.

This Bill repeals the legislation giving carers the fundamental right to have an assessment and ensuring that the services provided make sure that discharge from hospital is safe. There are endless horror stories about unsafe discharges and this issue has been debated extensively in another place. Hospital discharge is one of the most difficult points in the care system for unpaid carers, who often take on caring responsibilities without the right support.

Through Clause 80 in the Health and Care Bill, the Government are seeking to pass legislation that would enact the discharge to assess approach mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wheeler, which has recently been deployed by NHS England, by repealing, as I said, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. Amendment 221, in my name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield—to all of whom I am very grateful—would ensure that, in advance of any patient being discharged from hospital, the relevant NHS body must identify and consult any carer who is about to provide or will be providing care. This would ensure that the local authority is not the only statutory body with responsibilities towards carers and that the NHS plays its equal part. It would also ensure that the carer in question has services that protect their well-being and that assumptions are not being made that they will automatically provide care—assumptions that are made far too often.

Carers’ organisations are extremely concerned that the inclusion of carers in this guidance for discharge to assess is insufficient to protect carers’ rights. I ask the Minister, on what evidence basis is the move to discharge to assess better for unpaid carers? The evidence seems to be that discharge to assess is worse. The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill recognises that it will lead to many carers having to take on even more care. It states:

“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this may result in a … reduction in work hours and associated financial costs.”


Are the Government really suggesting that carers go on to benefits—the carer’s allowance, for example, which is only £67 a week and recognised as a pathway to poverty?

I am sure the Minister is also aware that if a carer gives up work to care, they do not immediately get any benefits. That leaves them without any income at all. Or are the Government suggesting in their impact assessment that discharge to assess is better for carers by suggesting they take unpaid leave from work, in the process passing on the costs of hospital discharge to employers? Giving up work to care hurts the economy and costs businesses money in terms of recruitment and retention. So I would really like the Government to explain the thinking on this one, because I have lost count of the number of Ministers who have stood at the Dispatch Box and agreed with me that the best thing you can do for carers is enable them to stay in paid work as long as possible. So will the Minister please explain that to me—or better yet, be prepared to explain it to a group of carers that I am happy to arrange to meet him?

I turn now to Amendment 225, on the definition of a carer, which will be spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It may seem unbelievable, but when I started in the carers’ movement in the mid-1980s, the word “carer” was unknown. Yes, it was not even in the dictionary, and every time you typed “carer”, your spellcheck corrected it to “career”. Now the word is everywhere and, in a way, the unpaid carers movement is a victim of its own success, because everyone wants to be called a carer and it is increasingly used to describe paid care workers. Carers themselves actually have difficulty in identifying themselves as a carer—“I’m not a carer, I’m a mother, a husband, a daughter”, is what they say. This lack of identification is an obstacle to them accessing support, so a proper definition is vital and it must be all-encompassing, as set out in the amendment. We fought very hard to get these definitions acknowledged in statute, for example the Care Act 2014, and it is important that the word “carer” encompasses parent carers and young carers.

I point out that the purpose of this amendment is not to create anything new. It uses only existing legislative references. Its purpose is to ensure that the definition of carers in the Bill is entirely clear, so I see no possible reason for the Government to reject it.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

I hope also that Ministers will recognise the breadth and depth of support from the health and local government sectors for these amendments. They will know that bringing together so many organisations with varying roles and priorities is very difficult. The fact that so many are singing the same song is a triumph and I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench will consider these views and give pause for thought. I am sure that they will not be dismissive. That is not in either of their natures, as we have witnessed on other matters. However, I want some reassurance that these amendments are not totally negative and are not to be totally dismissed. I hope that my noble friends will seek to work towards some of these amendments because they are really important. Those of us who have been through the whole process of reconfigurations in a position of authority—not as a Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was, but as junior Ministers—know how fraught reconfigurations are. I therefore hope that these amendments will find some favour with my noble friends on the Front Bench.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who is participating remotely.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, of which I have the honour to be a member, has advised the House, as has the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that this Bill is a skeleton or framework Bill. It provides a multitude of vaguely delineated powers and duties. It is often impossible for noble Lords to scrutinise these meaningfully because their meaning is so unclear

The Bill is also an instance of a growing tendency in the Government’s legislative practice to create “soft law”—that is, guidance, rules and directions which are not susceptible to parliamentary scrutiny but are, in, effect binding. It also creates “hard law”, which is not susceptible to parliamentary scrutiny, as in the Henry VIII power in Clause 15, but is subject only to the negative resolution procedure.

This manner of legislating is part of a pattern documented in a long series of reports by the Constitution Committee, drawing the attention of the House to Henry VIII clauses which are convenient to the Executive but subversive for parliamentary democracy, and to the creation of delegated powers enabling Ministers to bring in significant policy change subject to little or no parliamentary scrutiny. The DPRRC has reported that the Bill contains no less than 155 delegated powers.

What is egregious, however, are the autocratic powers that the Bill accords to the Secretary of State. I had sought to indicate that I wished to speak on the previous group, but there was some confusion, and the Chair did not invite me to do so. I hope therefore that noble Lords will bear with me as I take us back for a moment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, noted Clause 39, entitled

“General Power to Direct NHS England,”


states:

“The Secretary of State may give NHS England directions as to the exercise of any of its functions.”


It goes on to say:

“The directions that may be given include a direction as to … when or how a function is, or is not, to be exercised”


and

“matters to be taken into account in exercising a function.”

The autocratic power provided by Clause 39 is exacerbated by Clause 64, which repeals the duties previously placed on the Secretary of State to respect autonomy within the NHS.

The mischief, which the noble Baroness’s amendments in this group seek to mitigate, is further compounded by Clause 40 and Schedule 6, which confer comprehensive powers on the Secretary of State in regard to reconfiguration of NHS services. Effectively these three clauses together confer upon the Secretary of State, with only the exception stated at proposed new Section 13ZD in Clause 39, mainly in relation to clinical discretion, absolute power over the NHS.

We are told that the Secretary of State has no intention of bossing NHS England around and that he needs powers to sort out failures within the NHS system. In our earlier debate today on continuing care, and in his response to the last debate, the Minister said it is not the Government’s intention to interfere unduly in the affairs of ICBs. However, in a letter to the Times today, referred to by the noble Baroness, the chief executive officers of the King’s Fund, NHS Providers and the NHS Confederation warn of the danger that the Bill may lead to politicisation of decision-making in the NHS, of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, described in the last debate and which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just explained. The fact remains that Clauses 39, 40 and 64 make the Secretary of State untrammelled master of the NHS.

With such power comes temptation, not least for Department of Health officials. What might “unduly” mean in practice? The Secretary of State may often refrain from interfering, but too often he, or officials acting in his name, may not. In any case, to accord the Secretary of State such excessive power is wrong in principle. The legislation should strike an acceptable balance between the autonomy which NHS leaders and managers need if they are to do their jobs well, responding as they judge appropriate to local needs, and a due accountability of the NHS to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. Here, however, we have neither. The Bill concentrates power over the NHS in the hands of a Minister who is poorly accountable to Parliament in the exercise of much of his power.