Care Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back on the Front Bench as part of my noble friend’s health team, even if it is for a short time. I join other noble Lords in sending best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for a speedy recovery.

As noble Lords will know, I have been interested in the future of the HFEA and HTA both as a Minister and during the course, in the early days of this Government, of the slash and burn Public Bodies Act, which both these bodies survived. The idea of merging the HFEA and HTA is not new, as my noble friend Lord Warner said, and has been rejected on more than one occasion. I am puzzled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, raising it now, especially in the middle of yet another review. What I waited to hear, particularly from noble Lords with scientific and research backgrounds, was what the public thought. The right reverend Prelate was right when he said that this is also about how people feel about these issues, not just how the great doctors and scientists think things should be done. In fact, that was how we started out with all these issues.

As my noble friend Lord Warner said, this was first raised by my Government. We proposed establishing a new arm’s-length body called RATE—the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos. According to my research, in 2007 the Government wisely decided not to proceed with that following criticism from a Joint Committee set up to scrutinise that draft Bill. The arguments advanced against RATE then were just as persuasive as they are today. Many of us have held that there is little overlap in the work of the two bodies and that the specialist expertise each provides should be maintained to ensure that regulation remains effective and public confidence is maintained. The discussion we have had so far today has not convinced me that this proposal is the best way forward at the moment. The independence of the HTA and HFEA is important for a number of reasons, not least because of the public confidence needed in both the areas they cover.

In 2010, the Government proposed as part of their bonfire of the quangos that the functions of the HFEA and the HTA should be transferred largely to the CQC. Noble Lords will remember the debate about that during the passage of the Public Bodies Act. Following an extensive public consultation, that proposal was also rejected by the Government in January this year. Once more, a clear majority of those who responded thought that the risks involved in such sensitive areas of medicine were just too great. Instead, the Government decided that an independent review of the way the HFEA and HTA carry out their functions should be undertaken by Justin McCracken. I understand that Mr McCracken’s review is complete and Ministers have yet to decide what to do. Perhaps we will have a sneak preview of that today.

Is there new evidence that there is an advantage in merging these two distinct and expert organisations? As I said, they have different roles. According to the brief I was sent, there are fewer than 10 organisations jointly regulated by both organisations. As context, around 130 organisations are regulated by the HFEA and 800 by the HTA across diverse sectors. On these Benches we are nervous that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to merge the boards of both these organisations risks losing specialist expertise held by the HTA and HFEA and the unique roles in law that their respective boards have.

During the committee scrutiny of the Bill in its draft form—as the Care and Support Bill—the committee advised against a full merger of the boards. In its call for evidence, the committee asked for views on precisely this question. As far as I know, respondents unanimously opposed the abolition of either body or the transfer of their functions. The Academy of Medical Sciences replied:

“There is a great deal of support among our community for the HFEA and the HTA; both are perceived as having developed the experience to respond in a balanced, practical way to the changing landscape that reflects the evolving risks and benefits of research. The relatively small savings to be made through disbanding the HFEA and the HTA need to be balanced against the inevitable period of disruption and uncertainty, and any potential risk of loss of expertise, efficiency, effectiveness and coherence that could hinder research and practice and result in the loss of public and professional confidence … We therefore support retaining both the HFEA and the HTA, providing they work closely with the HRA and other regulators to further streamline the regulation, inspection and governance process for patient and public benefit”.

I accept precisely the point made by my noble friend Lord Winston and others that there are unnecessary delays and that there are clearly issues to be addressed in the way that these bodies operate.

The committee concluded that Ministers should not have the power to abolish the HFEA or HTA and recommended that the relevant clause should be deleted. While its conclusions were about abolition, these same points apply to the merger of the boards: expertise would be lost, there would be huge disruption and all for relatively tiny cost savings at the moment. The work of the HTA and HFEA is of enormous scientific and ethical importance. We accept entirely that there is always room for improvement and we should never be complacent. The review led by Justin McCracken will no doubt make recommendations for further efficiencies. We would be jumping ahead of his proposals by agreeing this amendment at this time.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been a very instructive debate and one to which I have listened with enormous care and interest. It takes us back to a well-worn area, as noble Lords have been keen to point out. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would abolish the HFEA and HTA and replace them with a new regulatory body, the human tissue and embryo authority. It would also transfer responsibility for the regulation of infertility treatment involving embryos, sperm and eggs to the CQC.

I listened with great care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, when he moved the amendment. As has been amply demonstrated in the course of this debate, the prospect of the merger of the HFEA and HTA, or of the transfer of their functions elsewhere and the subsequent abolition of the two bodies, is by no means a new one. It has been considered carefully and consulted on on a number of occasions over recent years, including by Members of this House.

In 2007, as we were reminded, a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, chaired by my noble friend Lord Willis, considered a proposal to replace the HFEA and HTA by the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos—RATE. The committee roundly rejected that proposal. It recognised concerns expressed by stakeholders about the risk of losing the specialist expertise that the HFEA and HTA individually hold and the small extent to which the two bodies actually cover common ground. That point was made very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, today.

The Government are as keen as anybody to minimise the number of arm’s-length bodies when we possibly can. A substantial exercise was undertaken across government when the coalition was new to do exactly that and a great number of bodies were abolished. Within that framework, last year the Department of Health undertook a public consultation on a proposal to transfer the functions of the HFEA and HTA to the Care Quality Commission and the Health Research Authority, as part of our review of the arm’s-length bodies. Across the full range of respondents, a majority of three-quarters disagreed with the proposal. The main reason cited was that the HFEA and the HTA have developed considerable expertise in their highly specialised fields. They were said to be trusted and respected by the regulated sectors. Respondents believed that this expertise and trust would be lost were a transfer of functions to take place. That point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who I am delighted to see on the Front Bench opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, indicated that in his view it was unnecessary to have two separate organisations, but that was not the view of those who responded to the consultation.

Respondents also said that they did not believe that the CQC was well-placed at the time to take on the functions of the two bodies and they feared that those functions would be subsumed by the CQC’s other responsibilities. Another strong message from the consultation was that the small size of the two bodies and the small overall anticipated savings did not warrant the risks involved in abolishing them and transferring their functions. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made that very point when we debated these issues during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. The Government listened to the responses and decided not to proceed with the transfer and abolition. However, we also recognised the clear message from the consultation that there is scope for the HFEA and the HTA to achieve further efficiencies in the way that they operate. That much, I hope, all noble Lords agree on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked whether there was any new evidence about the value of a merger. It was with that very question in mind that we commissioned an independent review of the two bodies by Justin McCracken, former chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, in January this year. The review included looking at the scope for shared membership and leadership of the HFEA and HTA and for their merger. The report of the review was submitted to Ministers in April and is currently under consideration, so I am afraid that I am not in a position to share any conclusions quite yet. I will give way.

[Baroness Thornton]

Will we see the white smoke before we get to Report?

[Earl Howe]

I sincerely hope and anticipate that we will, but I am afraid I do not have a particular date in my brief. If I am able to supply the noble Baroness with that information, I will be happy to do so. The noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Patel, cited the number of different regulators involved in the organisational arrangements and the regulation of regenerative medicine in the UK and pointed to the complexity of these arrangements. I understand that point of view, but we are now in a world where the regulators in this area work very closely together to provide regulatory clarity to the sector and to ensure that the system actually works. I know, for example, that the MHRA and the HTA work closely together and have carried out joint inspections.

The department, along with the UK regulators, worked together to produce a regulatory map for stem cell research and manufacture, and I think that too has been helpful. I fully understand and appreciate the interest of noble Lords in this matter and their desire to streamline regulation. We all welcome that aim. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have given this matter consideration in some depth, including through public consultations. The strong message we have consistently received from stakeholders is that the HFEA and the HTA should not be abolished or merged or their functions transferred elsewhere. Our latest consideration of this is the scope for regulatory streamlining that the McCracken review looked at, including the scope for regulators to work closely together. That consideration is currently taking place. As soon as the Government’s position on it is determined I will ensure that noble Lords are informed. I am additionally told by a most reliable source that we do not yet have a confirmed date for that announcement.

I am always loath to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Patel, but I hope he will understand that we did not reach this position without due deliberation and indeed without taking extensive soundings among the stakeholders who are most concerned in this area. I hope he will feel, if not exactly comfortable in withdrawing his amendment, at least satisfied that the matter has been fully debated.

NHS: Clinical Networks

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will address any shortfall in the funding of clinical networks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, national funding for clinical networks has been maintained at £33.6 million since 2009. Forty-two million pounds has been allocated by the NHS Commissioning Board to support strategic clinical networks and clinical senates in 2013-14. It is for local health communities and the board to determine the number and size of networks, based on patient flows and clinical relationships, and to deploy their resources appropriately.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. His boss, the Secretary of State, is on the record as saying that clinical networks funding is increasing and will continue, yet on Monday a freedom of information survey revealed severe cuts to budgets and staff in clinical networks, so I wonder who is right. Cancer networks are cut by 26% and stroke and cardiac by 12% in the same period—2009-13—with the loss of hundreds of experienced and motivated staff. Do the figures that the Minister has given to me also cover clinical senates? Will those cuts be restored? What incentives are the Government putting in place to ensure that local health organisations contribute to the additional funding of cancer networks? Indeed, how will the local diabetes networks be supported in the new commissioning regime? We know that these networks work.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s last comment. These networks are extremely valuable. I confirm that the figure I gave her in my Answer of £42 million covers clinical senates as well. It is perfectly correct that the share of the pot which cancer networks will be able to avail of is likely to be smaller next year than it is this year. However, I can categorically confirm that, as I said in my Answer, national funding has not been cut to date and is going up next year very considerably. Furthermore, we should recognise that the Commissioning Board’s announcement amounts to a ringing endorsement of the value of networks in improving patient outcomes. Not only will funding be increased but for the first time there will be nationally supported networks for mental health, dementia and neurological conditions as well as maternity and children’s services. I say to the noble Baroness that recruitment to the networks is proceeding very smoothly and encouragingly.

NHS: Diabetic Services

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[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

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, these regulations lay down the minimum membership of a governing body. It is open to CCGs, in their constitutions, to widen the membership of the governing body if they wish. I will follow this up in writing to the noble Lord.

[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

Thursday 11th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[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

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[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

Monday 28th May 2012 Grand Committee

Finally, I notice in the documentation that there is to be a review of the new body in 2014. That implies that the Government are not terribly optimistic about meeting the 2014 deadline. In 2016, there is to be a review of the new authority. Theoretically, it should be out of business by April 2014, as I understand it, but there seems to be an acceptance that that will not happen. Will the Minister say whether the trust will publish an annual report on its progress and what will happen if, as is likely, it has not completed its job by 2016?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have covered the bulk of the questions put to me. To the extent that I have not, I will of course write to noble Lords. In the mean time, I commend these statutory instruments to the Committee.

[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

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[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

Monday 23rd April 2012 Grand Committee

[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

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.