NHS: Diabetic Services
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for bringing this important debate to the House. I am going to concentrate on one aspect of diabetes services today, and it is one that I have raised in the House at least once since 2010. I wish to examine the impact and efficacy of podiatry services for those with diabetes. The Minister may recall that in April last year I asked him about nail-cutting services, including his own, and on 4 November 2010 I asked,
“how the Government can ensure that both the teams and the technology are available and funded”—[Official Report, 4/11/10; col. 1828.]
to avoid amputations and deaths. So here we are a year later returning to what is a worsening situation. I thank the College of Podiatry for its excellent brief on this matter.
The starting point for my contribution is the undeniably shocking statistic that was mentioned by my noble friend. Each week, 125 amputations take place, and in many ways it is even more shocking that 80% of those are preventable. My contention is not only that something must be done, and done urgently, to bear down on this unacceptable state of affairs but that to do so would save the NHS money. There really cannot be any reason not to give this issue some real priority, end suffering and save money. Why can that not be the case?
We all know that 4% of the population currently suffers from diabetes and 15% to 20% of those will develop a foot ulcer at some time. It has been estimated that 61,000 people with diabetes in England have foot ulcers at any one time. It is certainly possible to manage foot ulcers but too many are being missed, not spotted in time or not being treated swiftly enough, unfortunately leading sometimes to complications, surgery and amputations. Amputation is not only devastating but significantly increases the likelihood of death. According to NHS Diabetes statistics, the mortality rate for those with diabetic ulcers and who have had amputations is greater than for those with breast or prostate cancer. Although the five-year survival rate for those with breast or prostate cancer is now about or above 80%, for those with diabetic foot ulcers it is worse, at just under 60%. In other words, two out of five people with foot ulcers that are not treated will not survive for five years or more. I am afraid to say that once someone has had a lower limb amputation their survival rate worsens considerably—after five years it has been estimated somewhere between 68% to 79% will die. Of these amputations, which lead to these deaths, 80% are preventable.
Ulcers and amputations also cost the NHS, according to the acknowledged expert Marion Kerr, between £600 million and £700 million each year. If better foot care was available and these amputations were prevented, that much money would be saved. However, as things stand, the number of amputations is going up not down, as the diabetic population increases. I invite the Minister to support the alliance that has come together under the Putting Feet First banner, which has already been mentioned and which includes NHS Diabetes and Diabetes UK as well as the College of Podiatry. Does the Minister think that it would be sensible to say—I will use the word “target” but I do not mind what terminology he uses—that there should be a 50% reduction in amputations by, say, 2018? How does he believe that could be delivered? It seems to me that surely an effort from everyone, from the national Commissioning Board to CCGs and from the Government to clinicians on the ground, is what is needed. Of course there is also a huge role for patients learning to manage their own condition and becoming, as my noble friend put it, “foot fetishists”, specifically by taking care to maintain their own healthy feet.
However, it is indisputable that better services are also needed and that this will require more podiatrists, more specialist nurses and more multidisciplinary teams. I wonder how this might be delivered with the urgency required at a time when economies, reorganisation and cuts in podiatry services are already apparent. What will the Government do to drive forward a programme that delivers across the country?
Currently there is, as has been mentioned, a staggering tenfold variation in amputation rates across former PCT areas. Such a variation, as an example of a postcode lottery, is surely unacceptable. However, it is not surprising if one knows that more than half of hospitals do not have a multidisciplinary foot care team, while 31% of hospitals do not even have an in-patient podiatry service, an increase from 27% in 2010. There is evidence that one of the current problems is that GPs have no incentive to refer their patients on to foot protection teams for education, follow up and so on. There is evidence that the number of posts is being frozen or reduced, which is not the way to deal with a preventable problem. With that, staff are also experiencing “de-banding”, leading to reduced morale.
The College of Podiatry, along with Diabetes UK and NHS Diabetes, believes that the time has come for this goal to be promoted by the Government, adopted by the NHS Commissioning Board and worked towards by every clinical commissioning group. The QIPP—quality, innovation, productivity and performance—agenda also provides an opportunity to redesign services along the best practice lines so that there is a multidisciplinary foot care team in each hospital as well as foot protection teams in every community. However, unfortunately at the moment there is evidence that the opposite is happening and that services are not improving. The danger of new arrangements is that this important issue falls between the cracks, is left to local decision-making and does not get the prioritisation it deserves.
The College of Podiatry tells me that it is,
“fearful that public expenditure constraints mean that rather than being prioritised through the QIPP agenda, current podiatric services are at best, being frozen and in some cases being reduced, with patient services including the diabetic foot service deteriorating as a consequence”.
We know that best practice exists. For example, the multidisciplinary foot care team approach for in-patients with diabetes in Southampton led to a reduction in the length of in-patient stays from 50 days to 18. Not only were patient outcomes improved but annual savings to the NHS of £889,000 were generated on the back of an investment of £180,000. Let us imagine if that were repeated everywhere.
To address this issue is wholly in line with the outcomes that the NHS mandate has identified for the NHS Commissioning Board; that is, reducing preventive mortality, improving care for the chronically sick and driving up patients’ experience of care. The Putting Feet First campaign has already produced guidance and circulated it to CCGs and existing PCT commissioners showing how savings and improved patient services might be achieved. What is required now is political prioritisation; what is required is a guarantee of an increased supply of podiatrists. Given that the number of those suffering from diabetes will have increased to 5 million by 2025 and that as diabetes increases so do preventable amputations, it really is imperative that action is taken now to end what is really nothing short of a scandal.
National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Regulations 2012
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
Before the noble Earl leaves the issue of lay members, I have a question about having only two lay members—I am sorry that I did not jump up in time to ask it before he started summing up. The noble Earl and I sat opposite each other for several years discussing regulatory reform of the NHS, and one thing that I think we agreed on was that for all the new regulatory bodies that are now appointing lay members, 50:50 was the right balance to ensure proper regulation and accountability. Why is that not the case with the CCGs? What is different here? We felt that it was safer to have 50% in the regulatory reform of the NHS. Why do we not have 50% on the CCGs?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it will be up to local CCGs to determine their own constitutions, as I have said. What we are attempting to do in these regulations is simply to set down the bare minima. As we discussed during the passage of the Act—these provisions were well rehearsed—providing there are two lay members, a secondary care clinician, a nurse and an accountable officer, that is the extent of the prescriptiveness that we feel is appropriate from the centre. Otherwise, it looks very much like the Government dictating the governance arrangements. The Future Forum’s recommendations were very clear that we should not go down that path.
It was suggested that CCGs were experiencing difficulties in appointing secondary clinicians or a registered nurse. I understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised on that score but I have recently spoken to the NHS Commissioning Board, which has started the process of considering applications from emerging CCGs. The news I have is that CCGs have so far successfully recruited to these roles. In addition, the medical and nursing royal colleges have offered to help CCGs in sourcing appropriate candidates, which is very welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to the HSJ article of 11 October. I will clarify my answer when I write to him, which I will be happy to do. We are very pleased not only that so many clinicians have chosen to apply for leadership roles, which they have, but that so many first-rate clinicians have done so, whether as clinical chairs or clinical officers in CCGs. What is important is that there is a good mix of expertise in the broader leadership team of clinicians and managers, to help the CCG discharge its responsibilities effectively, and that is what we are now seeing.
I have a number of examples of where the drive towards integration is really taking shape on the ground. My noble friend Lady Jolly mentioned South Devon and Torbay; this is a service designed by secondary care doctors and GPs working together in a clinical pathway group for urology, and the whole impetus of the CCG is to improve collaboration and get over the gulf between primary and secondary care. There is another excellent example of integrated services in Wokingham, which again I would be happy to write about.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked whether police commissioners and Peers could be members of a CCG governing body. Yes, they can. He also asked who was consulted over these regulations. As I have indicated, the proposals were developed in response to the NHS Future Forum, the listening exercise that set out requirements around the secondary care doctor and registered nurse. The proposals were further discussed with emerging CCGs, primary care organisations, the medical royal colleges and, yes, colleagues in the NHS Commissioning Board Authority.
The regulations discussed today provide a fair and transparent rules-based framework to complement the provisions in the Health and Social Care Act around the establishment of CCGs. Creating a responsible and accountable CCG with good governance is essential for good management, good performance, good stewardship of public money, good public engagement and—our ultimate goal—good outcomes for patients. I commend the regulations to the House.
Abortion
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to legislate to reduce the time limit for abortions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the Abortion Act 1967. It is parliamentary practice that any proposals to change the abortion laws come from Back-Bench Members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes. The current time limit for an abortion is 24 weeks’ gestation.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. He must forgive me and others for being worried about this matter after recent statements from his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and other senior members of the Government, who of course have a perfect right to their personal views, but we also need to know how that might influence public policy. For clarification, does the Minister mean that the Government will not support any change to the abortion time limits for the duration of this Parliament? Indeed, when will the Department of Health publish its sexual health policy document, which has been delayed for the past 18 months? Will it include any reference to abortion time limits, availability and funding?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging that my right honourable friend is entitled to express his long-held personal view, which he did the other day. With regard to her first main question, however, successive Governments have taken the view that they should rest on the evidence. There is currently no call from the main medical bodies for a review of the Act in relation to time limits, and the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists support that view. I hope that the noble Baroness regards that as a clear enough answer in support of my initial Answer. As regards the work that is being done in my department, it is expected that the sexual health strategy will be published within a few months.
NHS: Mental Illness
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report How mental illness loses out in the NHS, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science on 18 June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we agree with the report’s insistence on both the importance of investment in mental health services and on the necessity of treating mental ill health as seriously as physical ill health. Our mental health strategy, No Health Without Mental Health, makes our commitment to these principles clear, and we are soon to publish an implementation framework that will help to embed them in NHS practice.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I remind the House that during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill it was agreed that mental health should have the same, equal status as physical health. In that light, at present the 50 outcomes of the NHS outcomes framework include no health outcomes for the millions of people with clinical depression or crippling anxiety disorders. Do the Government have any plans to change that and, if so, when will they change it? When will we see mental health outcomes appear in the outcomes framework?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we have deliberately taken a generic approach to the NHS outcomes framework. That said, the framework for 2012-13 contains three improvement areas relating specifically to mental health: premature mortality in people with serious mental illness; employment of people with mental illness; and patient experience of community mental health services. Therefore, the noble Baroness is not quite right in what she has just said. Many of the indicators in the outcomes framework relate to all patients, including in relation to safety incidents, for example, or experience of primary care. Improving outcomes for people with mental health problems will be a crucial element of success.
National Health Service Trust Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 2012
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, much of what I would like to say has been said by my two noble friends, but I would like to add my tuppenceworth because this is the beginning of some of the very important statutory instruments we are going to consider that will bring the Act into being. I have a few questions for the Minister. The first one has been alluded to by my noble friend Lord Warner: I refer to the creation of a new arm’s-length body, which I thought the Government did not really want to do. I wonder why it was felt necessary to create another arm’s-length body when many of the useful arm’s-length bodies, which some of us thought should not have been abolished, have been abolished, particularly the NHS Appointments Commission, which I will come back to in a moment.
Under point 7.1 in the Explanatory Notes, liabilities and assets are referred to. There is the recurring notion that this new body will take responsibility for those. My noble friend Lord Warner questioned the liabilities, but I am interested in the assets. For example, if an NHS trust is not viable as a foundation trust but a private sector organisation offers to purchase it, merge with it or whatever, what happens to the ownership of its assets—the land, the buildings and the kit? Where do they go? Who do they reside with? Is it the new provider body, whatever that is? I would like some explanation.
Appointments are important. Once the NHS Appointments Commission has been abolished, I cannot see from the Explanatory Notes that there is a guarantee of independence and transparency in appointments to the new bodies or when people in NHS trusts retire and have to be replaced. I am not clear what happens in those circumstances and who makes those appointments. If it is the new authority, which is my understanding, what guarantees do we have of independence, accountability and transparency in those appointments? The reason why I think that is important was alluded to and described much more adequately than I can by my noble friend Lord Warner and is in point 8 of the evidence base, which states:
“To date, 50 per cent of NHS trusts whose applications for FT status are rejected by Monitor fail because they do not have sufficiently robust governance. It is proposed that SHAs will be abolished in 2013, so new support arrangements will be required to support the FT pipeline”.
Do the Government think that, because NHS trusts fail because of their lack of robust governance, by taking control of this issue they will be able to appoint more robust trustees or do whatever it is to ensure that they meet the foundation trust requirement? I have exactly the same question as my noble friend: what is the magic that will increase the success rate from 50% to 100% with the new authority? We need to be concerned on several counts: the accountability, viability and credibility of the new body proposed in these statutory instruments. I am not convinced that what is being proposed meets those requirements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the two other noble Lords who have spoken because their questions give me an opportunity to clarify what these statutory instruments are designed to do and to say why we believe that they are appropriate.
The NHS Trust Development Authority will play a vital part in laying the foundations for the new health and social care system. From April 2013 it will provide essential governance and oversight of NHS trusts that are not yet foundation trusts to support them in delivering the vision of an NHS consisting entirely of fully autonomous healthcare providers.
Foundation trusts are sustainable, autonomous providers with far greater freedom to innovate, design and deliver services to local communities, and there I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I are in full agreement. Helping every NHS trust to attain foundation trust status is key to creating an environment in which adaptable, sustainable organisations deliver high-quality care and collaborate with NHS and other partners to provide integrated care designed around the needs of individual patients.
The Government’s vision of care delivered in an all-FT landscape means that NHS trusts must either become authorised as foundation trusts in their own right, merge with an existing FT, or move forward in another organisational form. There is a strong expectation that the majority of NHS trusts will achieve FT status by 2014 and that only by exceptional agreement, made after close scrutiny of financial and clinical feasibility, will they be allowed to continue in their present form beyond this date. Supporting the progress of NHS Trusts through the process of applying for FT status is often referred to as “managing the FT pipeline”.
Of course, FT status is not an end in itself but a crucial step in the process by which we can drive up the quality of care and make sure that the services we offer patients are robust, sustainable and of the highest quality. The benefits that achieving FT status can bring patients and communities cannot be underestimated. In doing so, NHS trusts examine their leadership, financial sustainability, quality of service and plans for continuous improvement. It is a mechanism designed to bring all provider services in all parts of the country up to a level of excellence.
An important part of this transition is the establishment of a new special health authority, the NTDA. The orders before noble Lords now provide the legal underpinning. The NTDA will be a short-lived, enabling organisation in the reform programme. The authority is important because once the current system of strategic health authorities comes to an end in 2013, the infrastructure to support NHS trusts on their way to becoming foundation trusts, or indeed to support them if they become unsustainable and can no longer function as a foundation trust, will no longer be in place.
The legislative framework set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduces a new and comprehensive regulatory system, including measures for dealing with providers at risk of becoming unsustainable. The new system will concentrate on protecting essential local services for NHS patients, not on maintaining failed organisations at great and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer. The NTDA will work closely with the whole of the new NHS to ensure innovation and that the very best of clinical practice is brought to bear on the most complex problems. It will work with local communities and their representatives to make the case for change when service reconfiguration is needed to deliver sustainable services.
The NTDA, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will also appoint chairs and non-executive directors to NHS trusts while they continue to exist, and appoint certain trustees such as special trustees and trustees to hold trust property for some NHS bodies. The organisations that the NTDA will take responsibility for cover a wide spectrum of services, including acute hospitals, ambulance services, mental health services and community services. Some are on the cusp of achieving foundation trust status while others face some of the most significant challenges in the NHS, with long-standing financial and operational difficulties to contend with.
It will not be an easy task. That is why the Secretary of State has appointed David Flory, currently deputy chief executive of the NHS and director of finance, performance and operations, as its chief executive-designate, and Sir Peter Carr, former chair of NHS North East SHA and vice-chair of the NHS north cluster of SHAs, as its chair. We are establishing the authority now to give it time to design its operating model, recruit staff and engage in the planning round for NHS trusts for the financial year 2013-14 before it takes up its full operational functions in April 2013.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am not completely clear that the Minister answered my question about independence. The point is that the appointments commission enjoys widespread public confidence in the way that it goes about its business of appointing people. If that function is to be taken into the new authority within the department, how will the Government ensure public confidence in its independence and integrity, even if there is a dwindling number of appointments? I do not think that he answered that question.
Health and Social Care Act 2012
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I do not agree that HealthWatch has been left in limbo; in fact, only this morning I was attending a round table of pathfinder local healthwatches and witnessing for myself the tremendous energy and enthusiasm that they were devoting to HealthWatch. So the short answer to the noble Baroness is no, I think the process as regards HealthWatch is very much on track.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, my question follows on very nicely from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, because “No decision about me without me” was the Government’s mantra when they first introduced the White Paper and the Bill. I would like to know not only how soon that mantra might become a reality but also, in terms of post-legislative scrutiny, how the Minister thinks that post-legislative scrutiny might be carried out to allow independent scrutiny given that the two bodies that will essentially control the funding for the patients’ voice, HealthWatch, are the Care Quality Commission and local government—in other words, government bodies?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we should not forget the capacity of Parliament, particularly the Health Select Committee in another place, to conduct scrutiny whenever it chooses. Indeed, your Lordships' House could if it wished configure itself in a way to conduct scrutiny of any aspect of the Health and Social Care Act.
Health: Pancreatic Cancer
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, as ever with these debates, particularly when we are disciplined by having a short time, I find that most of the questions that the Minister needs to address have been asked—some of them more than once, and certainly much more ably than I can manage. I start by thanking Pancreatic Cancer UK for its excellent briefings, and also the Library for the excellent and detailed briefing that it produced for this debate.
I will focus on two issues. One is a catch-up on research that I know was published last December and January and was featured by the BBC and at least one national newspaper. I will then ask a question about research that will amplify things. The research linked processed meat to pancreatic cancer. It was done by researchers in Sweden. The World Cancer Research Fund joined in the discussion on that research, which focused on eating red and processed meat. We knew that this had been linked to bowel cancer, but the study published in the British Journal of Cancer analysed data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer. It found that eating processed meat increased the risk of pancreatic cancer. The risk increased by 19 per cent for every 50 grams that someone added to their daily diet. Eating an extra 100 grams increased the risk by 38 per cent.
Professor Larsson, who conducted the research, made the obvious point that pancreatic cancer has poor survival rates, so as well as diagnosing it early it is important to understand what increases the risk of the disease. Has any further research been done on the issue of the link with diet? We know that smoking, too, is a risk factor. I am thinking of the responsibility campaign on food and diet that the Government have been running. Are they using those statistics as part of the campaign on what people should or should not eat?
My second question is about research. We know that there is a commitment to further investment in research into pancreatic cancer. However, I am aware that unless the research is properly commissioned, even if the funding is there, the money will not be spent in a timely fashion. My question echoes that of other noble Lords: are the Government increasing the spend on research in this area? How will they ensure that we develop the kind of critical mass of UK talent that will enable us to deliver world-class, groundbreaking research into pancreatic cancer, as we have done in other areas?
EUC Report: Healthcare Professionals
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, it does indeed feel that normal service has been resumed in the Chamber. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the report and for the coherent way that she introduced it. I congratulate her and her committee on a brilliant job.
It is true that in September we had a preview of the report. We even saw some of it circulated during the debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. During that debate in September, the Minister said:
“This summer we have been working constructively with other government departments and the health regulators themselves to formulate our response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on reforms to the directive. On that Green Paper there is very little on which the department and our partners disagree regarding areas of the directive that need strengthening. We agree that the harmonised training standards underpinning automatic recognition need updating and that a mechanism for regular updates is required. We would also like to see a focus over time on competencies in training rather than particular length of training”.—[Official Report, 8/9/11; col. 457.]
The Minister then goes on to talk about those negotiations. Those remarks were very important because they showed that we were making progress and moving forward together in the UK. What further progress is being made on that? I ask because it is not completely clear from the Government’s response to the report what the scale of progress is in the different areas that are covered by this report.
It seems to me that government policy, the report and the response are all broadly in the right place and there has been agreement in the House many times, not least because the noble Viscount has championed this issue for some time.
As well as being grateful for the report from the noble Baroness’s committee, we also need a report back on how the Government are progressing with these negotiations, what they expect the outcomes will be and at what times. This is indeed an issue of patient safety but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, we also have to recognise that it is an issue from our NHS benefiting from the free movement of health professionals across Europe. Which one of us has not been treated by a nurse, doctor or health professional from some part of the European Union? That will absolutely be the case and is quite right. In the vast majority of cases, we do not even think about the fact that we may be treated by a German doctor, a Scandinavian nurse or whatever because we assume that they will be competent. In the vast majority of cases, they will be.
I hope that the unanimity in this House will help to inform the Government’s position on this review and indeed strengthen the Minister’s arm in these negotiations. However, I have a question about what and how much impact the Government’s position on light-touch regulation will have on these negotiations. That is slightly going back to the Health and Social Care Bill, where we had a discussion about that. I would like to know what impact that might have. It seems clear that the language skills clarity and the continuing professional development are still very important issues that need to be resolved. However, finally, there is no question that the EU Committee has done a great favour for patient safety not only in the UK but also across the whole of the European Union.
Health and Social Care Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
Is the noble Lord aware that all NHS organisations, strategic health authorities, PCTs and local authorities have risk registers and they publish them?
Lord Birt
I shall come to the risks of publication in a second. What are the means of creating an effective risk register? You need to involve those in governance and delivery and you need absolute candour and trust in the process. The consequence of making any risk register public is that it will be anodyne and the risks would simply cease to be managed, which is not in the public interest. I would hope that Governments of any persuasion would resist the notion of publishing any risk register. It is a matter of regret that one risk register in respect of Heathrow was published. It follows from that that I am unable to support the amendment.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I would like to share with your Lordships’ House, for the first time, my experience of trying to deal with the complicated matter of BSE as it makes clear this distinction. I committed myself to total openness; I knew nothing that the public did not know. It was the only way in which one could be sure of obtaining people’s trust. Nothing was hidden. We did not have risk registers in the sense that we do today but it would be quite wrong to say that we had not considered every possible risk.
I put it to your Lordships that there is a difference between what you know and the extreme cases which you ask about in order to make sure that what you know covers everything that you could know. If in the middle of that terrible crisis newspapers more interested in their numbers of sales had accused the Minister of uncertainty because he had asked about risk—and I do not need to go into the kinds of risk you had to ask about—it would have been impossible to make what were already difficult enough decisions. It turns out now, 20 years later, that the decisions were right but at the time they could only be what you knew, and what I knew I shared.
Consider also what it meant for my civil servants. Do your Lordships really believe that your civil servants would be able to be as frank and direct and complete if they found themselves and their relationships being used as part of a battle? There were some terrible battles at that time between people who had all sorts of other interests. Compare this to another case, which out of kindness I will not be too detailed about. For many years in the ministry of agriculture a particular view had been upheld and we had been told that it was true. When I sought further information I discovered it was not. It was at that point that I tried to establish a very clear distinction between what you know and what you have to ask about which you do not know.
The risk register has come into our governmental structure largely from private business. I sit on the boards of a number of companies and chair several; in all those cases we have a risk register. That risk register is only useful if it is kept entirely to the company itself, because you want to ask questions of a very extreme kind. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whether he can imagine a Foreign Secretary who had to reveal his risk register asking what would happen if this or that Government did this or that, or what would happen if some Middle Eastern state refused to allow our ships into the Strait of Hormuz at this moment. Would any Foreign Secretary be able to be Foreign Secretary?
Baroness Thornton
Does the noble Lord not think that the Information Commissioner and the tribunal have taken those points into account?
Lord Deben
I would not dream of suggesting that I know what the tribunal and the commissioner have taken into account. All I am saying is that if they have taken it into account and come to this decision, I think it is wrong, and if they have not taken it into account they ought to have done. That is why I come to the point that the noble Baroness raised when she said that it is all very good because the National Health Service has risk registers and publishes them. They are not risk registers, not in the sense that a business has risk registers. They are not risk registers in the sense that the Foreign Office has risk registers. They are such risks as the National Health Service believes will stand being in the public domain. The risk registers that a Government have are a wholly different kind of thing and need to be. I believe that we must protect them.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton in advising the House not to support the Amendment to the Motion. I do not want to go into any more detail on the risk registers. They need to be comprehensive and candid; if there is a risk of publishing them, the compilers will be less likely to make them as comprehensive and candid as they need to be in order to be of value. When the Information Commissioner suggests that, even if this is published, people will be equally comprehensive and candid in future, I am afraid that I think he is guilty of wishful thinking.
There is a process with this risk register. I understand that we have not yet seen the reasons for the decision reached by the Tribunal. When that is known, the Government have the right to appeal. I hope that they exercise it because the considerations against publication, as they have been stated more than once today, are very cogent. That process is likely to take a great deal longer than the three weeks that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, gives the Bill. The only sensible course now is to disentangle the business of the risk register and the business of passing the Bill, to let the Bill go forward and not to support the Amendment to the Motion.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, little needs to be added to the eloquent and succinct arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and built on by my noble friends Lady Jay, Lord Peston and Lord Grocott, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. These arguments are in the best liberal tradition and should be supported by anyone who genuinely believes in openness and transparency.
Many people inside and outside the House have expressed concerns about the risk posed by this Bill, especially the implementation of the biggest-ever reorganisation of the National Health Service. It was those fears that led to the initial request by my right honourable friend John Healey 18 months ago. I do not think that even the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, could imagine that it was a plot of some kind to delay the Bill at this point. I can assure the noble Baroness that that it is not the case. What is being considered here is a risk register maintained for the transition programme; for the work necessary to implement the changes in the Bill. That is going to be done together with delivering the Nicholson challenge, so there are huge challenges to our National Health Service. It is not the same as a departmental risk register, which might be closer to policy matters and advice, and the concerns expressed by many noble Lords, particularly those who have been Ministers and Permanent Secretaries.
My noble friend Lord Grocott is right. What is being asked for here are three weeks to see what this says. Surely the balance of public interest lies in disclosure, to enable consideration of this Bill to be as effective as possible. In short, we needed it in November to do our job adequately and we still need it. Noble Lords have said that it will be now out of date, but that is a question I asked many months ago and I was assured that it would not be the out-of-date register that would be available, but the most current. I say to those representatives of Permanent Secretaries in your Lordships’ House that the last time they engaged with this matter—never with the Bill, but with this matter—I quoted “Yes Minister” at them. I shall be less elevated this time. I shall use the Mandy Rice-Davies defence and say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”.
I agree that it is time to move on. The issue is simple enough; we need to understand the risks in order properly to consider the Bill. We did need them. We have time to take this matter in hand. The answers are very clear and we should support the noble Lord, Lord Owen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, as ever I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, for speaking in such clear terms to the amendment he has tabled. I am equally grateful to other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, on both sides of the argument. At the heart of this, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is putting forward two propositions. The first is that the Government have concealed the nature of the risks associated with the Health and Social Care Bill and therefore the House has a right to be made aware of what the department’s transition risk register contains. The second proposition is that the Government’s refusal to publish the risk register is inherently improper under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. In other words, the alleged sin of concealment on the part of Ministers is compounded by an unreasonable obduracy in not complying with the decision of the Information Commissioner and now the First-tier Tribunal. It will not surprise the House to hear that I fundamentally reject both propositions. First, the suggestion that the Government have consciously set about concealing the risks associated with the NHS—
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the time has come for a vote on this matter. I add my own thanks to all noble Lords for the work that they have done on the Bill. I pay tribute to the huge efforts that have been made and the commitment that noble Lords show to doing their job as legislators. I thank my own support on the Front Bench, my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Beecham, Lord Collins and Lady Wheeler. I could not have been better supported.
Unlike the Minister with a cast of thousands, I have had a small but perfectly formed team of about three, led by Jessica Levy in the opposition office and with my intern Tom Woodford keeping my papers in good order. However, we on these Benches have also been supported and sustained in our consideration of the Bill by literally thousands of people across the country. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it is actually up to the Government what they do about the Bill if they lose this vote.
Perhaps the Minister might agree that this parallel universe that we inhabit in your Lordships’ House, where deals are done and amendments are crafted, is hardly the same as the real world for those who will now manage commissioning, make budget cuts, deploy staff, recruit accountants and try to make sense of the competition and integration strategies and to make the Bill work. I pay tribute to those people.
I feel like saying to noble Lords, “Hands up those who have received letters and e-mails supporting this Bill”. I had two, among a torrent of e-mails, tweets, texts and letters asking us to drop the Bill or dramatically change parts of it. We have received thousands of expressions of concern. Noble Lords have reacted variously to that, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to say that in some respects parties have reacted well to this but not in others. It is clear that there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people watching us and what we do, and it is for those people—the nurses, the doctors, the healthcare assistants, the patients, my mum with her COPD, my cousin whose daughter has just been diagnosed with a brain tumour, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions, sent letters, gone on demonstrations and continue to make our beloved NHS work—that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Health and Social Care Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
“(A1) Part 3 of this Act shall come into force, by order, on a date to be determined by Parliament, which shall not be before April 2016.
(A2) Before bringing forward any order to bring Part 3 of this Act into force the Secretary of State shall consult the NHS Commissioning Board, the Independent Regulator of Foundation Trusts, the Care Quality Commission, patients or their representatives, and staff delivering NHS services or their representatives, and shall report to Parliament on the outcomes of the consultation.
(A3) Any such order must be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, as we near the end of our deliberations on Report, I hope to set out the case for changing not the policy but the pace of implementation. We have discussed extensively the policy background and the legal and other implications of this Bill. We have agreed on some things and disagreed on others. The case for Amendments 300A and 300B is simply that we have learnt a great deal in the past 13 months since my noble friend Lady Wheeler and I asked 18 other noble Lords to join us in organising seminars about this Bill because we felt that the House needed to understand it better. I have to say that 13 months later I am not sure whether we do understand it any better. However, what is quite clear from those seminars and our discussions since the autumn is that there are risks involved in this Bill. There are credible claims that detrimental consequences brought about by the scale of change are already being felt. There are some extreme assertions, such as from regional risk registers, that patient care could be seriously impacted.
In these remarks I am really only going to assert what we know. We know what is in those risk registers, we know the risks that we have discussed and we know that this is the largest reorganisation that the NHS has ever undergone, including the one that set it up. The evidence that we collected in our seminars raised the scale of those risks. During our debates risks have been mentioned time and again—risks to children, to older people and to people with long-term conditions. The Health Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have both added weight to those expressing concerns about the scale and pace of change, and that is the point of these amendments.
We still do not know what the key risks are in the risk register, which is a grave disappointment, but that may actually add to our concerns. Our concerns should also be heightened by the poor track record of the Department of Health to oversee and manage change on this scale. The wisdom of ex-Ministers in this House is such that they know very well how hard change is to manage within our NHS. Added to this particular programme is one of the worst impact assessments that I have ever seen and, one suspects, a deficient risk management process. The level of organisational change was acknowledged when the coalition agreement specifically ruled out any such major programme.
In adding to the risk inherent with the implementation of this Bill, we have put forward an amendment that is intended to ensure that part of the Bill is deferred and the major part of the Bill is proceeded with. That is what this amendment is about, and I think it has advantages. First, we have to allow time and bring about some stability for the Nicholson challenge, as it has been called, to deliver the savings. We know that economic regulation is not a key factor in delivering those savings, as evidence to the Health Select Committee demonstrated. Reforms in both commissioning and provision can continue as now in advance of economic regulation in the full market. That is the first reason. The Nicholson challenge and the savings need time to embed themselves and to work their way through the system.
Secondly, many in this House and outside have expressed concerns that the role of Monitor as the independent regulator of foundation trusts should not be weakened. To some extent that has already been acknowledged in the changes made to the Bill, but the addition of new rules and duties to Monitor is, we believe, in itself a risk. Under our amendment, Monitor would complete its role in authorising foundation trusts and be well on its way to moving to a light-touch regulation, so that the inevitable conflicts of interest, which many noble Lords have raised during the course of this Bill and outside the Chamber, would be lessened. The pipeline of expectant foundation trusts is still long and will not decrease any time soon. It seems that there is a job of work for Monitor to do in managing things such as mergers, takeovers, and franchising for laggards. That process, of itself, is enough, and we want to reduce the risks of failure in those processes.
It also seems that developing and building the capacity and capabilities required in a wholly new regulatory regime will and should take time. There is much to do, and we think that undue haste brings with it its own risks. The emerging clinical commissioning groups will be commissioning with billions of pounds of public money, yet they are young organisations with only light governance. They will need time to grow and to build capacity, capability and experience before they have the additional complexities of market regulation, and this amendment allows for that.
The most compelling reason for sequencing—a term that I openly acknowledge I first picked up from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—is that it will give time to work with those who have to implement the changes, as opposed to forcing those changes upon them. Even those in the Government and on the Liberal Democrat Benches cannot really pretend that the widespread opposition to this Bill and the arguments for it to be reconsidered are all part of some Labour plot, as has been suggested. Would that it were that the Labour Party had such influence and strength. I do not think that is the case, but calling distinguished academics and leaders of professional bodies Labour stooges is both offensive and counterproductive. There is widespread opposition to and fear of the risks that this Bill brings. They are not borne of ignorance and ideology but based on knowledge, evidence and experience, so the Government would be wise to take time to win people over to what they want to achieve. As the Prime Minister himself said last year, he would not wish to move forward with these reforms without the support and commitment of the National Health Service’s staff and patients.
My final point is about the consequences of sequencing. At the outset, we heard claims that the NHS was in urgent need of competition to drive through reforms to improve outcomes, but evidence has been compiled to show that while our NHS is far from perfect—and indeed may need reform—it is still arguably up there with the best in the world. Where we lag behind, we are closing the gap, which is testimony to our support and investment in the NHS. We believe that there is no urgent reason for implementing Part 3 of this Bill, either for clinical or financial reasons. On the positive side, we are not suggesting any delay in developing other aspects that have wider support, such as clinically informed commissioning, health and well-being boards, HealthWatch and much else. These changes need not be delayed if our amendment were passed—indeed, they are pretty much going ahead anyway—but could proceed with less risk. By sequencing the changes, the risks posed to patients can be lessened and the prospects of delivering the Nicholson challenge increased.
While other parts of the Bill bed in and foundation trusts can be regulated and registered as far as possible, it seems to me that May 2016 is the right time to implement Part 3 of the Bill. At some point in this Bill, the Government had set that date for getting foundation trusts set up, as far as they could be. That will be when all the other work has been done and is bedded in, and has perhaps built up some support with less fear and hostility than it does at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as regards supporting the amendment. However, I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has adopted a much more emollient line on Amendment 300A, is not making a full frontal attack on the whole Bill and is looking simply at Part 3. There is certainly an argument to be explored in what she had to say but I cannot understand the logic of why, of all the parts of the Bill that she has talked about today, she is focusing on Part 3. I find it extraordinary that throughout the debates that have taken place on the Bill the Opposition have refused to accept that the National Health Service Act 2006 introduced price competition into the NHS. If Part 3 did nothing else but plug some of the competition problems in the 2006 Act, I would support it.
Baroness Thornton
Would the noble Lord care to tell me to which part of the 2006 Act he is referring because, according to my recollection of the Act, it does not mention the word “competition” anywhere?
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, that is precisely the point and that is precisely why the Labour Government were avoiding any argument because that is where the big loophole lies. Any competition lawyer will tell you that that was the point where EU competition law started to bite in the NHS. That is a fact which you cannot deny. The establishment of independent treatment centres constituted a major introduction of the private sector into the health service by the Labour Government. That process was far more unregulated than it will be in the future under this Bill. There were major flaws in the 2006 Act which have never been fully acknowledged by the Labour Party throughout these debates. The noble Baroness’s speech could have been written three or four weeks ago. The Opposition refuse to accept the value and benefit of the amendments that have been made to Part 3 just in the past two weeks. I will not adumbrate them all. I refer the Opposition to the House of Commons paper that has just been written which sets out in great detail something like 2,000 amendments that have been made to the Bill since it started its passage through the House of Commons. We have had Future Forum, we have had 1,000 amendments tabled in this House alone and we have had changes to the Competition Commission’s involvement.
Baroness Thornton
What is the noble Lord’s answer to the question which I put? I was not attacking him and his party. I realise that he has to attack; that is his method of dealing with issues. That is a shame as I have from time to time tempted him not to do so. However, does he accept what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said about the hundreds of thousands of people and professionals who are fearful of this Bill? Attacking me as much as he likes will not alter that fact.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I really enjoyed the noble Baroness’s intervention. Today’s news about the change in attitude of the Royal College of General Practitioners shows that we have reached a genuine watershed. It may not have changed its mind absolutely, although it appears that membership pressure is being applied to the leadership of the royal college, but this is a real watershed whereby the acceptance of the fact that the Bill is going through is changing hearts and minds—not just minds but hearts as well. I am far more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Owen, because I believe that the other royal colleges will follow suit. They are actually looking at the substance of the Bill, not at some of the alarmist propaganda being put out. They are considering how mergers between foundation trusts will be regulated, how Monitor will do its duty and the additional powers that Monitor will have following consideration by Future Forum and Members of this House. They are also considering the impact of EU competition law following the Pepper v Hart statement that was made the other day. They are looking at the substance, which is exactly the way to look at the Bill. I believe that Part 3 is one of the most valuable parts of the Bill. I did not believe that it was acceptable to start with. That is precisely why I put down amendments in Committee and on Report. I am very pleased to say that it is much improved. The Bill should not be held up because of Part 3. In fact, it should be celebrated because of Part 3.
Baroness Thornton
Surely the Co-operation and Competition Panel still exists, will continue to exist, and can deal with any competition issues that are raised—as it already does.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the proposal that we have made in the Bill is for the Co-operation and Competition Panel to be part of new Monitor. If the noble Baroness’s amendment runs a coach and horses through those new arrangements, they are clearly very seriously destabilised.
Part 3 provides for a comprehensive system of regulation, covering all providers of NHS services and so protecting all patients whenever they use the NHS. The amendment would mean that patients using services supplied by the independent sector, social enterprises or charities would continue to be denied those protections. The protections would not, for example, apply to the 500,000 people in Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire who receive NHS services from the City Health Care Partnership, a community interest company established under the previous Administration. The partnership offers a range of community-based treatments as well as early interventions to help minimise the need for acute care in hospital and promote healthy lifestyles. Monitor does not currently regulate the partnership, because it is a social enterprise.
Part 3 will extend equivalent safeguards to protect patients’ interests, irrespective of who provides their treatment. That is a huge step forward. For the first time, there would be regulation to protect patients from the risk that poor management decisions may put essential NHS facilities and continuity of services at risk. By contrast, the amendment would perpetuate the situation whereby such protection exists only where patients receive essential services from foundation trusts. This would not recognise the nature of our NHS as a comprehensive service delivered by a diverse range of providers.
As well as providing for comprehensive regulation, Part 3 provides for effective regulation that will benefit patients by better enabling positive change. The noble Baroness mentioned the Nicholson challenge. Change in service delivery will play a vital role in achieving the Nicholson challenge of realising up to £20 billion of recurrent productivity improvements in the NHS, for example by providing older people and those with long-term conditions with more integrated care outside hospitals.
Part 3 will enable such change by empowering clinical commissioners to decide how best to improve services and when, where or, indeed, if to use competition as a means to that end. The amendment would leave no provision for sector-specific rules of this kind. Let me explain what that would mean. It would mean that clinical commissioners would face continuing risk of legal challenge whenever they decided to secure services without competition. It takes little imagination to see how that would stifle enthusiasm for clinical commissioning and potentially prevent the sort of innovative, integrated solutions needed to meet the demands of caring for an ageing population.
Part 3 would also enhance the NHS’s ability to deliver positive change by improving the current pricing system. Improving the pricing system is important for three reasons: to strengthen incentives for improvement, to enable integration and to remove incentives for cherry-picking. Part 3 will establish a transparent, legally enforceable pricing system that rewards providers for treating NHS patients. Money will follow the patient, and providers will be paid a fair price for treating complex cases. Again, this is central to the Nicholson challenge. Reform of the tariff in a systematic way will encourage service redesign and better integration. The current system, under Department of Health control, has, I am afraid, often failed to achieve these aims. For example, although foundation trusts should have been paid for every NHS patient treated, that has not always been happening. There have been unacceptable levels of cross-subsidy, and prices for complex cases have sometimes been woefully inadequate.
These and other problems have been highlighted by the royal colleges and are well documented, including in the recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. However these are also complex issues that will take time to solve, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, herself has said, it has taken time and is likely to take time. Therefore time is of the essence. The NHS cannot afford further delays. For all of these reasons, there is a clear, compelling and urgent case for moving forward with Part 3 of the Bill. I hope that I have been able to able reassure noble Lords exactly why it is that we need it.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Earl for his, as usual, extremely expert and very technical response, and I think that he completely missed the point. He did not address the risks that I mentioned all the way through the Bill, the risks that are contingent on implementing so much change so quickly and simultaneously. We will be back here very soon, I suspect, when we will be trying somehow to manage and mend.
I want to make just one or two remarks and will not keep the House very long on this matter. I would like to read to the House a Motion that Liberal Democrat MPs have tabled in the debate that is going on in the Commons right now. Both ends of this building are, as we speak, engaged with their concerns about the Bill. In seeking to amend the Labour amendment in the other place, colleagues of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have said that they decline,
“to support the Bill in its current form”,
and they call for,
“an urgent summit of the royal colleges, professional bodies, patients’ organisations and the government to plan health reforms based on the coalition agreement”.
Lord Clement-Jones
Would the noble Baroness like to say how many Liberal Democrat MPs have put their name to that particular Motion?
Baroness Thornton
It does not really matter. Five of his colleagues have put their names to it. The point I am making to the noble Lord is that I agree with them about the way forward. It echoes very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was saying about recognising the disquiet, hostility and fear that exists towards this Bill, particularly this part.
At the end of the day, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the other royal colleges, trade unions, nurses and doctors are the people who will save our NHS, whatever the Government have decided to do to it. They are the people who will actually deliver the healthcare. That is what the royal college of GPs is saying now. It did not say that it resiled from its position about this Bill; not at all. It is acknowledging that, along with the nurses and everybody else, it will deliver this Bill. It will put patients at the heart of the health system. I think that we should all pay tribute to that and be reassured by it.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that mergers will still proceed. They will still proceed regardless of whether this amendment is agreed. However, he also said that good people leave when there is disruption in the health service. That is very true. They are leaving in their droves. We are losing hundreds if not thousands of good people from the National Health Service because of the past two years, the White Paper and the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his remarks—I think he was very wise—and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for hers. She is quite right. I am flattered that she took my remarks seriously, because this is not about wrecking the Bill. I did not tackle any of the policy issues that the noble Earl chose to stand up as Aunt Sallies and then knock down. When I introduced the amendment, I said that this was about doing things in an orderly fashion, in a way that would help to save our NHS. That is the point. The noble Earl did not tackle any of the risks that I raised about how to deliver the Nicholson challenge simultaneously with all the other changes in the Bill. In fact, he went close to saying that we have gone too far anyway to stop that. I was not convinced by his remarks about the risks and how they might be mitigated. We need time to work on this. We need time to get support for it, if it goes through. The amendment allows us to do that. I wish to test the opinion of the House.