Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 27 and 41. Noble Lords will know that because of my role as a Minister up until the end of last year, I find some of the provisions in the Bill rather more defensible than do other noble Lords, and I know that that is a minority opinion. Nevertheless, the Minister has said that she will reflect on the House’s strength of feeling, and of course she has much greater wisdom than me on these matters.

I was struck by some comments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern on the last group, when he talked about the scope of the Bill; that is relevant to the context of the amendments laid by my noble friend Lord Lansley. That is the point I was trying to make on Tuesday: there is no reason a priori why the Bill should not have a broader scope. As my noble friend pointed out, in other contexts, the House is arguing that similar Bills ought to, but it follows from that that the functions carried out as a consequence of the Bill are of two distinct types. One concerns what my noble friend called rollover Bills, to provide continuity with the EEA and Switzerland; the other concerns new arrangements—not necessarily with new countries but of a new and deeper kind. Clearly, that will be taking on a relationship that does not have precedent when it comes to dealing with individual countries, even if it has precedent as modelled on those available with the EEA and Switzerland.

My noble friend’s logic in thinking about how the regulation-making power ought to reflect that distinction is therefore sound. Clearly, there needs to be sensitivity. That is reflected in the timeliness and urgency of what we need to do for one set of circumstances and what we might want to do with the longer-term global role.

I am sure that the Minister will reflect carefully on the amendments. If the goal of the Bill should be to give us the broad scope, as I still believe, not only to deal with the consequences of leaving the European Union but to build a different, broader, more global set of relationships, which I think is the kind of network the House supports, there is a compelling case for my noble friend’s argument for a differentiated approach. Whether the specifics are right, I do not know; others will be in a position to judge. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on the amendments.

[Baroness Thornton]

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, I reflected on our debates on Tuesday. I think he is again making the argument for two Bills, but there we go. He is quite right about differentiation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for introducing this group of amendments, all of which seek to curb the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 5. I shall speak to Amendment 33 in this group. It would ensure that amendments are made under the affirmative procedure. We have sought to use the affirmative procedure in the event of no deal, which would enable the Government to bring in replacement bilateral arrangements immediately. That is because we are concerned that delays under the draft procedure would leave British and EU citizens not covered by a health agreement, with serious implications.

This group of amendments points in the same direction and comes from every part of the House. They broadly agree with both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee reports. As noble Lords have said, the Henry VIII powers in Clause 5(3) and (4) provide for regulations to amend, repeal, revoke or retain EU law. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister said in our previous debate that she intends to consider what has been said. I will resist the temptation to quote what the Constitution Committee said about this, because I know that noble Lords have read its influential reports at length.

These powers have been mentioned by noble Lords all the way through Committee. Clauses 2 and 5 are particularly worrying, to put it mildly. What concerns me is the Government’s reaction to the legitimate concerns expressed so clearly by both those highly regarded Lords committees, on whose advice we depend for our scrutiny of legislation. They overuse the words “flexibility and capability” and argue that the Bill must be forward-looking and needs those powers to provide that flexibility and capability. I was reminded of the previous general election, when the Conservative Party coined the phrase “strong and stable”. It did not convince anybody, and I am not sure that “flexibility and capability” is convincing noble Lords as a reason for the powers. It is a good reason for what the Government want to achieve, but as a justification for the powers in the Bill, it is not compelling.

The noble Baroness now seems to have realised that in every part of the House, including on her Benches, we take these matters particularly seriously. That is not because there is a desire to stop the Government acting—absolutely not at the moment. It is because our system of checks, balances and accountability requires legislation to be subject to proper scrutiny, in order to safeguard citizens from the tendency of Governments—all Governments—to charge on and ride roughshod, implementing their wishes without let or hindrance.

I know that some officials see this as a kind of game or tussle to see what they can get away with, particularly at the moment, but as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, wisely said on Tuesday, you cannot put these powers in because they might just be useful. Although I will resist joining the noble Lord in repeating the words of Margaret Thatcher, I agree with his sentiment that the Bill as drafted breaks all the rules of our constitutional understanding. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously because the challenge before her and the House is to amend the Bill so that it fulfils its primary function: to provide healthcare cover for millions of UK citizens and to ensure healthcare for UK citizens living and working in the European Union and European citizens living and working in the UK. In other words, it is about individuals’ lives and their health. We believe that the right amendments, like those defined in this group, will refine the Bill’s scope and give the Secretary of State appropriate powers—an achievable task.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. Clause 4 of the Bill provides the legal basis for processing personal information and data about patients to facilitate patient information and payments for reciprocal healthcare after Brexit—whether as part of an agreement with the EU, an agreement with a country outside the EU or in connection with contingency plans arising from a no-deal scenario. It also seeks to ensure that the key safeguards which should always be at the heart of systems that use and exchange patients’ sensitive personal and medical data are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is right to press this issue. It was almost the first thing that he and I spoke about when we talked about the Bill, which made me look at and ask why he and other noble Lords, particularly those in the medical profession, were very concerned about this.

At Second Reading the Minister acknowledged that there were deep concerns raised by noble Lords on data processing provisions in Clause 4, and promised to address them—but unfortunately she ran out of time on that day. We look forward to her catching up with that. We know that the noble Baroness has special expertise and experience in this field, so I look forward to hearing her talk about how she envisages the necessary robust standards, security and safeguards applying in post-Brexit healthcare deals with the EU and the rest of the world, and how those will be achieved.

In the Commons, my colleagues pressed this matter with the Minister, Stephen Hammond. He gave an assurance that the powers to access personal data would be limited, and committed at the time to provide a briefing. I wanted to raise that with the Minister—my colleagues in the Commons certainly have not received that, but I thought that she might raise it with her colleague and see what the briefing might have said. I am sure that we too would be interested to receive it.

When I raised this issue at Second Reading, I mentioned that I had been in touch with the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care, who, as we know, has a vital role in ensuring that confidential healthcare data is used and shared appropriately in protecting the high standard of confidentiality. Pursuing that question is whether the Minister has been in touch and sought her guidance on this matter.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important discussion on an area that is, of course, of growing concern not just for people in Parliament but for the general public. Noble Lords will also know about my interest in this issue; we have had many discussions over the last few years about it. It is critical that we get this right, to allay any fears—because there are fears that attend to the use and movement of data for various purposes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, makes the point in her amendment about the Caldicott principles and so on. I was pleased from the Government’s point of view to be able to bring the National Data Guardian on to a statutory footing, as well as other measures that we took to provide that level of reassurance. My understanding is that these are all part of the scaffolding around the Data Protection Act, which is the GDPR as put into our legislation. They are a way of translating the general provisions of that into healthcare purposes. I ask the Minister to confirm that, because the Bill clearly states that the Data Protection Act is the governing piece of legislation here, it therefore follows that things such as the NDG, the principles and other things apply. They, in effect, derive from that and apply to all aspects of healthcare, including reciprocal healthcare.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)]

Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to follow the noble Baroness, given that she made specific reference to some of the comments I made on Second Reading and previously.

I have listened carefully, as I always do—and always did as a Minister—to the views expressed by noble Lords whether through the reports of the two committees or in debate. However, some fundamental mistakes of logic have been exposed in this group of amendments which I want to dive into.

The first mistake is the assumption that this is a Brexit Bill. It is not a Brexit Bill—or at least not solely a Brexit Bill—in the sense that it is required because our statute book will change after we leave the European and this will ensure that we have continuity of arrangements going forward. It is worth pointing out that we do not need to rush into this because statutory instruments have been laid to provide for arrangements in a no-deal scenario. We are considering this Bill in order to replace statutes that exist on our books which will become unworkable once we leave the European Union because of their reciprocal nature—it is not possible to have a one-sided reciprocal commitment in law—and that is what this Bill seeks to do.

The report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee states on this point:

“While the exceptional circumstances of the UK’s departure from the European Union might justify legislation containing broader powers that would not otherwise be constitutionally acceptable, this does not extend to giving effect to new policy unrelated to Brexit. The Bill should be limited to the making of arrangements for future reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries that participate in the existing European Health Insurance Card scheme”.


However, that is conflating two different issues: one is the nature of the restrictions that apply to primary legislation and the way in which secondary legislation should be carried out, and we have heard the discussion on why that should be the case; and the second is whether or not this Bill should limit itself in scope only to countries which are within the EEA and Switzerland.

There is no good reason why we should limit ourselves in such a way. Indeed the opposition parties are always telling the Government that they are too focused on Brexit and should take a wider view. The Bill does two things: it provides us with an opportunity for continuity and to put in place new arrangements, as well as an opportunity to make legislation of the kind that we are always being encouraged to make so that we can continue with our relationships—and deepen them—that we have with every other country in the world. Given that the Conservative Party and this Government are always accused of being too parochial, I would have thought this would be welcomed.

There is no reason to think that this Bill, a priori, should not have two functions. Yes, we need to replace the legislation under which we have powers in order to strike reciprocal agreements, but there is no good reason why we should limit ourselves to having those agreements with the European Union, the EEA and Switzerland as a set of countries. It may be that we ought to have different arrangements for approving such agreements. We all want to see continuity and it is the stated aim of the Government to provide it, but there is no reason why we might not have one set of arrangements to deal with that given that there is a deadline coming up.

I take issue, advisedly, with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, who have said that this process is being expedited. The Bill is not being expedited. It had proper scrutiny in the other place and is being properly scrutinised in this place. It is not being rushed through or dealt with inappropriately in terms of procedure. We are able to proceed properly in scrutinising the Bill and to think about the way in which we want to enact the two kinds of reciprocal arrangements that we will have in the future.

[Baroness Thornton]

I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, is helping the Minister in his exposition. Certainly he is convincing me that we need to have two Bills. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord why all the documentation accompanying this Bill starts with the words, “This Bill is being introduced as a result of the decision to leave the European Union and is intended to enable the Government”—blah, blah, blah—“to deal with reciprocal healthcare”?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords, the reason is that the statute by which we are able to strike reciprocal healthcare agreements—the regulations stated in the Explanatory Notes—comes from the body of EU law. Without that we are not able to have reciprocal agreements with anyone, so in that sense we are replacing the source of our law with a different source. It does not follow that with the law we have in place, we should restrict ourselves to having arrangements with a subset of the countries where we could do so.

NHS: Waiting Times

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has not answered the Question put by my noble friend, which was about the effect of this on waiting lists. Using the private sector to relieve waiting lists, particularly during the winter crisis, which hospital trusts were told they could do, suggests that the understaffing and underresourcing of the NHS is the problem. Who pays for that private sector use? Is it trusts or NHS England? Is the cost of the use of private hospitals set against the cost of providing enough funding to ensure that hospitals and primary care are fully staffed and resourced?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

With respect to the noble Baroness, I think I did answer the noble Lord’s Question because there are two different issues. One is the offering of private healthcare services and the second is the use of private providers to carry out NHS-funded provision—something that has been going on in the NHS for a long time and was accelerated under the last Labour Government. Of course, if private or independent providers are used to reduce waiting lists under the NHS, the NHS pays and the patient does not pay anything.

Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in proposing these regulations, I want to explain that they are made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary arrangements for the UK Blood Safety and Quality Regulations. This statutory instrument will correct deficiencies in those regulations so that the UK is prepared if we leave the EU without a deal on 29 March 2019.

Current regulations set out the safety and quality requirements that cover all the steps in the blood transfusion process, from donation, collection, testing, processing and storage to distribution. The short shelf life of these products means that an uninterrupted process of donation and processing is needed to ensure that the UK has a safe and continuous supply of blood and blood components. As a responsible Government, we have been preparing for all scenarios, including the unwanted but potential outcome that we leave the EU without a deal in March 2019. This instrument will ensure that the regulatory regime in relation to blood safety and quality continues to function effectively after exit day in that scenario. It is vital to make these legislative changes to provide a functioning statute book that allows for the continued donation and processing of blood and blood components such as plasma and platelets to facilitate a wide range of essential and often life-saving treatments.

In moving these regulations, I want to be clear that they are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that the legislation is operative on EU exit day. No policy changes are made through these regulations and we do not have any intention of making any at this point.

The main changes that the instrument will introduce are as follows. It transfers relevant Commission powers contained in the EU blood directives to the Secretary of State in relation to England and to the devolved Ministers in relation to the devolved areas. In addition, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the relevant devolved Ministers, make regulations on their behalf. This will enable future updates to the blood safety and quality legislation to respond to emerging threats, changing safety and quality standards and technological advances. It contains modifications to how the annex to the blood directive should be read post Brexit. This is necessary to ensure that the requirements set out in the annex, which are referred to in our domestic legislation, continue to apply and function properly post exit. It also makes minor changes to amend EU-related references or EU obligations that will no longer be appropriate or will be redundant once the UK has left the EU.

Blood is a devolved policy area, so I am pleased to say that we have obtained the devolved legislatures’ consent to the provisions contained in this draft instrument. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Given the state of the Brexit negotiations, deals and other matters that are going on in Parliament at the moment, it is probably just as well that we have this before us. However, I have to say, as I said to the Minister about the previous instrument we discussed, that it was there in case we crash out of the EU. This is really quite a waste of all our time and Parliament should not have to do this.

The regulations seem to be very straightforward. They will: amend or omit references to EU/EEA member states and third countries; omit provisions relating to EU obligations that will no longer be relevant to the UK; transfer relevant Commission powers under the EU blood directive to the Secretary of State in relation to England and the devolved Ministers in relation to the devolved areas, as detailed in paragraphs 7.12 to 7.15; and, as the noble Lord said, modify how the annex to Commission Directive 2005/62/EC is to be read after exit.

Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for being a minute or so late. I am afraid that business moved too quickly and the lift too slowly.

As the Minister said, the current regulations for tobacco and related products are designed to promote and protect the public’s health. Speaking as a veteran of tobacco regulation from the previous Labour Government and the Minister responsible for the point of sale retail advertising regulations that put tobacco products out of sight in our shops and supermarkets, all those actions were rigorously and energetically opposed by the noble Lord’s party and the Minister’s predecessor but one. I welcome the Government having definitely seen the light on this; it is wonderful. I am pleased to learn that the Government’s priority is to maintain the same high standards after the UK leaves the European Union, if that is indeed what happens.

The noble Lord and I are discussing regulations that will be necessary if there is no deal. I suspect they are the first of many. We have a whole load of embryonic and blood things to discuss next week. I wonder whether that is really a productive use of his time or mine.

On what these regulations do, in the event of no deal we will be obliged to introduce legislation to ensure that the policies and systems in place to regulate tobacco products and e-cigarettes will continue to function effectively and maintain continuity with current arrangements. The website and the Explanatory Notes use the words “where possible”, so I suppose my first question to the Minister is to explain the words “where possible” and where the current arrangements might not be possible.

If the UK leaves the European Union in March 2019 with no agreement in place, that will mean, as the noble Lord said, that the tobacco products directive and the tobacco advertising directive will no longer directly apply to the UK—which is ironic, as we were the pioneers in these matters all those years ago. UK domestic law that implements these directives, such as the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, would remain in force.

My understanding is that these regulations’ purposes are threefold: to introduce a new domestic system to allow producers to notify e-cigarettes in accordance with existing rules; to introduce a new domestic system to allow producers to notify tobacco products in accordance with existing rules; and to introduce new picture warnings for tobacco products, already mentioned by noble Lords, based on the picture library owned by the Australian Government. The noble Lord and I have both learned that the pictures in use at the moment come from a library based in Brussels. We will no longer have access to it.

I thank ASH for its views and vigilance on these important matters, and for its participation in the consultation process. I agree with it that the system set out for notification of e-cigarettes and novel tobacco products in the consultation document is pragmatic and practical, and would minimise the additional work involved in the notification process if there were to be a no-deal Brexit. Products notified to the UK prior to the UK leaving the European Union would not require re-notification and data will be accepted in the same format as currently submitted. Those arrangements seem satisfactory.

For the purpose of providing an alternative to the current picture warnings in the event that the UK leaves the EU with no deal, since we would no longer have access to the rather revolting and graphic pictures in the SI—I have not seen any other legislation with pictures in it, but this instrument has them; I suggest that if noble Lords have not read the statutory instrument they should at least open it and look at the pictures it contains—the Minister has said we will switch to the ones used in Australia, which I gather are even more horrible. However, I remind the Government that, in the longer term, the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations 2016 require the Secretary of State to review the regulations and publish a report before 20 May 2021. This review needs to examine the objectives intended to be achieved by the regulatory provision made by these regulations, and to assess how far they have been met and whether they remain appropriate. That will allow a review of quite a fast-moving area in terms of product development to take place. Does the Minister agree that is the case?

For the purpose of providing an alternative to the current picture warnings in the event that the UK leaves the EU with no deal, switching to the pictures from Australia is a short-term quick fix for this emergency. However, current best practice in Australia and the UK is to rotate, regularly review and update those health warnings. Therefore, it is essential that in the longer term the Government review the warnings—they are currently being evaluated by the Australian Government—and find ways to increase the number to allow for rotation, as is currently the case. When can we expect that review to take place?

I do not need to add to my noble friend Lord Hunt’s remarks about the importance of vaping and its role in reducing smoking. These statutory instruments serve their purpose.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this statutory instrument. It is hard to believe that it has taken us this long to have our first Brexit outing on health issues. It could be the first outing of many and we may not always be in such agreement, but I am happy that we seem to be on this occasion.

On the point made initially by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and later reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about e-cigarettes, we have been working in a framework decided at a European level and have made the most of it. It inevitably involves some restrictions, whose boundaries we have tried to push in order to have what I think is the most rational and effective approach in Europe. It has worked. As we all know, it has contributed to improved smoking cessation and low use by young people—take-up among young people being one of the fears, which we are unfortunately seeing in the States. Some research is still required to understand better both the behavioural and the health impacts of vaping products, but the Government have no doubt about their central role in dealing with what is still one of the biggest public health issues that we face. I can give an assurance that we keep an open mind about the right way to regulate these products, bearing in mind their almost entirely positive benefits.

It is worth emphasising, as noble Lords have done, that the purpose of the instrument is not to change policy; it is to provide continuity and make sure that there are fixes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, the review of directives that the Secretary of State has a duty to fulfil gives us an opportunity to think about how they are operating in this and other domains. Certainly, we will fulfil that by 2021, but the Secretary of State may decide to do something sooner —of course, that is not something I can commit him to at this point. The policy is working and we want to make the most of it. For example, some of the restrictions on advertising may be stopping realisation of the full benefits of the use of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation; those are the kind of things we would want to think about.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the Australian pictures. They are indeed more gruesome—it clearly shows that Australians have a higher threshold for what appals them. We are grateful to the Australian Government for helping us get through the transition by giving us those gruesome photos. It is also worth noting that Australia has a very successful smoking cessation regime—we are not taking these images from just anybody; we are taking them from a country that is doing really well, so there is good reason to think that they will be effective.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about rotation. Clearly, we are going to need to work with the Australian Government as well as design our own pictures. In a no-deal scenario we would need to do that so that we can have rotation and make sure that people do not grow desensitised to these pictures, which is of course one of the problems with them. Of course, in a no-deal scenario we may be able to work with a number of different jurisdictions. It may be possible to assemble a library that goes beyond one or two countries, but that is not something we have a timetable for yet.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I say again that there is absolutely no going back on the progress we have made on smoking cessation. The Government are a vigorous promoter of tobacco control. We know the health benefits: pretty much the best thing you can do for your health if you smoke is to stop, so I can reassure noble Lords that there is no going back.

On the final question regarding the language—“fixing where possible”—the point is that we are acting under the aegis of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives us the power to deal with certain things. Let me give an example of what it does not allow us to do, because of the framework of primary legislation. In its 20th report of the 2016-17 Session, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found some defective drafting, but we do not have the power under the withdrawal Act to fix that through this process; we would need some other process. So we have used all the powers we have under the withdrawal Act to make fixes and provide continuity in key areas, but it does not necessarily follow that we have fixed everything through this process; that will have to be done through other processes. That is just the limit of what we can do through primary legislation.

I hope I have been able to answer noble Lords’ questions and provide reassurance about our commitment to smoking cessation and, indeed, about our open-mindedness to future policy changes that may be required for us to go further and take advantage of some of the technologies available to us. On that basis, I beg to move.

Health: Cancer

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 29th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to my noble friend, not just for her recognition of that fact but for her campaigning on this issue. It is a really important step forward. The rollout of HPV vaccinations to boys will make a big difference to cancer rates, as it is doing for girls and women. It is part of a world-class screening programme in this country. A few issues need to be dealt with, and Mike Richards will be looking at those, but we are determined to make sure that our screening programmes get better and better.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister’s statements about the targets for 2028 are not consistent with the terrible and chronic staff shortages that NHS pathology departments are suffering. This will definitely be exacerbated by Brexit. Only three of 100 departments report to the Royal College of Pathologists that they have enough staff. Given that these are vital to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, what are the Government’s plans to rectify this very serious problem?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I absolutely recognise that it is a problem. As I said, we have increased the numbers of doctors in a range of specialties. Pathology has been a challenge, it must be said. There are two answers: the first is to continue to recruit more people, either domestically or internationally. The second refers to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made: we are determined to utterly transform this service through technology while also delivering better results.

Sexual Health Services

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 29th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I shall certainly look into that issue. This is the largest trial of its kind in the use of PrEP, and we are determined to ensure that all 13,000 people are recruited to it, and that they are spread across the country. As I said, we have already reached nearly 10,000. I shall do a little more digging on that and write to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, what actions are the Government taking to end HIV-related stigma and discrimination, which unfortunately still exists?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

First, we are giving it an extremely high profile. Indeed, Governments have given it a high profile since the noble Lord the Lord Speaker raised the issue in the 1980s. All Governments since have been committed to that and this Government continue to be so. We do that through a mixture of public health campaigns and working with schoolchildren to ensure that there is no stigmatisation or bullying of any groups of young people with HIV.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and welcome these amendments. As the Minister said, they are very important and deal with the issues of conflicts of interest and the preauthorisation review. I congratulate the Minister on navigating us to this point, and certainly we will be supporting the amendments.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their support. Of course, navigation of any ship requires a good crew, and I feel that we have one. I am very grateful for that support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 46, which is in my name and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. It provides that the care home manager, or any person interested in the cared-for person’s welfare, is responsible for being satisfied that an AMCP should carry out a pre-authorisation review. The Committee has already discussed this and the important safeguards which we will be seeking come under Amendment 76A. Some of the important matters raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Barker, have been addressed by the Minister in the Government’s amendments. I look forward to his reply.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for tabling these important amendments. It is critical to get right the role of approved mental capacity professionals and when they should review cases under the liberty protection safeguards system. AMCPs will be a vital part of the system. They will be qualified, knowledgeable and experienced professionals. It is intended that they will act independently, both of the care provider and the responsible body, and that they will make a determination on proposed arrangements after meeting the person and reviewing relevant information.

Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explicitly prevents the responsible body overriding a determination of the AMCP. The responsible body is responsible for approving the authorisation, but an AMCP is required to complete the pre-authorisation review if it is reasonable to believe that the person objects to the arrangements. The AMCP can also conduct the pre-authorisation review in other cases. Where an AMCP conducts the pre-authorisation review they will determine whether the authorisation conditions are met.

The critical issue here is the consequences of the AMCP determining that the authorisation conditions have not been met. We are absolutely clear that the responsible body should follow the AMCP’s determination, and indeed any responsible body that did not do so would be taking on a significant legal risk. The responsible body might believe that it has a good reason to disagree with the AMCP’s assessment, but in that case the proper course of action would be to discuss this with the AMCP. If the responsible body then tried to override the AMCP’s decision, we would expect the AMCP to raise concerns—first, with the responsible body itself. If the local authority is the responsible body, the concern can be escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, and if a CCG is the responsible body, it can be escalated to the regional director of commissioning in NHS England. Concerns regarding NHS organisations and independent hospitals can also be raised directly with the CQC in England or Health Inspectorate Wales. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords are reassured that mechanisms are in place to stop any unjustified behaviour on behalf of responsible bodies.

Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, makes explicit that a pre-authorisation review must also be conducted by an approved mental capacity professional if relatives or those with a genuine relationship to the person object to the arrangements, if there is restriction on contact, if the care home manager or responsible body considers the case to be exceptional, or if the arrangements are for mental disorder or the arrangements include covert medication.

The Government agree that families and carers play an important role in liberty protection safeguards. As the people who know the cared-for person best, they will often know what the person’s wishes and feelings are and whether they do, or would, object to what is being proposed. The Bill already states that a pre-authorisation review must be completed by an AMCP if there is a reasonable belief that a person objects to residing in or receiving care and treatment at a particular place. We are clear that an objection raised by someone with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare can also give rise to a reasonable belief that the person objects, and this will be confirmed and clarified in the code.

We all agree that deprivation of liberty is a serious matter, especially when accompanied by measures such as high levels of restriction, covert medication and restrictions on contact. Such measures should be put in place only following a best-interests meeting and in some cases will require a court application. This is confirmed in the current MCA code of practice and will continue to be a key aspect of the new code.

I agree that in some circumstances such cases should be considered by an approved mental capacity professional. The Bill expressly allows for a pre-authorisation review to be completed by an AMCP in other cases, as is clear from paragraph 19(1). However, although the Bill is clear about how the lodging of an objection will lead to a review by an AMCP, I have heard clearly from noble Lords and stakeholders that there is a concern about referring appropriate cases to an AMCP. I hope that noble Lords will be glad to hear that I have been persuaded that we need to clarify on the face of the Bill that other cases can be referred to an AMCP.

In the previous day on Report, I stated that we would revisit, in the Commons, the issue of referral to AMCPs, specifically regarding those in independent hospitals. I can now confirm we will be looking at this issue more widely, including the specific concerns raised in the debate and in the amendment, as part of our considerations for government amendments in the other place. I look forward to working with all noble Lords to make sure that we get this right.

I turn briefly to Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker. The amendment would mean that in care home cases the statement to the responsible body must indicate whether any person interested in the person’s welfare is satisfied that the person does or does not object. I understand that the intention here is to create a mechanism for those with an interest to be able to raise objections. I have already said that the Bill specifies that the statement must reflect any consultation that has been completed with those with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare, and our later amendments will also make it explicit that that includes the person themselves under the “duty to consult” government amendments. The IMCA and the appropriate person will also have a role in reflecting these concerns.

To conclude this group of amendments, Amendment 104 states that a review is triggered if a person with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare has raised concerns. As I said, that will be the case. Amendment 109 would change the Bill to reflect the effects of Amendments 34 and 104.

I hope that in answering points raised on these important issues, I have been able to give two kinds of reassurance. The first is that the process of triggering a review will be clearly set out. The Bill as it stands, as well as amendments that we are making, will mean that anybody with an interest in a person’s welfare will be able to trigger a review and that will lead to a consideration by an AMCP. Secondly, in the rare cases where there is a dispute between an AMCP and a responsible body, there will be avenues to escalate such a disagreement to mediation and resolution.

Furthermore, we are determined to get the role of the AMCP right. We think it is necessary to go beyond specifying that those in independent hospitals can see an AMCP and to think of other cases as well, and we are intending to bring forward amendments at the Commons stages of the Bill. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the noble Baronesses are looking for and that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

May I seek clarification from the Minister? He said that he would come back to Amendment 76A. Is this about Amendment 76 or Amendment 76A?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

It is Amendment 76A.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, the next three amendments form a suite and, following our discussions with stakeholders, these are issues that we would like to discuss. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and I have shared the tabling of these amendments, which do not directly address the central and overarching question of where so much of the care home manager’s responsibility will lie. In a way, we have addressed that issue and amended the Bill accordingly. The amendments concentrate on strengthening the rights of the cared-for person, which have to be at the heart of any system for giving and reviewing authorisations, by ensuring that their voice is heard within consultations at every stage of the process. Amendment 82, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would start this process by ensuring that there is a meeting “with the cared-for person”. I beg to move.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

Before I address this amendment, I again thank noble Lords for their willingness to talk further on Amendment 76A so that we can reach the right conclusion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, quite rightly talked about the role of Amendment 82 being to make sure that the cared-for person has rights and that they are at the centre of the authorisation process. Of course, that is absolutely right. The reason why we have not taken the approach that the reviewer should meet all people in the system is because we want to provide a more proportionate system that nevertheless contains significant safeguards so that if there are any concerns about the nature of a review then not only would the reviewer, whether a responsible body or an IMCA, meet the person but there are opportunities for escalation beyond that.

Let me be absolutely clear that in cases where the person objects to the arrangements, the Bill already requires AMCPs to meet the person, where practicable and appropriate, when they complete the preauthorisation review. This amendment would require a face-to-face visit in all preauthorisation reviews, not only those completed by an AMCP, regardless of whether it is appropriate or practicable to do so.

I of course appreciate there will be circumstances where it is right and proper for the person conducting the preauthorisation review to meet the person, even in cases where the review is not completed by an AMCP. That is not precluded by the Bill. Indeed, it would be our expectation in some cases that that would happen. For example, if the person completing the preauthorisation review is concerned that adequate consultation has not taken place or if there is a question over the validity of any of the assessments provided, we think it right and proper for the person conducting the preauthorisation review to meet the cared-for person. Details about that, including scenarios, will be set out in the code of practice.

However, we also want to make sure that the system is proportionate. One of the problems we have at the moment is that it is not proportionate, and that is why we have a backlog. There are straightforward cases. For example, when someone who consented to living in the care home subsequently loses capacity and there is no reason to suspect that they would object to continuing to live in the care home, a meeting with the cared-for person would be very unlikely to change the outcome. In such cases, the person may have already undergone an assessment process and the person will also have access to representation—we are about to come on to IMCAs. Unless there are concerns about the validity of the assessments, it would not normally be necessary or proportionate to meet the person who, after all, had agreed to live in the care home.

A further potential effect of this amendment would be to require the person completing the preauthorisation review to meet the cared-for person, even if the person refuses. This is a topic we have discussed before. We do not think it goes with the ethos of the Mental Capacity Act, particularly in cases where someone has expressed a desire not to do so. It is important to stress that that is not just our conclusion but is also the conclusion of the Law Commission after its work. We believe that a targeted approach will be much more effective in making sure that those safeguards are in place.

While I understand the noble Baroness’s desire for reassurance that the cared-for person will be met, I do not think it would be appropriate in all cases. We have been clear during the passage of the Bill in the amendments that we have laid, and as we will specify in the code of practice, that there will be many circumstances when it is appropriate to do so but equally there will be circumstances when it is not appropriate. Therefore, we do not think it would be right to have a blanket application of this approach of the preauthorisation reviewer meeting the cared-for person. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel reassured and will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I would be more than happy to do so.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is a question that we felt was worth asking, and I suspect that when the Bill goes to the Commons people will pursue it. I do not think the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put forward, that there are people who do not want this and they should not be forced into it, is really the point; the point was about this not happening because it was obstructed by the people taking care of the person. That is the matter that needs clarification. So, on the basis that that will be clear—

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I would like to say that that is an important point. I am not suggesting that there are going to be hundreds of cases where individuals do not want to see someone, but it is clearly a possibility. I think we need a more proportional system in order to deal with the backlog and ensure that people are protected, but it also has to have a set of safeguards, whether that is access to representation, making sure that conflicts of interest do not exist among care home managers and, as we are going to discuss in the coming weeks, under what circumstances an AMCP would automatically be activated, in which case of course the meeting would take place. It is those circumstances that ought to give the reassurance that it is not necessary in all cases, rather than saying that there are hundreds or thousands of these kinds of cases where people are refusing. I think that will be the exception rather than the rule.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, Amendment 103 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. It would ensure that the reviewer must carry out a review of authorisations if a reasonable request is made by a person with an interest in the welfare of the cared-for person. This is part of the suite of amendments that stakeholders have put to us about making the cared-for person the heart of the Bill. Care England, along with many others across the sector, wants to be assured that the cared-for person’s voice is heard within the consultations at every stage of the process. This amendment would ease those concerns of the various stakeholders.

Like amendments in previous groups, this amendment would ensure that the cared-for person’s best interests are kept at the forefront of the Bill and not forgotten, and it would play a key role in protecting the cared-for person’s rights. If someone with a cared-for person’s best interests feels that the authorisations are in need of being reviewed and reconsidered, this must happen and therefore would help to protect the cared-for person. I beg to move.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. Obviously, it is worth having an opportunity to restate that we clearly agree with her that it is necessary that anybody with an interest in a cared-for person’s welfare is able to trigger a reasonable request or, indeed, an objection on their behalf that constitutes a reasonable belief. That is something that we have discussed in terms of people who are supportive, such as family members, appropriate persons, IMCAs, and so on. Clearly, we have agreed to talk further about the role of whistleblowers and staff members.

I can reassure the noble Baroness that what she is asking for is already contained in numerous places in the Bill. The amendment deals specifically with paragraph 31(3)(b) of Schedule AA1. It is implicit in the description,

“person with an interest in the arrangements”,

that that includes people who have an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare. That is the purpose of the Bill. As I have made clear, any objection from someone who has an interest in the person’s welfare constitutes a reasonable belief, as set out elsewhere in the Bill. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to this issue and hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that this is absolutely included in the definition.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

That is a very valid question. We have tried to deal with the conflict issues in other amendments. It is absolutely not the intention that that ought to be misused for the purpose referred to by the noble Baroness. I will need to get specific clarification about the implications of this, but I can reassure her that that is not the intention of it. If it needs to be clarified in a letter to noble Lords and, subsequently, in a code of practice then that is what we will do.

[Baroness Thornton]

This is probably one of the occasions when one can say that this really needs to be clarified in the code of practice. I thank the Minister for his reassurances and for getting them on the record. I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

I have an amendment in this group which covers the same ground that we have been talking about for the last 20 or so minutes. It is probably not essential to pursue this amendment because the government amendments on this matter seem very comprehensive.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am sorry that I did not mention the noble Baroness’s amendment—there are so many in this group—nevertheless, I am grateful for her acceptance that we have been able to meet the perfectly justified concerns discussed inside and outside the Chamber during the passage of the Bill.

Perhaps I may deal quickly with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who asked about conflicts of interest within a responsible body. We would certainly expect authorisation and the IMCA appointments to be in a separate part of the commissioning body. Government Amendment 73, which deals with who should not carry out reviews, includes, in paragraph (b),

“a person who has a prescribed connection with a care home”.

The process of commissioning a care home place for somebody should perhaps be a category that we ought to consider under that provision, and I shall need to reflect on that. That might be the right route to follow, as clearly we do not want to move the conflict of interest to a different part of the process. I will look into that and we will consider how to deal with it. I think we now have the statute to enable us to do so. I will come back to noble Lords on that point. I thank them for their contribution to the development of these amendments and their support for them. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I feel sorry for the Minister that after so much agreement we are now criticising the Bill. However, the reason we have reached a happier state than the one we started off in in July is due to the work of a great many people, including the Minister and the Bill team.

I have put my name to several amendments in this group—I support my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in what they have said—and I shall speak to Amendments 143A and 147A.

In a way, the amendments are part of what should have happened before the Bill reached us; that is exactly right. It is important to note that a coalition of organisations is concerned about what is and is not in the Bill and how it will be implemented. For the record, we have discussed the Bill with at least 44 organisations in the very short time we have had to consider it. They include Mind, the Alzheimer’s Society, Liberty, Learning Disability England, Disability Rights UK, the Relatives & Residents Association, the Care Provider Alliance, VODG—the voluntary sector’s disability group—and many others. We must pay credit to both them and the noble Lords who have worked so hard on this for the fact that we have come to a point where the Bill has significantly changed and been improved.

Echoing what my noble friend said, the amendments ask that the revised codes of practice for the Mental Capacity Act take account of Schedule 1 to the Bill and, prior to the provisions in the Act coming into force, that the code be revised by statutory instrument using the “made affirmative” procedure. Amendment 143A states:

“Before any provisions of this Act other than those which come into force on its passing come into force … the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing which of the provisions of the Act will be consulted on, by whom and by when … publish his or her consideration of the conclusions of the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act … conduct further consultation with vulnerable people, families, charities, providers … publish an equality impact assessment on the impact of the provisions of this Act”.


I would like the Minister to say that the Government have done the equality impact assessment but I have missed it somehow. However, it seems that the Government are duty-bound to consider the impact on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. An equality impact assessment is the established way of the Government showing that they have considered the impact on vulnerable groups. That Act begs that this process should have been gone through in preparation for the Bill. I hope that a full equality impact assessment will be conducted and made available to the Commons when it considers the Bill.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords—

Mental Health Budget: Domestic and Sexual Violence

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of the National Health Service mental health budget goes towards intervention to address domestic and sexual violence and abuse.

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

My Lords, it is not possible to provide a precise figure because expenditure is not identified by cause of health condition. Abuse victims accessing services are not identified separately: they receive treatment based on clinical need rather than on the cause of their condition. However, the NHS is expanding psychiatric liaison services in A&E, in which staff are trained to assess the risk to patients of violence. Sexual assault referral centres then provide health support to victims and have £31 million of funding in 2018-19.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that the Government have recognised the scale of the mental health challenge, particularly for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and have put some money aside for this area to be spent at local level, how do they plan to ensure that the funding is available and gets to the refuges and organisations on the front line that are desperate to tackle this desperate need?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her recognition of the work that is going on in funding. It is important to point out that NHS England published a sexual assault and abuse strategy this April. That involved funding for sexual assault referral centres and a range of other innovations, including an Identification and Referral to Improve Safety project, which has now been rolled out in 800 GP practices. So work is going on not only to roll out these kinds of services but to make sure that many more victims are coming through to them. I know that the Women’s Mental Health Taskforce is due to report later this month and I will speak to my colleague, Jackie Doyle-Price, who is the lead Minister, to find out if we can give more specificity on how we track the number of users of these kinds of services.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for bringing forward the amendments. I can see that the Government have a decision to make about which way to go on them.

Listening to the Joint Committee on Human Rights is always a good idea. We discussed a statutory definition during the previous stage of the Bill, when the Minister repeated that he,

“should like to take some time between now and Report to consider the opinion expressed by noble Lords and in the report of the Joint Committee about the benefits of a statutory definition”.—[Official Report, 5/9/18; col. 1849.]

I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is thanking the Minister already but it may be slightly premature. I know what she means, but let us wait until the end of the next day and a half. It is important that the Minister shares with us now where that thinking has led him.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I am more than happy to do so. I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for tabling their amendments and for precipitating this incredibly important debate. As has been set out, Amendment 2, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, states that the liberty protection safeguards apply only to,

“arrangements which give rise to the deprivation of the cared-for person’s liberty”,

when,

“the cared-for person is subject to confinement in a particular place for a not negligible period of time … and … the cared-for person has not given valid consent”.

The amendment explains that someone is confined when they are,

“prevented from removing himself or herself permanently … and … the dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty is the continuous supervision and control of the cared-for person, and not treatment for their underlying condition”.

Amendment 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, also states that a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of liberty protection safeguards is where,

“the cared-for person is subject to confinement in a particular place for a not negligible period of time … and … the cared-for person has not given valid consent to their confinement”.

The amendment goes on to define “valid consent”, stating in particular that valid consent has been given when,

“the cared-for person is capable of expressing their wishes and feelings … has expressed their persistent contentment with their care and treatment arrangements … there is no coercion involved in the implementation of the … arrangements”,

and it is,

“confirmed in writing by two professionals, one of whom must not be involved in the implementation of the cared-for person’s … arrangements”.

The intention behind the amendments is to create a statutory definition of the deprivation of liberty, as has been discussed. I note that the amendments were influenced by the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I both applaud and welcome. We are aware, and the Law Commission’s consultation confirmed, that there is real confusion on the ground over the application of the so-called acid test and determining whether a person has been deprived of their liberty. In some cases, that has led to blanket referrals and applications for authorisations being made where there may be no deprivation of liberty at all.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, I promised to think about this issue and we have given it a great deal of thought. Like other noble Lords, we have reached the conclusion that deprivation of liberty should be clarified in statute. However, we want to get the definition right and make sure that it is compatible with Article 5 of the ECHR. I agree that the aims of the amendments are laudable. As I said, the Government support providing clarity in the Bill. However, as I am sure all noble Lords appreciate, this is a complex and technical issue, and we have to make sure that any amendment is compliant with Article 5.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out one particular concern around the use of the term “not negligible … time”. The point I want to make is much more technical, but it serves to introduce how difficult this issue is. I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I explain it; it is incredibly important. We believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, would not have the intended effect of defining deprivation of liberty, but would instead limit the application of liberty protection safeguards to those who fall within the respective definitions.

Section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act defines “deprivation of liberty” as having the same meaning as in Article 5. The definitions in the amendments would not change this. Deprivations of liberty that fall outside those definitions would still be deprivations of liberty under Article 5, and would still need to be authorised in accordance with Article 5. However, because the liberty protection safeguards would not apply, authorisation would instead need to be sought in the Court of Protection, which, as we know, can be a cumbersome and distressing process for persons and their families, and would have significant cost implications for public bodies and the court system

Furthermore, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, although closely resembling the proposal put forward by the JCHR, also seeks to determine what valid consent would mean, and we are worried that that would not work in the way intended, because the definition is very broad. Its consequence could be that a significant number of people currently subject to DoLS authorisation would be caught by the definition and excluded from the liberty protection safeguard system, and tens of thousands of people might need to seek authorisation from the Court of Protection. Again, I do not believe that anyone would want to see that outcome. I notice that the noble and learned Lord is shaking his head, so clearly there is some disagreement on this point. I use it, however, to illustrate that there is a concern that we get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, we on these Benches recognise that the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Murphy, have been persistent in raising these issues throughout the course of the Bill. They are absolutely right that these issues have to be addressed and that they are not covered adequately; the briefings we have had suggest that they are not. The reason that possibly we have not been able to develop enough of a head of steam on this is that we have been focusing on other issues in the Bill, which we will come to. The Minister may not be able to resolve this immediately, but I hope that he will recognise its importance and bring forward a solution.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I express my gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Murphy, for tabling this important amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out, the effect of the amendment would be to ensure that liberty protection safeguards do not apply to a deprivation of liberty in a domestic setting, and that these should be dealt with under the Care Act. It further states that the schedule does not apply where the dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty of a person is for an underlying condition under the Mental Health Act.

The effect of the amendment as tabled would mean that people deprived of their liberty in domestic settings could not have that authorised through the liberty protection safeguards or the Court of Protection. Instead, their case would fall to be dealt with under the Care Act 2014. I appreciate that the intention is that in most cases deprivation of liberty would be avoided through care planning and safeguarding under the Act. But nevertheless, in some cases there will need to be an authorisation of a deprivation of liberty in domestic settings.

I absolutely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s intention to reduce wherever possible intrusions into family life; as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, that has perhaps not been given sufficient time during the passage of the Bill so far, although it is nevertheless a significant issue. However, we have a concern with regard to the amendment as laid in that the Care Act does not in itself provide adequate Article 5 safeguards, and to rely on such a process could result in a real risk of incompatibility with convention rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for tabling this suite of amendments which, as they say, change the position of care home managers from the original proposal to give them a significant role in applying the liberty protection safeguards—the scheme that is to replace DoLS in care homes. As the Minister said in his comprehensive introduction of this large group, they are a combination of technical amendments and others which are very important indeed. The amendments headed by government Amendment 30 are particularly relevant because they give the responsible body the ability to decide in certain circumstances to take over the authorisation functions in care homes in certain settings. The Government have said that they will set out the details in the code of practice. I shall return to the issue of the regulations and the code of practice in a moment.

Government Amendments 52 and 66 are equally important because they deal with conflicts of interest. The Government have said that the regulations will set out in detail the prescribed functions. I just want to ask a technical question. We do not quite understand why Amendment 78 has been severed from Amendment 73, which it seems to sit with; they are kind of twins and need to be taken together. I realise that we will be dealing with Amendment 73 next week, but they are very important amendments which give regulation-making powers, allowing the appropriate authority to make provisions about what constitutes a connection with a care home. They are also about conflicts of interest.

Amendment 90, as the noble Lord has said, gives the responsible body the ability to decide on the renewal of authorisation functions in care home settings. Listening carefully to what the Minister said when he introduced these amendments, one of the issues they raise is what goes in regulations and what goes in the code of practice. This has been a theme that we have discussed all the way through. It seems to me very important—and I seek reassurance from the Minister on this—that what goes in regulations is matters relating to powers and protection of the individual, and what goes in the code of practice is how those are carried out. Both are very important documents and it is important to address this, so that the right things go in regulations and the issue is comprehensively covered.

It is clear from the debates we have had throughout consideration of the Bill that we welcome the change of heart on policy. Some clarification and explanation will still be required as we move forward, but this suite of amendments does address the important issue of conflicts of interest in the powers of the care home manager and puts the interests of the cared-for person at the heart of the Bill, as they should be. It was clear from the beginning that this issue is of huge concern to all stakeholders on the Labour Benches, as well as across the House. That is why we submitted the suite of amendments early after Committee—strong amendments which addressed and fundamentally changed the role of the care home manager.

Noble Lords will see that the next group of amendments in the list are mine and are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Watkins. I thank them most sincerely for their support very early in this process. We went through the Bill and removed reference to, or significantly changed the role of, the care home manager. This group starts with Amendment 13, which I would like to assure the Minister, as I did the Bill team, I will not be moving today. These amendments were designed to specify the responsibilities of what we called the “nominated body”—in other words, a qualified body nominated by the responsible body in relation to the authorisation of care home arrangements. That suite of amendments makes it clear that the care home manager’s role is to co-ordinate the required information, determinations and assessment, rather than to carry them out. I am very glad that the Minister used almost exactly those words. What we call the nominated body will be designated by the responsible body. All the subsequent amendments in this group take powers away from the care home manager and replace them.

I was in the Minister’s place many years ago. Seeing these amendments coming down the track with support from across the House—and, indeed, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which were sometimes even more radical in their intent—the Minister, the Bill team and his advisers were very wise to take a second look when one considers that all the stakeholders took the same view, without exception, I think. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in that I regret that we met such obduracies, which is what they felt like from our point of view, from the Government in the early stages of the Bill about the role of the care home manager. That meant that we did not spend enough time on other issues that we should have addressed. We did not spend enough time on CCGs, the NHS and the place of local councils in delivering the new arrangements, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned. We did not spend enough time examining the funding and resourcing of the new arrangements. The Minister got off quite lightly on those issues; I am sure that my honourable friends in the Commons will make up for where we lack in this area.

The test of the amendments is whether they fulfil the aims of the suite of amendments we tabled all those weeks ago. We are applying that test today. Can the Minister confirm that the government amendments would give the responsible local authorities the option of giving these roles to the care home manager or taking the responsibilities on themselves and, most importantly, that the care home manager will no longer be responsible for notifying the responsible body whether an IMCA should be appointed in any case? In Amendment 78, it seems that care home managers would not be able to commission anyone with a prescribed connection to the care home. That is to be welcomed.

As far as we are concerned, these amendments are lacking on the issue of—is it the AMPS?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The AMCP.

[Baroness Thornton]

Thank you. I always get those initials wrong. We will discuss that issue tomorrow. As far as we are concerned, the amendments go a long way to meeting the issues that we have raised throughout the previous stages of the Bill. I am grateful for that and I offer them our support.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am grateful for noble Lords’ support for this group of amendments. I might say that I recognise a juggernaut when I see one coming, but this was about not just the force or number of the amendments—or, indeed, the length of them—but the force of the argument. During this process, we have established the critical point that the care home manager has an important role in the new system, because we want to provide a more proportionate and flexible system, but equally that cannot put them in a position where they have too much power. That would compromise the rights of the people being cared for, who are obviously very vulnerable. The amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Thornton, gave us some idea of where noble Lords were headed and gave us some sense of shape and direction about where we ought to go to. We have made great progress, and I thank noble Lords for not just their input but their patience throughout this process. It has been trying and challenging for all of us at times, but we have made some great changes that will put the system on a much better footing.

I want to deal with the specific issues raised by various noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about speech and language therapists. In describing the amendments, I talked about professions “such as” those; she is right that I did not name them specifically. We need to consider which professions are included; clearly, we will want to consult relevant groups and noble Lords on that. Of course, we will make sure during that process that such professionals have the knowledge, skills and expertise that the noble Baroness is looking for. On skills, I recognise that she is disappointed; I hate to disappoint her. I think that this is an issue of semantics. Offline, I can provide assurance on what she is looking for, which is not a superficial case of whether these professionals have a certain degree or are a member of a certain professional body so that boxes can be ticked and we can go ahead. That should be avoided because it will not serve us very well.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the role of local authorities. In the amendments, we have made it clear that the local authority has a prior role in making a judgment about the providers in its area. That was not clear in the Bill before—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about that role as well—and it is an incredibly important judgment, because local authorities will need to be in a position to look across their provider network and see who they are clear and confident will be able to make such decisions and who will not. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that will be set out in the code of practice. I will come to his point about stakeholders later. The most important thing is that this is a prior power, to be exercised by the responsible body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baronesses for tabling their amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, an incredibly important issue. We have heard examples of individuals and institutions where there have been tragic cases of people deprived of their liberty in independent hospitals, and these amendments have given us the opportunity to think about the best way forward to make sure there is proper oversight and authorisation in such cases.

Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Finlay and Lady Meacher, makes the designated NHS trust the responsible body in independent hospital cases. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would make the CCG or local health board the responsible body where a person is accommodated in an independent hospital for the assessment of mental disorder.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and other noble Baronesses pointed out, stakeholders have raised this issue on many occasions. They have raised concerns about the level of scrutiny in these independent hospital cases. The Bill, as it stands, provides that in most cases the managers of independent hospitals are responsible bodies, meaning that they authorise arrangements carried out mainly in hospitals. The amendments seek to address this by changing the responsible body, and I have great sympathy with their intention.

We know that those in independent hospitals often have particularly complex needs, especially those being assessed or treated for mental disorders. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said we need a solution, but I think there is a different solution, which could improve—if I dare say so—on the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses. Rather than changing the responsible bodies, it would be even better if we required an AMCP to complete the pre-authorisation review in such cases. We know that the AMCP is a registered professional, accountable to their professional body, and that they would meet the individual, and any other interested parties, in person. The Government believe that independent hospitals would benefit from AMCP involvement, and therefore our intention is to bring forward an amendment, or amendments, as required, in the Commons to deal with this issue and make sure that there is such a role for the AMCP in all deprivation of liberty cases.

[Baroness Thornton]

If I might set this in the vernacular, one of the reasons that we have been so concerned about the conflicts of interest and powers for the care home manager is that we wonder how anyone can be sprung, as it were, from the situation in which they find themselves. How would an AMCP do that? How could they be liberated from the situation they are in if the deprivation of liberty power remains with the chief executive or manager of the private hospital?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The reason is that although the deprivation of liberty would take place in that institution, every single case would be examined by an AMCP. The pre-authorisation review and scrutiny would be carried out by the AMCP. They would have the ability to examine the case, to speak to the person and all other relevant interested persons, and to challenge, if necessary, the circumstances of the deprivation of liberty or the care that had been put in place.

To take the hierarchy of decision-making in a care home, for example, the arrangements are made by, but not carried out by, the care home manager. They are referred to the responsible body for preauthorisation review, and if there are concerns of a problem at the level of the responsible body—an objection on behalf of the person or on behalf of somebody who cares for or is connected to them—it would go immediately to the AMCP. In a sense, this vaults the decision-making process beyond the responsible body and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, there are particular issues over which body ought to take responsibility and go straight to, effectively, the last port of call before the Court of Protection. It provides that degree of oversight and challenge in these cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

I put my name to this amendment, and we on these Benches very much support the intention behind the amendments in this group.

I bow to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has lived and worked with this for a very long time indeed, has reviewed the Mental Capacity Act and was very influential in the way it was formed. There has been a lot of discussion with stakeholders about this group of amendments and how we can best express “necessary and proportionate” in a way that will strengthen the Bill and prevent harm to the cared-for person. These amendments do that, providing clarity. Again, as I mentioned in the previous debates, because this is to do with protection and powers, it has to be in the Bill and not the code of practice. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendments, because it is probably the best way forward, and that he will end this discussion in harmony and agreement.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

As the noble Baroness knows, I am all for harmony and agreement.

I thank the noble Baronesses for laying these amendments, and I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about her gracious acceptance of the role of the best-interests test. I recognise that she has some serious concerns about this legislation, which I take seriously. I have been determined to work closely with her, and I am grateful for her reciprocation in that process as we have moved ahead.

These amendments seek to specify that the necessary and proportionate assessment must be undertaken by reference to whether an authorisation is needed explicitly to prevent harm to the person. We know that an assessment of whether the arrangements are necessary and proportionate is key to ensuring that liberty protection safeguards will afford people their protections and human rights, and is a requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are many factors which would need to be considered in the necessary and proportionate assessment, including the wishes and feelings of the person, whether any less restrictive measures can be put in place and the risk of harm. That is the issue that is the subject of these amendments.

Importantly, these amendments raise the issue of considering risk of harm to the cared-for person during the assessment by including that expressly and explicitly in the Bill. However, my concern is that that may be at the cost of other factors that ought to be properly considered during the assessment process. If these amendments are passed, one of the factors which may not be properly considered in the assessment process is the risk of harm to others, which the Law Commission said should be explicitly considered within a necessary and proportionate assessment, as well as risk to self. There are cases currently under the DoLS system where the risk of harm to others is an important factor in the justification for deprivation of liberty, such as a person with Lewy body dementia who may need restrictions in order to prevent harm to people in the community.

Furthermore, ensuring that no harm could come to a person is in some cases intertwined with ensuring that no harm comes to others. For example, there could be a retaliatory attack as a result of harm caused by a person to someone else. These amendments would mean that by focusing solely on harm to self in the Bill, it could be more difficult for assessors to make those balanced decisions. I therefore have some concerns about the amendments tabled by noble Baroness, as they could perpetuate the current confusion surrounding cases that involve some degree of harm to others. They could also lead to an increased use of the Mental Health Act, since the liberty protection safeguards might be interpreted as being ruled out in all harm-to-others cases. We would not want to see the Act used in this way.

Therefore, in the spirit of consensus and moving forward, I have carefully considered whether the Bill should be amended—or whether the Government could support such amendments—to explicitly set out inclusion of the risk of harm to the person. I am afraid I am going to disappoint noble Lords by saying that it would be better set out in the code of practice. I emphasise that we have considered the issue in detail, and we believe that the code of practice has sufficient force. On that basis—although I know that she will not do so—I encourage the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Breast Scans

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 19th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

That is precisely what I have asked to committee to advise on.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I have a suspicion that were this a procedure which men had regularly to go through on a sensitive part of their body there might have been some urgency and investment to mitigate the discomfort. I welcome the assurance given by the Minister about the research that will be undertaken, but will he assure us also that resources will be made available if that research shows that such cushions or other mitigating equipment are needed to ensure that all women who need mammograms can get them?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

There is absolutely no doubt that women are much braver and have a much higher pain threshold than men. I suspect that it is not so much about the availability of the devices, because I am sure that almost every hospital has them, as about how they should be deployed in such a way as not to interfere with the screening. That is what I will be asking for advice on.

Vaping

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Our post-Brexit plans are the same as our pre-Brexit plans—to have a sensible policy which provides e-cigarettes to stop smoking and to make sure that they are not abused by people who should not be using them.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a legitimate Question about the flavoured nicotine substitutes that are on sale. If the Minister believes that we might see the emergence of vape flavours such as unicorn milk and rocket popsicles—which can only be designed to appeal to young people—can he confirm that the Government have plans for dealing with that?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am not sure who unicorn milk would appeal to—maybe my five year-old, but she is not smoking yet. Seriously, the point here is about advertising. It is quite right that they cannot be advertised to promote them but they can be advertised for public health reasons. They are incredibly effective at stopping people smoking. As I have said, we are not seeing the kind of abuse and the epidemic of youth usage that we have seen in the States, but we are alert to any signs that that may be the case.

NHS: Staff

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I agree. Indeed, my Secretary of State has made workforce one of his top priorities. We are responsible for health and social care, and the Green Paper we will publish this autumn will contain more detail on the social care workforce plan.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, 63,000 NHS staff in England are EU nationals; that is 5.6% of all staff. London in particular relies on staff from EU countries, with one-third of all EU NHS staff working in London. We seem to be facing a Brexit emergency here. How will the Government manage both the transition and the long-term recruitment and staffing of the NHS under these circumstances?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

EU nationals and staff from across the world play a vital role in delivering our NHS and social care and we absolutely want them to stay. I can tell the noble Baroness that there are 4,300 more EU 27 nationals in the NHS now than in June 2016. I hope that is a reflection of the fact that they know they are wanted and welcome. We are making sure that the settlement scheme is open to them. Health and care staff will be the first cohort of staff to use the scheme, so that we can give them the opportunity to remain where they are very much wanted.

Cannabis: Medicinal Uses

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 1st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is to be welcomed that the Government have today issued guidance on the use and access of cannabis for medical use. Having spoken to several GPs about this matter in the last day or so, to a person they are experiencing an increase in the number of patients requesting access to cannabis medicine in their surgeries for pain management. Some of those requests will probably be justified. My question is: will GPs refer those patients to specialist doctors who are allowed to prescribe this medicine? Will this create additional cost and demand? Who will pay for it? Could the Minister explain and say when this will be reviewed?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

It is important to state that GPs will not be able to prescribe it; that is part of the new regime. On the specific issue of pain management, the interim guidance from the Royal College of Physicians says there is no evidence to support its use for treating chronic pain. In the meantime, NICE will be providing clinical guidance in about a year’s time, which will take a broader view. So it should not be the case that specialists are providing it in this area—the evidence does not exist and therefore the costs will not occur.

Antimicrobial Resistance

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 25th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce deaths from antimicrobial-resistant infections.

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

My Lords, antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, is a significant global threat and the Government are committed to tackling it domestically and internationally. Over the past five years, we have worked to deliver our strategy and ambitions as set out in response to my noble friend Lord O’Neill’s review. However, we recognise that no country can tackle AMR in a single five-year strategy. That is why we will shortly be setting out our longer-term vision for tackling AMR and setting challenging ambitions for the next five years.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. As he rightly said, AMR poses a grave threat to health. Quite simply, if action is not taken to address this growing threat, it is estimated that, by 2050, AMR will kill 10 million people a year, more than cancer and diabetes combined. This week we saw the publication of the Commons Health Select Committee report which outlined the gravity of this issue. It is of concern that the Chief Medical Officer said to that committee that she would like,

“more visible and active Government leadership”,

on AMR. I think I need to press the Minister. When we will see more visible activity and what form will it take to deal with a huge threat to our nation’s health?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I agree with the noble Baroness about the grave long-term threat AMR poses, but it also poses a threat in the short term. Estimates vary, but between 2,500 and 5,000 people a year in England die because of AMR. In relation to the seriousness with which the UK takes it, I mentioned the new strategy which will be published shortly. I should point out two things that have been a success. First, the UK has taken a very important global leadership role in making AMR a priority for the G20. Secondly, as a consequence of our action plan, we have seen reductions in the prescribing of antibiotics at GP level. That means that we are starting to drill down on the overprescribing and inappropriate prescribing which is driving AMR.

Health: Flu Vaccines

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I do not know and I shall write to my noble friend.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is actually that they ran out of jabs. I declare an interest as a member of a CCG. It is true that there has been some confusion about when people could get their flu jabs. How will the Minister ensure that a significant number of the most vulnerable people actually get their flu jabs? He said in his first Answer that the take-up was not as good as it should have been last year, so that seems very important. Secondly, how are we to ensure that NHS staff take up the flu jab as they should, too?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

First, take-up was actually at its highest level ever last year. The issue was the effectiveness of the vaccine, which is why the committee’s recommendation was to move to this new vaccine. In terms of confusion about who can get the flu jab, it is clear that we have the most comprehensive flu vaccination programme in Europe. Anybody who has gone to a GP’s surgery or pharmacy and has not been able to access it up to now will—or should—have been told when they can come back and when new supplies will be available. As I said, it is about making sure that can happen before the end of November. We had a fantastic take-up among NHS staff this year; the jab is freely available to NHS staff, social care staff and, for the first time this year, hospice staff.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Committee: 3rd sitting - (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, for tabling this amendment. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the state of the Bill. I am rather—“disappointed” may not be quite the right word—surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who has brought discipline to the House to focus on good legislation and how it should work, is suggesting that we have to have something, so this is it. I really hope that that is not the case and that this Committee will have revealed to the Minister, and particularly to the Bill team, that many elements in the Bill need clarification, need to be changed and can be improved. That is our job, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is highlighting but one of those elements. In fact, the amendment that I am due to talk about next refers to the difficulties that the Bill has brought and the differences between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.

The last month or so has been very revealing. The Bill was sold to us as something really quite simple that was going to streamline things, get rid of the backlog, save some money and so on, and it really needed only one day in Committee. That is certainly how it was sold to me on these Benches and, I am sure, to other people in the House. In fact, what has happened over the last couple of months is that all the stakeholders and people who are writing to us are saying, “No, this will not do. This Bill does not work. It is dangerous and difficult”. It needs clarification, and these amendments highlight the areas that need it. We are going to move on to other areas that need clarification and which will certainly need amendment. This is an important and legitimate question to ask about the Bill.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—I keep saying “noble Lords” but it has really been noble Baronesses, so I will switch my language—who have both tabled amendments in this group and spoken to them.

Before I come to the substance of the amendments, I shall say two things. First, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that there is an urgency. To use the words of the Local Government Association, “the current system is unable to ensure there is adequate protection for human rights”. That is the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment.

Secondly, views about the perfection or otherwise of the Bill will vary across the House, but I hope that in the two days of Committee prior to this one I was able to demonstrate that the department and Ministers are absolutely committed to improving the Bill in any way that we can during its passage through Parliament, especially in this House where there are so many experts. I really think we have made some progress. I realise that that will not be enough to satisfy everyone and there is clearly much more to come—care home managers are clearly a big area of work that we need to focus on—but we have made some progress. I encourage noble Lords to continue in that mindset because I think we can reach a good outcome that deals with the fact that, as Age UK says, the system leaves,

“many highly vulnerable older people languishing without any legal protection at all”,

something none of us can accept. We stand ready to undertake that work, as noble Lords know, and I know they do so too.

I turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, outlines the circumstances in which an authorisation ceases to have effect, particularly noting that authorisations should end if they conflict with a valid decision of a court-appointed deputy or a donee of a lasting power of attorney. The amendment also states that an authorisation would not cease to have an effect if a person’s capacity fluctuated, and would create regulation-making powers to define what constitutes fluctuating capacity.

Section 6(6) of the Mental Capacity Act already provides that action cannot be taken that conflicts with a lasting power of attorney or a deputy’s valid decision, and I can confirm that the Bill does not change that. This means that an authorisation can only be given if it is in accordance with a valid decision, so I hope I have provided reassurance on that front.

I can also confirm that if it emerges that an authorisation conflicts with a decision of a donee of a lasting power of attorney or by a court-appointed deputy, a review should be arranged under paragraph 31 of the Schedule. In particular, it will need to be considered if the attorney or deputy has valid and applicable powers to make this decision, and if the deprivation of liberty authorisation continues to be necessary. That means that in the event of such a conflict, the authorisation ceases to have effect. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Baronesses on that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, focused particularly on fluctuating capacity. I agree that an authorisation should not necessarily cease to have effect if a person’s capacity fluctuates and there are short periods of lucidity. That is currently the case under the DoLS system and I can confirm that it will continue under the liberty protections safeguards. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, brought to life, it is very difficult to define either “fluctuating” or “short”, particularly in legislation. For that reason, we do not think regulation-making powers are appropriate; we believe this would be better dealt with through a code of practice, which would allow for more detail and more regular updating but would also allow the use of case studies to bring examples to life. We plan to give much more detailed guidance in the new code of practice, and I reassure noble Lords that we will be working with the sector in order to produce it.

Amendments 56 and 58 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, relate to the thorny issue of the interaction between mental health and mental capacity legislation. They would mean that an authorisation had effect in relation to arrangements that were not in accordance with mental health requirements. As noble Lords know, mental health requirements are conditions placed on Mental Health Act patients living in the community. Currently, DoLS authorisations no longer have effect if a person is subject to arrangements or conditions under the Mental Health Act and that authorisation would be in conflict. This means that the terms of a DoLS authorisation cannot conflict with those of, for example, Section 17 leave of absences. The Bill has been drafted to reflect the interaction that currently exists between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.

The review of the Mental Health Act has been mentioned in this debate. The review, chaired by Sir Simon Wessely, has been considering, among other things, the interaction between these two pieces of legislation. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has sincere concerns about the nature of that interaction and about why we are bringing forward this legislation now. My short answer is that urgent reform is needed for the reasons that we have set out, including the quotes that I have given. The contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was helpful, and I have put in my notes that I need to speak to Sir Simon Wessely myself to understand his perspective. However, if I have understood correctly, regardless of the timing of his report, the process of implementing his proposals will take some time to do properly. In our view, it is not right to wait until that has been perfected before we try to deal with many of the issues under consideration in the Bill in the light of the current inefficiencies of the DoLS system. It is for that reason that we want to push ahead. As I have said, I will take it upon myself to speak to Sir Simon Wessely and get a real understanding of his expectations on timing, and to try to understand from his point of view the scale of the interaction between these two pieces of legislation so that we really know what is at stake.

I think the noble Baroness herself said that the amendments are essentially probing. She will know that the effect of them would be that two authorisations could be live at the same time. I am confident that that is not what she is proposing, not least because it would have the perverse effect of requiring people to be in two places at once, so I know she was using this as an opportunity to discuss this question. As I said, it is important that we move ahead for the reasons that we have discussed, notwithstanding that the Government will of course consider incredibly carefully the findings in Sir Simon Wessely’s report and what action is required to implement his recommendations.

On a couple of occasions the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the consideration of harm to others. I am told that harm to others can be considered under the current DoLS system, so what is proposed is not a change from the current system. However, I will pick that point up with her offline so that we can really get to the bottom of it and ensure complete clarity to a degree that satisfies her. I hope that on that basis, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment, and I look forward to discussing more of these issues throughout the evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I have three amendments in the group designed to remove any ambiguity about authorisations, in that an authorisation would fall if it partly fell—in other words, if the person’s condition had either improved or changed to such an extent that the plan in place was no longer applicable, even in part, that would warrant a complete review. I accept that it would have to be a light-touch revision, because some things might not have changed, but I am not comfortable with simply allowing it to be reviewed and people to say that these parts of the condition no longer apply.

Amendment 58C is to stress the need for evidence to be supplied to support statements. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some assurance. That evidence might come from photographs, video recordings of behaviour or whatever. That may be quite different to the written word. I worry that one person’s observed written word may not adequately portray a picture, particularly where the cared-for person has become withdrawn. Someone might interpret that as their being compliant, when actually they may be deeply unhappy. A broader direct recording of the person could be helpful.

I tabled Amendment 62A because I was concerned that the care home manager might be in the process of arranging for adaptations to be made to meet the cared-for person’s needs in line with that person’s wishes and feelings, and that the Bill’s wording does not provide enough flexibility to consider the arrangements to meet the individual’s needs.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baronesses for tabling their amendments about renewals. I deal first with Amendment 58A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which, as she said, would have the effect of meaning that authorisations cannot be renewed for longer than 12 months. As she pointed out, this would go against the Law Commission’s recommendation, which was that there could be circumstances under which renewals took place for up to three years, particularly following an initial review after up to 12 months and if it was unlikely that there would be a change in the person’s condition.

These three-year renewals are in place so that those who are in a stable condition and unlikely to recover are not subjected to annual assessments. The Bill does provide the safeguard—referred to by the noble Baroness—which ensures that an authorisation would need to be reviewed if there is a change. We would also want to make sure that there are appropriate reviews of arrangements when annual reviews under the Care Act take place. It would be up to the responsible body to set review periods. In care home settings, the care home manager must report to the responsible body on any reviews that have been carried out. As the Bill stands, there are significant safeguards to prevent abuse or lack of care of the vulnerable person.

All that being said, I know how strongly noble Lords and stakeholders feel about this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made a valid point about aligning the review process with the terms set out under the Care Act. I would like to give further thought to this, particularly in the context of the discussions which will be taking place about the proper role of the care home manager. There is clear concern about a proper system of oversight and regular review where responsibility has been devolved to the care home manager. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will follow that up after this debate.

Amendment 58B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, considers an authorisation ceasing to be renewed if it has lapsed wholly or in part. We will want to give further consideration to that. As discussed earlier in Committee, there are circumstances under which one might be happy for an authorisation to continue after a very minor change. That might be the proper process to align this to, and I want to give further thought to this.

Amendment 58C asks that, when deciding whether to renew authorisations in care home cases, responsible bodies should consider other relevant information, as well as that provided by the care home manager. I can confirm that the Bill does allow responsible bodies to consider information other than that provided by the care home manager. That would, inevitably, be in other formats too. We will set out more detail on that in the code of practice.

Amendment 62A would add the word “arranging” to the scenarios in which the care home manager was required to notify the responsible body that an IMCA should be appointed. The amendment intends to make sure that that happens at the earliest stage, including when the assessments are being arranged. That is what the word “proposing” in the Bill achieves. We are satisfied that the language currently in the Bill means that care home managers would be looking at this issue when they are beginning to propose an authorisation, which is the earliest point at which planning for, arranging or bringing together the assessments would take place. I would be happy to demonstrate what underpins our belief that this is the case. I do understand what the noble Baroness is driving at; it is something which we are trying to achieve.

On that basis, I hope that the noble Baronesses are willing to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am encouraged that we are going to continue the discussion on this issue. Apart from anything else, I will need quite a lot of convincing that the Bill provides the right kind of protections to allow a period of three years, as currently stated.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was reminded when reading the letters the Minister has written to noble Lords, and the record of the previous two days in Committee, that we need to clarify the meaning of “care home manager”. Or is it “care manager”, an expression which he has also used? I do not want an answer to that now, but I put it on the table as one issue which we need to clarify in our discussions and in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

I will add to the questions that have already been asked of the Minister: who is going to pay for this? Training is very expensive and I was waiting for the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to ask that question but she did not, so I am asking it. As I recall from the impact assessment, I am not sure that there is a large sum of money in there for the amount of training that might be necessary to ensure that this Bill is properly enacted.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling these amendments and precipitating this discussion. I will move straight on to the substance of the amendments. Amendment 61 provides that local authorities must make arrangements for a named person to be in charge of training and revalidation of approved mental capacity professionals and that local authorities must make arrangements for contracts with neighbouring local authorities and health bodies as required.

On the issue of approvals and training, the Bill is clear that local authorities must approve individuals to become AMCPs, and regulations under paragraph 33 will make provision around training, qualifications and other eligibility criteria. The question of what kind of training there should be and who pays is something that we discussed at some length on the last Committee day. That was more in relation to care home managers, which was primarily the focus of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The same read-across applies to AMCPs as well. On that occasion, I committed to bringing forward more details of what the training would look like. I also confirmed that, in England, Health Education England and ADASS would be responsible for working with Skills for Care, and Social Work England. Those are the bodies that would be responsible for overseeing and designing the training. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked about the rights of individuals. Of course, that would be the centrepiece of any training programme to make sure that those rights are properly respected.

On the specific question about local authorities naming an individual, I say that the Bill does not prevent them doing so. It is something that they are able to do and, in our view, it does not need to be set out in primary legislation. There is no such requirement for best-interests assessors or approved mental health professionals, I understand, and that has not caused any difficulties in practice. To that extent, we can mimic the arrangements in place there.

Making arrangements with other local authorities is again not precluded by the Bill. Clearly, that is something that local authorities will want to do, depending on the arrangements they have commissioned in care across different authorities. I can confirm that we will provide guidance on this in the code of practice.

Amendment 61A adds to the criteria that must be met for a person to become an AMCP. They must be,

“a registered professional, with a minimum of three years clinical experience”.

A list sets out whom that could include; that list has been added to by one tonight, which in some senses exemplifies the nature of the problem. I completely agree with the noble Baroness: we need to set out not only the kind of professionals but the kind of qualifications and experience. There has to be a balance and a mix between all of those. That will be set out in regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the proper place to set out the rigidity or robustness, and we believe that the appropriate place would be in regulations, which provide a degree of flexibility that would not apply if we enshrined this in primary legislation. That is why we are proposing the approach of defining the groups that should be acting as AMCPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, we on these Benches very much agree with the purport of these amendments, which again bring to light some of the ambiguities in the Bill and some of the rights that are not properly respected by it. Over the next period the Minister will not only need to give us a theoretical answer but have to answer things such as the question about Winterbourne View, and look at the hard examples of real experience which some of us have been receiving in our postbags over the last month. We will need to return to this over the next few weeks, and possibly even at the next stage.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to all the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for speaking in the debate on this group. Let me begin with a statement of principle. I accept the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we need to move from principles to practicalities, or in our case to the appropriate legislation. There is genuinely no attempt in the Bill to restrict people’s access to independent advocacy. As has been clearly voiced, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, there is a concern that that will be the effect of what is proposed, and that is something that we need to deal with. But let me say at the beginning that that is not the intention. It must be the case that anybody who needs support to navigate these difficult and complex situations must be able to find the right support for them. I will explain why the Bill is as it is in a moment, but let me at least give that statement of principle at the beginning.

I will deal now with the specific amendments in this group. Amendments 63 and 64 aim to ensure that the Bill is robust on the appointment of the IMCA. I completely agree that it is vital that the care home manager notifies the responsible body that an IMCA should be appointed. That is required by the Bill. However, I know that there is great concern about the impartiality of this person and a requirement for strengthening in this regard. It is also our position that a responsible body will be able to appoint an IMCA if there is a request by, for example, a family member or the person themselves, or if there is a disagreement with the notification given by a care home manager. I am considering how we can make the Bill clearer in that regard. As we home in on the issue of the incentives for the care home manager to follow best practice, as we would want, I am aware that we need to do more work on this to get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing this clause stand part debate. We had a chat earlier, so I shall not formally respond to her but instead deal with the amendments as laid, if that is all right with everybody. Clearly, these are very important issues that need to be dealt with properly.

Amendment 84 would allow individuals to provide advance consent to arrangements enabling care or treatment that would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty. As noble Baronesses have commented, the Law Commission recommended that provision should be made in the Bill to allow this. This would mean saying that cared-for people entering certain settings, such as hospitals and end-of-life care, where the arrangements are predictable and time limited, would not be required to undergo additional assessments if they needed to be deprived of their liberty. In the Government’s response to the Law Commission, we agreed that people should have choice and control over future decisions being made on their behalf, but we said that we needed to look at the detail of this specific proposal. I understand that there is enthusiasm among some noble Lords for such a recommendation, particularly, as has been said, as a way of alleviating unnecessary assessments for those in palliative and end-of-life care.

On palliative care, before I get on to more general concerns, I think it is important to note that the Government have issued some guidance about consent in the context of palliative care in the last few weeks of life. I realise that this talks only about one part of the time period that we might be talking about. The guidance says that if an individual has capacity to consent to arrangements for their care at the time of their admission, or at a time before losing capacity, and does consent, this consent would cover the period until their death, hence there is no deprivation of liberty. However, the guidance is also clear that this consent would no longer be valid if significant extra restrictions were put in place, after this point, to which the person had not consented. So there is a situation that pertains to people right at the end of life and provides some opportunity for challenge if restrictions change.

If we extend that time period out, not just to weeks but to months and years, it has been brought to light in this debate that, while there is a desire to make sure that a person’s advance consent is taken seriously and given legal force, concerns have also been raised, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about extending the application in such a way that it could actually deprive people of their protections and human rights. These are clearly concerns that we need to take seriously.

Concerns have also been expressed to the department, in engagement with stakeholders, that the inclusion in statute law of advance consent to being deprived of liberty might imply that there is an expectation that people should have an advance statement of wishes in place, and that people may be pressured into making an advance statement. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that in some ways planning for the future may be a good thing but, equally, we do not want to force people to plan for the future when their desire is not to. We protect the right of people to make bad decisions; that is an important part of a person having a sense of agency and autonomy. Concerns have been expressed that that would be put in danger and people would feel pressured to do something that they might not wish to do.

Clearly, the Law Commission made this recommendation with highly laudable aims. However, we have concerns and are not yet convinced of the merits of the amendment. We have tried to deal with some of the issues around integrating planning through the creation of a system based on the production of a care plan. We have talked about the inclusion of a statement of wishes. I would like to know more about the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about advance statements of wishes. I would like to follow that up and understand it a bit better. The process we are envisaging would allow the inclusion of advance decisions to refuse treatment as part of future care planning. That is not affected by what we are discussing here but that would be allowed. We are not convinced of the merits of the amendment—indeed, we have some concerns about the implications of it—but I would be keen to understand a bit more about previous discussions of this topic and whether there are other ways to provide that sense of agency for the person who will be cared for without producing undue pressure on them or legal force in a way that would go against their interests and, in legal terms, their human rights.

Amendment 85 would create a new civil court remedy against some private care providers, including non-NHS hospitals and private care homes, if they have deprived someone of their liberty unlawfully. Again, this provision was proposed by the Law Commission. However, we do not believe that a new legal remedy is required. There is already an ability to seek damages under the Human Rights Act on the basis of a breach of Article 5 and usually Article 8. This is available in private cases, where a private care provider is depriving a self-funder of their liberty unlawfully. A remedy could be sought against the public authority responsible for the deprivation. Obviously, we need to hold private care providers to the same standards that we hold public care providers to. There are already a number of mechanisms that allow for this, and the law provides for them. There is the criminal offence of false imprisonment, as well as the existing law of false imprisonment for civil claims. So people can already bring legal action against private care providers.

On top of this, the Care Quality Commission in England and the Care Inspectorate Wales would also ensure compliance with the liberty protection safeguards. Clearly, they have a range of enforcement actions available to them that apply to the public and private sector alike. Furthermore, as commissioners, local authorities will—and do—have a role in ensuring that private care providers fulfil their legal duties. The Government believe that sufficient levers are already in place and that the creation of an additional civil route could increase care providers’ insurance costs at a time when, as we all know, we are working hard to make sure that there is funding in the system to provide adequate and good-quality social care to everybody who needs it.

I understand and agree with the desire to hold private providers to the same standards that we hold public providers to, but we believe there are existing remedies within the system and there is no need to require or implement new ones. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendments.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that detailed response and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Barker, for their support. I did not intend to alarm the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I thought we might be veering into discussions the House has had on many occasions about advance consent for various things. I do not think we want to go there, but I was beginning to get the feeling of “Doctor knows best” when we were having that discussion.

I am not certain that the care plan works. The Law Commission had very good reasons for putting what are now Amendments 84 and 85 into the draft Bill that it brought forward, which were to do with the fact not that its people are lawyers but that it had consulted very widely with stakeholders and people involved in the care system. These are the conclusions that it came to, so I will read carefully what the Minister has said about this. Maybe we can include these amendments in our discussions and decide whether we need to pursue them further at the next stage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling amendments in this group. I am very aware of the complexity of this issue. For a lay person such as me, some of the terminology can be confusing. I will do my level best to be as clear as humanly possible, but if I fail in that endeavour I will write to noble Lords and explain better what I am attempting to explain now.

The effect of Amendment 83, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, would be to confirm in law that a donee of a lasting power of attorney or a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection was unable to consent on a person’s behalf to a deprivation of liberty. If they could provide such consent, the person would not be considered to be deprived of their liberty and no safeguards would need to be provided.

The Law Commission report stated that it was already the position in law that a donee or deputy could not consent to a deprivation of liberty. We confirmed in our response to the Law Commission’s report that the Government agreed with its view on the current legal position, and the Bill does not change the current situation. While the Bill creates a duty to consult with any donee of the lasting power of attorney or a deputy, it does not enable a donee or deputy to consent to the deprivation of liberty on behalf of the cared-for person. In other words, under this Bill the cared-for person would still be deprived of their liberty in those circumstances and would still need to be provided with safeguards to satisfy Article 5, which is of course the whole purpose of DoLS and liberty protection safeguards. In that sense the amendment, with which we agree, would serve only to duplicate existing legislation and is not necessary. I hope I have provided an adequate explanation to noble Lords, but obviously I am willing to set out in more detail exactly why we believe the current situation is not changed by the Bill as it stands.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Amendment 83ZA would require the Office of the Public Guardian to provide documentation, which may be in electronic form, to identify the donor and donee or donees of a lasting power of attorney and to recall the documentation if the donee’s power is revoked. As the noble Baroness pointed out, this is designed to make it easier for attorneys to provide proof of the existence of a registered LPA. It is right that there ought to be a robust system of proving that there is a valid power. My understanding is that the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Public Guardian are actively considering how to offer a digital means of providing evidence of a valid LPA, and we expect to bring forward proposals in due course. I am happy to pursue that further with colleagues in that department and that office to understand greater details of their plans and to share those with noble Lords if they are forthcoming, which I hope that they will be.

Amendment 87E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would allow the donee of a lasting power of attorney to nominate someone to replace them if they were no longer able to fulfil their duties—I think that means if the lasting power of attorney was no longer able to fulfil their duties—while Amendment 87G would allow a replacement attorney to be nominated by the donor at the time of registering the LPA to take over the power if the donor decides to remove the power from the donee.

I do not need to reiterate to noble Lords just how critical it is to get the law and the rules in this area right; as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, pointed out, the rules around this would not apply only to this Bill. It is worth pointing out that there is provision in the original Mental Capacity Act to allow a person making a lasting power of attorney to nominate a replacement in the event that their attorney is unable to continue, but I think the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was getting at is that there is a slight chicken and egg situation here: at the point where they no longer have capacity but the person whom they have previously appointed is no longer able to fulfil their role or the cared-for person no longer wants them to do so, they cannot go back in a time machine and appoint someone else—in other words, they cannot know what they do not know. I have just made things really clear by getting all Donald Rumsfeld about it all.

Having said all that, I want to consider if there is a way of unlocking that paradox, but clearly the implications of that would go well beyond the remit of what we are discussing here. I do not want to make any promises that it is not in my power to keep. I would appreciate the opportunity to explore this further so that we can consider how to give the donor more opportunities to have a sense of choice and agency as they think ahead to the future. I would have thought that we must be able to provide for that without creating extra complications. I look forward to taking that up with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who are interested in the topic. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. As usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised some interesting challenges. In my family, someone who had enduring power of attorney died at the point they were needed. We were in a ridiculous and complex situation—resolved by good will, but the law did not help us. This is therefore a serious matter.

I understood what the Minister said about the power of attorney, and I will read his response. It sounded to me as though it was probably reasonable, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords, this is a good way to finish our Committee proceedings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for tabling the amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for speaking to it.

Clearly, not only ought it to be the case that the Bill is compliant with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is also important to make it clear, as I did at the point of the introduction of the Bill, that its provisions are compatible with Article 5. As noble Lords will know, and as becomes painfully clear when you become a Minister and you see your name on printed Bills giving these kinds of reassurances, that is a process that we need to go through before introducing legislation. Clearly, there are still concerns about whether the Bill can be improved in giving force, as the noble Lord pointed out, to the rights under Article 5. Nevertheless, it is my view that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR.

Furthermore, because of Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1988, primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with convention rights. It is already the case that the Bill must be read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with Article 5. My concern with the approach here is therefore not so much one of repetition but one of partiality because it only talks about Article 5. There is therefore a risk that if we implied that this legislation had only to comply, or had a special duty to comply, with Article 5 of the convention rather than the whole convention, that would not reflect our responsibilities under the Human Rights Act. Indeed, it could downplay critical protections that exist in the ECHR, such as the Article 8 rights to family and private life. So while I understand the motivation behind tabling the amendment and using it as an opportunity to rehearse some of the desire to improve the actions that will safeguard the liberty and security of the person, I do not think it is right to put such a clause in the Bill precisely because the Government have a broad responsibility to ensure not only that the Bill is compliant but that it is read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with all convention rights.

I hope that has provided reassurance to noble Lords that our intention, and indeed our obligation, is to provide not only for those Article 5 rights but for all other rights that apply under the ECHR. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that answer, and for his recognition that the reason for tabling the amendment at this point in the Bill was to allow us to say that these were the issues we needed to address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lord Touhig outlined. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children: Gender Dysphoria

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Yes, I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness that no surgery should be offered to under-18 year-olds; no cross-sex hormones, which change biological gender, should be available to under-16 year-olds and even the use of hormone blockers is highly unusual for those under the age of 15. That is set out in the guidance and adhered to by the Tavistock and Portman trust, which delivers the service for children.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, gender dysphoria is described by the NHS as the discomfort or distress caused by a mismatch between a person’s gender identity and their biological sex assignment at birth. This is not a new condition, but we must be grateful that it is recognised today as a real issue and a real cause of harm to those children and young people affected. I declare an interest as a health commissioner in the area of the Tavistock Institute.

Does the Minister agree that we need not only more research on the medical, psychological and emotional solutions for this cohort of children and young people, but also resources to be made available? The Tavistock, with its excellent work, is currently the only institute in the UK providing this support.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a very real condition; it is rare, particularly in children, but nevertheless it is real. Therefore it is appropriate that those who have it should get the right support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, that support may be psychological or endocrinological —whatever is required, multidisciplinary teams will provide it. There has been an increase in the number of resources available as well as a cultural change towards greater acceptance. Ultimately, what this comes down to, and what people worry about, is that children are pressured into being one thing or another when they should be allowed to be themselves.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

Yesterday or on Friday—whenever it was—we received a very helpful briefing from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I found what it had to say on Amendment 22 very useful:

“The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that only a ‘Registered Medical Practitioner’ should be able to determine whether an individual has a ‘disorder or disability of the mind’ … Currently the authorisation arrangements in Part 2 of the Bill say that a capacity and medical assessment has to be made, but does not say who has to make it. It is likely that the Government is assuming that this would be carried out by a ‘Registered Medical Practitioner’ but it would be helpful to have it on the face of the Bill.


The JCHR report was clear that in order to comply with human rights law, any deprivation of liberty under Article 5(l)(e) requires ‘objective medical evidence of a true mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, which persists throughout the period of detention’.


Given this requirement for ‘objective medical evidence’, there needs to be a guarantee in the Bill that only a Registered Medical Practitioner with appropriate training has the power to determine whether someone has an ‘unsound mind’ or ‘mental disorder’”.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for tabling amendments on this very important topic of making sure that when these decisions are made and the assessments of them carried out that they are done on the best possible evidence. That informs all the amendments in this group.

We have talked already about the role of the care home manager in arranging assessments and providing a statement to the local authority while the assessment is conducted by a suitably qualified professional. Clearly we will explore that further following the debate tonight. It is also clear that in many cases care home managers will be using assessments that have already been conducted, wherever possible, ensuring that we reduce duplication. There is clearly a balance between making sure that we have access to the best possible information and not creating extra burdens on the system to duplicate work where a previous assessment would be useful, up to date and valid.

I will deal with the amendments in turn and try to think about how we can get that balance. Amendment 21 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Jolly, would remove the ability of care home managers to rely on previous medical and capacity assessments. It would mean that assessments could be relied on only if responsible bodies judged it appropriate. Our belief is that where valid assessments are already in place and have been completed by a suitably qualified professional—such as those completed as part of a care plan—they should be used. We are concerned about the implications of the amendments in this group because of the duplication that could arise, particularly perhaps if there is a difference between assessments and each person who carried out the work is still of the view that their judgment was the correct one. We need to be concerned about that as we are trying to simplify the system.

We also do not believe it would be proportionate to expect care home managers to seek permission from a responsible body on every case where there is a previous or equivalent assessment, especially when it is clear for example that somebody has a lifelong diagnosis such as a learning disability and a previous assessment can be reasonably expected to provide valid and reliable evidence of this.

I understand the intention of the noble Baronesses in wanting to avoid care home managers relying on previous assessments when it is not appropriate to do so, which I think is what has informed these amendments. That is where the responsible body reviewing is incredibly important. Generally speaking it will be a senior social worker who will be able to examine the case and if there is an overreliance on past—particularly quite long-dated—assessments in that statement, it will be a flag for escalation to the AMCP.

I understand why there is concern about giving too much leeway to the care home manager, but I also think the amendment would deliver a disproportionate system. It would not provide the degree of flexibility we want and therefore we intend to outline the appropriate use of previous assessments in the code of practice. I think that that is the appropriate vehicle.

Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to ensure that medical assessments are completed by a registered medical practitioner. Clearly our intention is that that should be the case, and that the person who conducts the medical assessment must be suitably competent. I use that word rather than “qualified” and we will set out further detail in the code of practice. As was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others, human rights case law already requires that a deprivation of liberty must be based on objective medical expertise. That can be done on a competence basis rather than on qualifications. Qualifications change whereas competencies, by and large, remain the same. That is why we will focus on a competence-based approach rather than listing professions in a code of practice. A code of practice gives us the ability to exemplify the kind of competencies we mean without being restricted, which would be the case if it were in the Bill, to only certain categories of worker, which might change over time.

Amendment 23 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, creates a duty under liberty protection safeguards to assess whether steps to establish supported decision-making are practical. As I am sure noble Lords know, supported decision-making is already part of the law, and indeed it is the second principle of the Mental Capacity Act. Perhaps one of the reasons that this amendment has come forward is that this is an amendment Bill and therefore there can be a dislocation sometimes between what we are considering and the wider context.

It is already the case that steps should be taken to support people to make their own decisions. We have not brought forward the Law Commission’s recommendation to set up a formal supported decision-making scheme because that legal entitlement already exists. Wherever possible, of course, people should make decisions for themselves and be supported to do so. However, as I say, the second principle of the Mental Capacity Act provides that legal force and in the code of practice we will set out the guidance about how that should work in principle.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, introduced Amendment 24, which describes the process of how someone should be deprived of their liberty. It was helpful for her to refer to the NICE guidance on this. We have already talked tonight about a written record—I think that goes some way—and the basis on which it is shared, which is also important. I will provide more detail on that. The concern about the way that this has been framed is that it is too specific to be in the Bill and the process and the terms may change over time. Although I am sympathetic to the idea that there needs to be clarity about what the appropriate process is, that is best done in the code of practice rather than in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, introduced Amendments 24A, 24B and 24C. I need to reflect further on the implication of these amendments because the way she described them was perhaps not how we had previously interpreted them. My only concern is that one of the effects might be that only responsible bodies could decide to rely on previous assessments, because she has taken care home managers out.

Amendment 25 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Jolly, would require the care home manager or responsible body to have regard to any change in a person’s circumstances when seeking to rely on a previous or equivalent capacity or medical assessment. I agree with the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that before relying on a previous or equivalent medical or capacity assessment proper consideration is given to whether it is reasonable to rely on it. The Bill allows for this already. Such an assessment can be used only if it appears to be reasonable to rely on it. As we have said, responsible bodies when reviewing such statements are obviously legally liable for making sure that the reasonableness test is carried out. Again, we will provide more detail in the code of practice about where it is reasonable to rely on an assessment.

The noble Baroness talked about the difference between condition and circumstances, or the complementary nature of the two. If circumstances change and this affects a person’s capacity or diagnosis, it would also need to be considered before relying on previous or equivalent assessments. We are reflecting at the moment on whether the Bill as drafted achieves our aim here. So this is a topic for a further conversation to make sure that we can get the appropriate balance in this area without introducing too many additional terms that might in themselves provide greater unclarity—which of course is something we are trying to avoid.

Amendment 30 deals with less restrictive arrangements. This is a principle of the Mental Capacity Act and the Bill makes no change to it. Again, we will provide more detail in the code of practice as to how the new model will work in the wider health and care system, including the Mental Capacity Act and the Care Act.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

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

[Baroness Thornton]

I am very pleased to hear what the Minister is saying, but he and the Bill team need to talk to the stakeholders because they do not feel heard. In particular, they do not feel heard on this issue. I am counselling the Minister that it is not good that the stakeholders are coming to all of us and do not feel heard.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am sorry to hear that that is the perception. I know that the team is engaging with stakeholders and, clearly, we will do better. I take the noble Baroness’s advice very seriously. As I said, we will make sure that the Bill reflects the need to consult the cared-for person. We have also taken on board the comments about the phrase “of sound mind”, which is used in one of the amendments later on. That is one reason why we might want to reconsider it. I know that there is a great concern that the language is inappropriate and that creating a new definition might create a gap, but, having looked at this further, we think we would be able to change this language and carry out various other work to reduce the gap to a minimum. That is something that we intend to bring forward, so I hope that that will be welcomed by many people.

I only give those examples to demonstrate that we are making progress as we go along. Perhaps noble Lords will say that we should have done this beforehand, but we are where we are, and we are trying to fix a creaking system and are using our best endeavours to do that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, the latest data suggests that the situation is getting worse, not better. There were a total of 227,400 DoLS applications received in 2017-18 and 125,000 people in the backlog, 48,000 of whom have been waiting for more than a year already. In 2013-14, when the House found the DoLS system in need of reform, there were just 12,400 applications. We know the reason for that leap, but it suggests that this problem is not sorting itself out and it is urgent that we address it. Clearly, that is what we are all endeavouring to achieve in this process.

It is for that reason that I come to the role of the care home manager. That is obviously a critical role to avoid duplication and to ensure that cases that are relatively straightforward can be dealt with at a level that is close to the person being cared-for can be integrated into care planning without involving referrals upwards-even though there will continue to be reviews by responsible bodies and the opportunity for the AMCP to intervene where there is any cause for concern. To make sure that this is a manageable process, it is integrated into care planning. I still believe that that is the right model. We need to determine how this model can be developed and delivered in a way that overcomes the very many concerns, many of which I have sympathy with, that have been expressed in this debate and will I am sure be expressed this afternoon in other debates. The onus is on the Government to lead that process and put as many of those concerns to bed as possible while, as I have said, protecting the model because it gives us a way out of the duplication and backlog that we have now.

I want to address some specific issues raised in regard to care managers. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others raised the point about care home managers being responsible for arranging assessments but not generally for conducting them. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that will be the case for all assessments—DoLS assessments and assessments regarding care planning—and it will include determining whether arrangements are necessary and proportionate. However, although those managers have a responsibility to arrange the assessments, the Bill allows for them to be conducted by others involved in the person’s care, who must have a medical qualification or be suitably trained, as will be explained in the code of practice. So while there is that responsibility to arrange the assessments, those assessments will be carried out by somebody other than the care home manager, except in nursing homes, for example, which might be run by a nurse with a suitable qualification. It would be somebody with the appropriate training to ensure that whatever kind of assessment it is, it can be carried out properly.

I understand that that still leaves a small set of assessments which a care home manager could both arrange and carry out, because they had suitable training. If noble Lords are still concerned about the appropriateness of that kind of activity, I would be absolutely willing to discuss how we can minimise any concerns about conflicts of interest. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, pointed out, such conflicts of interest happen all the time and we rely on regulation—

[Baroness Thornton]

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, is quite right that people such as her good self have to manage conflicts of interest all the time and they do it superbly, but such a conflict of interest is actually to do with profit and earning money. It is to do with keeping capacity in the care home, which creates a profit for that company. It is quite different from a conflict of interest involving what kind of medicine a doctor might prescribe, for example. It is directly due to the fact that a care home manager’s job is to keep their care home as full as possible, so that it continues to make money. Some of them are in not-for-profits and some are in for-profits, but it is an absolutely different kind of conflict of interest.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

As the noble Baroness says, there are conflicts of interest of various kinds; the important point is that there are protections against any conflict of interest. Typically, those will be through the regulatory authorities, whether the professional bodies or the CQC, which of course inspects all care homes and has found that 80% of them provide good or outstanding care. I believe that there are systems within the current regulatory framework that will provide for that oversight and prevent conflicts of interest. There is also the fact that the responsible body will carry out the reviews and that there is an opportunity to refer to an AMCP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

I have a fair degree of sympathy with the sentiment behind this group of amendments. It is right that the Committee looks at what an appropriate role for the care manager might be. We have not got it right yet and it is clear from the debate so far, and the representations received from the sector and from people who deal with this day to day, that there must continue to be some sort of more independent element in the assessment. It cannot simply all come down to the care manager. However, I equally have some sympathy with the idea which was partly behind the Bill. We need better integration between care planning and the difficult decisions that have to be made about deprivation of liberty.

That is why we must explore further what an appropriate role might be. I am not quite sure what it is. Is it simply making referrals or some sort of co-ordination? I share the concerns of other noble Lords about dilution of safeguards, conflicts of interests and all that, but equally we must make sure that the care manager has an appropriate role and is not left out of the picture. We are talking about a very important sentiment.

I welcome what the Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments about the position he has now come to on including 16 and 17 year-olds and putting the cared-for person at centre stage to ensure that they are part of the consultation. I particularly welcome what he had to say about changing the language of unsound mind.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank noble Lords for a concise but incisive debate on this group of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, this is really about the role of those organising assessments for the deprivation of liberty and about who is responsible for pre-authorisation reviews. As has been mentioned by the noble Lords who tabled them, many of these amendments specify that pre-authorisation reviews must be completed by someone who is not employed by an organisation involved in the day-to-day care of the cared-for person or in providing any treatment to that person.

Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the schedule outline that, in all cases, arrangements must be authorised by the responsible body, which is either a local authority, hospital manager, CCG or local health board. It is our intention that only the responsible body, or an individual working on their behalf, will conduct the pre-authorisation review. Currently, senior social workers will often review DoLS applications when they are received. Similarly, we expect that, under the liberty protection safeguards, those for care home cases will be completed by a senior social worker. There are circumstances in which the responsible body is also the organisation that delivers the day-to-day care of treatment—and that is one of the concerns raised about conflicts of interest. This will usually be the case when NHS organisations are the responsible body, but it will also be the case for authorisations in local authority-run care homes.

Unfortunately—although I understand the motivation behind them—the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly, Lady Thornton, Lady Murphy, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay, would make it harder to satisfy the pre-authorisation review requirement where the responsible body also delivers the day-to-day care and treatment; this would be especially so for smaller NHS bodies such as some trusts and CCGs. It would mean such bodies having to hire people from outside organisations specifically for the role, which could introduce complexity and lead to delays.

[Baroness Thornton]

I hate to interrupt the Minister, but I think he might be answering the next group of amendments. I am not sure—perhaps he is answering both groups together—but it feels as though he is answering a speech I have not yet made.

Health: Contraceptive Services

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take to protect women’s sexual and reproductive health services following the findings of the Advisory Group on Contraception, published in September, that nearly 50 per cent of local authorities have reduced the level of contraceptive services delivered since 2015.

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

My Lords, the Government have mandated local authorities in England to commission comprehensive open-access sexual health services, including the provision of free contraception. Contraception is also widely available free of charge through general practice. Working with Public Health England we are considering ways to promote increased access to the full range of contraception.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but it is not good enough to place the responsibility on local councils when there has been a £600 million cut by Public Health England overall over the past few years. Local authority budgets for sexual health services have been reduced by £30 million in the past two years. This is a false economy. Every pound spent on contraception saves £9 in averted costs as well as huge personal and family costs. We are seeing some of the consequences already. According to the Terrence Higgins Trust there has been a 20% increase in the diagnosis of syphilis and gonorrhoea. When will the Government replace the lost funding now that we have learned that austerity is over and make sexual health services a public health priority again?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I concur with the noble Baroness about the importance and benefits of contraception. It is a success of sexual health services that the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives has risen over the past 10 years. She is right that there have been pressures on public health budgets which have affected services, but it is important to note that many outcomes are improving. The annual number of sexually transmitted infections is stable, and the number of teenage pregnancies is down. In fact, it has fallen by 45% since 2010 to its lowest recorded level. I take her point about the importance of these services and that they are under pressure; nevertheless, they are performing admirably.

NHS: Dangerous Waste and Body Parts Disposal

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but at the heart of this rather horrible matter is the issue of contracting out our important NHS services, and a lack of accountability. Does the Minister agree that contracting out and subcontracting any NHS function does not absolve the commissioner of responsibility and the need to monitor and seek assurance that the contract is being delivered according to the contract, which presumably in this case involved proper and legal disposal. So where was the monitoring and the assurance to the commissioner that allowed that to happen? It seems to have failed comprehensively. Does that not suggest that this service, which is so crucial, should be delivered in-house? What we see here is a massive market failure, and indeed a massive regulatory failure.

Secondly, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper asked in the Commons whether the Minister accepted that,

“it is a basic principle that, when dealing with any kind of public health or environmental health risk or incident, proper, full, factual information is provided to the public and the community”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/18; col. 37.]

and at the earliest opportunity to Parliament. You do not hide behind a contractual negotiation, so will the Minister tell me where the line lies between the need to inform Parliament of a public health incident and the need to protect commercial confidentiality?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I can say to the noble Baroness that the NHS contracts out very large numbers of services of all kinds, and indeed has contracted out this kind of service for around 30 years. What we have here is not a market failure but a company that has broken the law, and which is therefore being pursued by the regulatory system that we have in place. That is about making sure that the Environment Agency, in this case—because it is about environmental health—is monitoring, issuing notices and raising issues as they come up, which is precisely what it has done here. But I agree with the noble Baroness that certainly there are lessons to be learned about monitoring, and we are absolutely looking at that as a consequence of this incident.

However, it is very important to state two points. No risk to public health has been established, because of the secure circumstances under which the waste—albeit way too much of it—was being kept, and there was no interruption to the provision of services, so there was no risk to patients or to hospital operations. On providing information at the earliest opportunity, we have done exactly that. As I said, no public health risk has been established, and we came to Parliament on the first day it came back, once the termination notice had been in place with a part suspension.

NHS: Staffing

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am aware of my noble friend’s long-standing interest in this area. It is an issue on which we disagree. I happen to think that the changes to the funding of higher education introduced by a Labour Government and continued by the coalition Government provide a fair distribution of benefit and cost to both the taxpayer and those who benefit from higher education.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The Minister has reassured the House on several occasions that the NHS will survive Brexit and the staffing will not be affected. However, when the Home Office announced plans in June this year to temporarily exclude doctors and nurses from the annual tier 2 visa gap, it meant that 1,500 applications were turned down. That does not seem to be sending the right message to those doctors and nurses from the European Union who are already here. We know that the BMA found that 77% of EEA doctors stated they would consider leaving the United Kingdom if the Brexit agreement did not suit their purposes—and that is actually about making them feel welcome here.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness that we want to make them feel welcome. I use this opportunity to state again how much those staff are valued and how much we want them to stay here. What we are doing about it practically is making sure that we communicate with employers and provide the EU settlement scheme—indeed, health and social care workers will take part in the pilot, which will happen later this year. We are sending that message and providing that reassurance. I understand that there is anxiety out there, which is why we want to reassure people, but I am reassured by the fact that there are more people from the EU working in the NHS and CCGs today than there were two years ago.

Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall begin by thanking three sets of people for getting us this far. The first is the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, whom I thank for introducing this Bill and for the opportunity to respond and contribute to the Second Reading. The second is Steve Reed, the MP for Croydon North, who, as all noble Lords have said, has done much of the work to get the Bill to where it is today. We know how difficult the journey of a Private Member’s Bill is, but that it has got this far in this good shape and has this broad support shows not just how important this issue is, but what a fantastic job he has done. I congratulate him. The third set of people are the parents and family of Olaseni Lewis. They have been through a heartbreaking experience, but they have nevertheless fought and campaigned tirelessly for justice for their son. I join other Members of the House in expressing my admiration for them, their resolve and the work they have done to ensure that other families do not to suffer in the way they and their son sadly had to.

This is an emotive subject. It touches the lives of people when they are at their most vulnerable, but at the same time we need to be conscious of the fact that patients must have trust in all NHS services in whatever setting. In that context, the topic of restrictive interventions is always difficult. They are never without risk. Going through an intervention and, I believe, delivering one can be a frightening and traumatic experience for patients and staff at a time when those patients are unwell. The Government are clear that restrictive interventions should only be used as a last resort when all attempts to de-escalate a situation have been employed.

Noble Lords are aware that in April 2014 the Government launched the positive and safe programme, which aimed to reduce the use of these kinds of restrictive interventions in the health and social care sector. That included the non-statutory guidance, Positive and Proactive Care: Reducing the Need for Restrictive Interventions. It was intended to inform the Care Quality Commission’s programme of monitoring and inspections.

What has been identified not just in this debate but during the passage of the Bill in the other place and by my honourable friend the Minister is that the existing guidance is not having the impact the Government expected and that much more needs to be done. For that reason as well as others, the Government are in full support of this Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, was right in saying that this Bill is a good example of cross-party collaboration. A number of changes have been incorporated since it was first introduced to respond to multiple concerns, many of which have been raised this afternoon and by other parliamentarians, campaigners and staff. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the improvement of the legislation in the other place.

I shall deal quickly with some of the amendments that were made in the other place because they demonstrate how the Bill has been improved and that it is in a good place now. First, we have included “isolation” and “segregation” in the key definitions of use of force to address stakeholder concerns that these commonly used techniques would not be recorded and reported on nationally if they were not included in the Bill. We clarified the role of the responsible person in Clause 2 so that a board-level or equivalent person has responsibility for reducing restrictive interventions.

We have added to Clause 3 so that the policy on the use of force must set out what steps will be taken to reduce the use of force in the mental health unit, something that has been mentioned many times today. We strengthened Clause 4 in relation to sharing information with the patient about their rights, so that the responsible person has to take whatever steps are reasonably practicable to ensure not only that a patient is aware of the information about their rights but that they understand it. Critically, on the point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, it will ensure that every patient and their family members or carers understand what the patient’s rights are in relation to the use of force while they are in a mental health unit, a really important improvement.

In Clause 5 we have expanded the topics that must be covered in training courses to recognise the impact that trauma may have on a patient’s physical and mental health and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, what is known as trauma-informed care. I will return to the issue of training but I will say at this point that we have also now included a requirement for staff to receive refresher training as appropriate, so it is not just one-off training.

We have expanded the list of information that must be recorded in Clause 6 to include a description of how force was used and the outcome of that use of force to increase transparency and accountability, while also amending the time for which records must be kept so that it is proportionate and in line with data protection law.

In Clause 7 we have ensured that the responsibility for publishing annual statistics sits with the Secretary of State in order to enable NHS Digital to collect national data and produce and publish those statistics. Following this debate today, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I will clarify the timing of the publication of the statistics so that it can be done in a way that shines the greatest light on that information. I shall write to her and all noble Lords with more details on that.

In Clause 8 we have further committed to an annual review of published reports by coroners under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009—more commonly known as regulation 28 reports—relating to the death of a patient as a result of the use of force, and any other findings made during that year. This will enable lessons to be learned across the system. This was one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and again, I will respond to that in a bit more detail in a moment.

Clause 9 is the result of much discussion about investigations, to ensure that mental health units have regard to any guidance relating to investigating deaths or serious injuries that is published by a range of organisations including the CQC, NHS Improvement and NHS England, as has been referenced. This puts the NHS Serious Incident Framework on a legal footing and gives strength to the requirement to carry out an independent investigation into an unexpected death, including the death of a patient following the use of force.

Finally on the improvements made in the other place, the clause on police body cameras was amended to ensure that the use of body-worn video is proportionate, legitimate, necessary and in line with the College of Policing guidance on its use. It was also amended to clarify that failure to bring or use body-worn video when attending an incident in a mental health unit is not in itself a criminal offence.

I thank noble Lords for indulging me in mentioning those points. I wanted to demonstrate the improvements that have been made in response to stakeholders from the charitable and voluntary sector. By virtue of those improvements, we can be confident that the Bill is in very good shape and, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has the best possible chance of delivering the outcomes we want. We want to ensure that the Bill goes through in its current shape but, like my colleague Jackie Doyle-Price, I will be more than happy to meet any noble Lords who want further reassurance on any of the questions they have asked, although I shall try to deal with some of them as well as I can now.

I turn to some of the specific points and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and other noble Lords. First, on the timing of the statutory guidance, calls to see drafts of it and the timetable for its publication, Jackie Doyle-Price in the other place accepted the need to move quickly and said that publication within 12 months of the Bill being passed would be appropriate in the context. I believe that this is reasonable, given the complexity of the guidance that we will need to consider. On the critical question of how it will be drawn up, we plan to establish and consult with an expert reference group, including experts in the field of restrictive interventions and people with lived experience, as well as carrying out a public consultation on the guidance before it is published. I reassure noble Lords that we will work closely with key stakeholders to take account of their contributions, and the discussions on the Bill in both Houses, in developing the guidance. I hope all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will have the opportunity to contribute to the development of that guidance.

The issue of diversity and the disproportionate use of force for black and minority-ethnic groups was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. Annual figures from the mental health services dataset showed that in 2017 the number of people subject to restrictive interventions was 9,771. Collectively, these people experienced more than 71,000 incidents of restrictive interventions. They also showed that they were disproportionately affecting patients from the BAME community, as well as women and children, as was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Tyler. This is clearly unacceptable, but we do not yet have a consistent and rich enough dataset to understand exactly where the problems in the disproportionate use of force take place, when they take place, in what settings, and so on. It is precisely for that reason that we want that rich dataset to inform practice and action, and to respond accordingly. I should be pleased to follow up our debate today with noble Lords, once data is available, to think about what action could be taken to address the discrepancies in performance.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Massey, asked about children. I can confirm that the Bill applies to all patients in a mental health unit, including children, for the purposes of treatment for a mental disorder. The children and young people who are being looked after in those mental health units are, of course, among the most vulnerable patients, and I absolutely acknowledge that staff will require a different skill set when looking after them. I will come to the issue of staff training in a moment, but Clause 5 sets out the requirements for staff training, including involving patients in their care, and this will be a different conversation for children and young people than for an adult. I reassure noble Lords that the statutory guidance that we produce will have specific examples and principles of good practice for how to carry out those conversations with young people and children, as well as with adults.

I should like to address some questions raised about the use of force. Although it has not been raised in this debate, it was asked in the other place whether the words “threat to use force” and “coercion” should be included. The reason for resisting that is that we believe that they can be useful terms when used properly as part of de-escalation techniques. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, those techniques are incredibly important in reducing the use of force wherever possible.

Nevertheless, we need to ensure that there is proper oversight to ensure that threats are not used improperly. That is part of the policy that we will expect the responsible persons to put in place to ensure proper responsibility, and proper accountability within the organisation for the reduction of the use of force and not merely substituting for it by other means.

Of course, as noble Lords have pointed out, staff must be properly trained. On those occasions where restrictive interventions are needed, we must feel confident that mental health unit staff have the techniques at their hands to use properly. In response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and other noble Lords, I say that Clause 5 sets out as a minimum the list of training topics which must be covered. The list in the Bill is not exhaustive, but covers the essential topic areas key to ensuring that, where necessary, force is used in a safe way using the least restrictive force. I mentioned that that will include ensuring that staff receive refresher training at regular intervals to ensure that they are up-to-date with the latest techniques and new approaches.

While we are on the topic of force, I shall address the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the use of the term “negligible”. As I have said, Clause 6 imposes a duty to keep a record of any use of force on the patient by staff who work in that unit. It sets out what information should be recorded and how long those records should be kept.

The clause also states that the duty to record does not apply to the use of negligible use of force. This is because, in consultation with our health partners, it was felt that staff should not be burdened with the need to record lower-level therapeutic activities, such as the use of a lap belt when moving someone in a wheelchair, or guiding someone by the arm down a corridor or through a doorway. These are activities that happen many times every day and, if we did not have this exception, staff would have to record such events as a use of force. This would significantly increase the time spent recording which would take staff away from caring for patients.

[Baroness Thornton]

Maybe that is the wrong word, then. Maybe the Bill should say “therapeutic” or something which does not allow a loophole which says: “Oh well, that slap was only negligible”. That might be the wrong word to use.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness makes a good point, which is relevant to the point made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when it reported on the Bill, which I will use this opportunity to address. This was about our proposal that definitions should be within statutory guidance. This determines the appropriate mechanism for making the definition, to ensure that the kind of problems pointed out by the noble Baroness do not arise. The committee noted that the guidance under Clause 6(3) will determine whether a use of force is negligible, and thus affect the legal obligations of responsible persons in mental health units. The committee’s view is that this should be set out in regulations, in order to provide an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. I have replied to the committee on this issue this morning and will share my letter with noble Lords.

We considered whether the meaning of a “negligible” use of force could be set out in regulations or, indeed, on the face of the Bill. However, the range of techniques that may be used for physical interventions alone is many and varied, from the most serious, such as prone restraint, to something as simple as guiding a patient by the elbow down a corridor or through a doorway. Furthermore, what is negligible will generally be a matter of degree rather than kind. It was concluded that the meaning would be more effectively illustrated through example case studies in guidance, which would also allow for more rapid revision to take account of changes in practice. The decision to require “negligible” to be determined in accordance with the guidance was taken to ensure consistency of approach to recording uses of force across the sector. Because the information recorded under Clause 6 will be used for the preparation of national statistics about the use of force under Clause 7, if responsible persons are taking a different approach to recording information—a current problem—that will affect the interpretation and value of the statistics.

The Government accept the committee’s concerns about the sensitive nature of the subject. This is why the Bill imposes constraints on the issue of guidance, one of which is to require the Secretary of State to consult any person he or she considers appropriate. In practice, that will mean consulting experts in the field of restrictive interventions and those with lived experience whom the Government consider appropriate for this type of guidance. It is not usually the case that we go against the advice of the committee, but in this instance we felt that the nuance required around the definitions of “negligible”, combined with the strength of force that is needed to provide consistency for statistics, meant that this particular definition within a form of statutory guidance was the appropriate way forward. I hope that noble Lords will accept that; if further discussion is warranted, I would be happy to follow it up.

My final point is on the issue of deaths of patients, which was at the heart of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. There was a lot of debate on Clause 9 in the other place and the clause was revised in Committee, but concerns remained about the timeliness, quality and independence of the investigations that would be made whenever a patient dies following the use of force. As Clause 9 is drafted, if a patient dies or suffers a serious injury in a mental health unit, the responsible person must have regard to any guidance relating to the investigation of deaths or serious injuries published by a list of organisations which are responsible for regulating and monitoring the NHS, such as the CQC. As I said, this means that the NHS serious incident framework is put on a statutory footing. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave some examples of how this would work in practice and talked about level 3 investigations. However, prior to that there is a legal duty, under the Mental Health Act, to report the death of a patient to the CQC. After that, an independent investigation should always be considered following the death of a patient in those circumstances.

As the noble Lord pointed out, level 3 investigations under the framework are those that will probably be most suited to these kinds of incidents, where the integrity of an internal investigation is likely to be challenged or where it will be difficult for an organisation to conduct such an investigation internally in an objective manner. I want to be clear that no one involved in the investigation process should be involved in the direct care of the patients affected, nor should they work directly with those involved in the delivery of that care. Following such an investigation, there would of course be an inquest, including a legal duty to report the death to the coroner, who has a duty to investigate violent or unexpected deaths. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance about the objectivity and independence of the investigatory framework that would follow such a death. I am more than happy to discuss that further with him, and to make sure that the point he made is properly reflected: that there is an opportunity not just to investigate individual deaths but to look for thematic issues at a higher level—of the kind that he outlined and indeed used to be responsible for carrying out and which the IPCC used to carry out—which may be suitable for the new health services investigation board that we are introducing. That is something that I would like to discuss further with him.

The noble Lord also briefly asked about support for families. Legal aid is, I believe, the most appropriate way for that support to be offered. The Ministry of Justice has considered this in response to the Dame Elish Angiolini report and will also consider deaths in these settings on the same basis as deaths in prisons and police custody. Again, I hope that provides some reassurance, but if he wants to discuss that further I would be more than pleased to.

I hope that I have addressed all issues and questions raised in the debate today. I just finish by saying how important the Government consider this legislation to be and how much we support the noble Baroness in bringing it forward. Noble Lords have indicated that they do not intend to amend the Bill, and of course we are all conscious of time, but I am more than happy to speak to any noble Lords about remaining questions to make sure that we can put their minds at ease, provide the necessary reassurance and move ahead as quickly as possible.

NHS: Healthcare Data

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on calling this debate and on his passionate interest in the topic, which he often shares with me by email and through other routes. His excellent speech was, indeed, a tour d’horizon, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said. I am also grateful to him for sharing the moving story of his sister—the unavailability of data obviously contributed to her untimely death. Her case gets to the heart of what can sometimes be a rather technical topic. At the end of the day, we are trying to make sure that people are able to live longer and happier lives. The noble Lord’s sharing of that story really brought that point to life.

I also warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Bethell on his outstanding maiden speech. He brought to life the anxieties that people feel about big data—the saliency of this topic is clearly rising with Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and so on—while discussing the extraordinary benefits. I have no doubt that he will be a huge asset to this House. He is someone I have known and worked with over the years. We may be getting a bit longer in the tooth now, but at one point we were thrusting, reforming young Conservatives. We are, in this House, young Conservatives again. I am sure he will bring exactly the same energy that he has always brought to reforming issues.

I thank noble Lords for a superb, high-quality debate. It has also been an extremely fertile ground for new ideas, some of which we are happily moving ahead on, and others of which I will, as ever, reflect on. All noble Lords agree that the NHS is already a world-class and comprehensive healthcare system. We also agree that it provides a unique opportunity, because of the circumstances of its founding, to bring together an unrivalled longitudinal dataset on the health and care of over 60 million people alive today. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe reminded us, the use of that data over time, going back not just decades but centuries, has led to countless innovations and saved millions—possibly billions—of lives worldwide. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Rock pointed out, the potential gains from this dataset with the technologies at hand are enormous: improving standards; making the health system fairer, safer and more effective; and improving research so that patients benefit more quickly from medical breakthroughs.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was right in saying that first and foremost it is about the transformation of direct care. The primary uses of data must come first and secondary uses second. Patient outcomes are the most important goal. It is also the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, pointed out so wisely, that without technology we cannot achieve the goal of personalised medicine. Personalised medicine is essential, because we now understand so much about disease that no disease presents itself in one person in the same way that it presents itself in another. We cannot achieve that goal without technology and the use of data. As the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, and my noble friend Lady Redfern pointed out, it is also critical in overcoming some of the inequities and discrepancies in health outcomes that clearly exist in all disease areas today.

Noble Lords have raised many examples of the benefits of data sharing. My noble friend Viscount Bridgeman explained the benefits that derive from GP databases in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out the role of performance data in winning the argument for transforming stroke care and rationalising services—not always a popular thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Stone, gave the example of how healthtalk.org—I think that is the right name—is empowering self-care in improving outcomes. He also brought to life an international dimension: sharing data not just in one country, but across the world. That is really important for rare diseases. Our health charities have a very important role in this field, as he exemplified.

My noble friend Lord Suri talked very wisely about the local and regional dimension. Greater Manchester, which is often the leader in these things, has made tremendous use of joined-up healthcare records. Data has been used to build a picture of how patients with stroke are diagnosed and treated, for example. This has improved services for patients, including by supporting paramedics with diagnosis—which is not always there, as this debate has highlighted—through the development of an app to assist clinical assessment. That has led to a reduction of deaths from inter-cerebral haemorrhage by one-third in the 30 days following diagnosis. Think of the benefits to health and wealth that would accrue if we were able to roll out these innovations UK-wide and worldwide.

Yesterday, at NHS Expo I met several innovators, including those who are providing real-time data on the availability of and waiting times for urgent and emergency care centres in Kent, with the goal to go nationwide. Others were rating and promoting the best health apps, so that people can take more control over their care. These are just a few examples of what is possible.

We can all be zealous about the benefits of sharing data but, as noble Lords have pointed out, we have to be aware of the anxieties and concerns that people have, not least because of the recent history in this area, when we have tried to make progress. My noble friend Lord Suri pointed out that we stand at a golden age. I think he is right, but we will only realise that golden age and its benefits, which were brought to life by the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson and Lord St John, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—with the challenges we face, we cannot have the luxury of doing without these benefits—if we appreciate people’s concerns about how data is used, whom it is shared with and whether it is safely, properly and legally used. People want to understand and have a say in how their data is collected and used. They want to see the benefits being realised for patients and for the health system more widely. I will return to this topic.

KPMG published a report yesterday showing that the NHS is the most trusted institution in the country with whom citizens are prepared to share personal data. That is a very precious thing which we must not put at risk. If we do, we will not be able to realise the kinds of benefits that we have been discussing. The first step is to keep data safe, as my noble friend Lord Suri pointed out. Since May 2017, when the WannaCry attack happened, we have invested more than £60 million in cyber resilience for local health trusts. We are planning to invest a further £150 million over the next two years to improve our ability nationally and locally to prevent, detect and respond to cyber incidents. Of course, we can never say never about these attacks, and they are becoming more frequent and more severe, but we are aware of the importance of putting in that resilience.

We have also introduced a national data opt-out which gives patients a choice about how their confidential patient information is used beyond their direct care. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about how challenging it is to exercise the opt-out for children. We are in the process of addressing that at the moment. The opt-out is in beta form before going live in October. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, as well as NHS Digital, Public Health England is upholding the national data opt-out and we will be rolling it out to all NHS organisations over the next two years.

The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about the importance of this issue and of engaging with the public and stakeholders. I want to use this opportunity to highlight and commend the work of the Wellcome Institute’s Understanding Patient Data initiative. It has produced remarkable resources and we have been working closely with it. It is helping us to win the argument with people that they ought to share their data because of the benefits that will accrue to themselves and to those whom they love. However, we can never think we have won the argument. It always needs to be made and we always need to provide that reassurance.

We are taking other actions. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned the National Data Guardian, which we are putting on a statutory footing. We have implemented new data standards that she recommended. We have been explicit about not selling information, or access to information, on patients to marketing or insurance companies. That is a big concern. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that we have taken some important steps on governance, such as introducing Caldicott guardians—named after the first National Data Guardian—into the information governance framework, and trust board responsibility for the safe use of data.

Once we have addressed the safety issue, we will then need to start bringing together the available data. As noble Lords have explained during the debate, so much health and care data is still fragmented, often stored and transmitted in paper form and not easily shared. The horrifying consequences of this, such as key information falling through the gaps, have, unfortunately, been brought to life in the cases of the loved ones of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. As my noble friend Lady Redfern pointed out, medication error is a consequence too. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, talked about a clean and curated dataset being useful not just in its own right but because of the value it would generate. He is absolutely right on that topic.

We are making progress through the global digital exemplar programme, for which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced today £200 million. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, will know that it is very unusual to announce new money outside spending reviews, although the Government have announced £22 billion over the next five years. However, this is a rollout of a £4 billion investment, which no doubt he was involved in agreeing at the last spending review. Let me reiterate that that is a £4 billion investment in technology in the NHS.

We are also looking at joining up data across different areas and settings. This has been highlighted by many noble Lords. We have launched the local health and care record exemplars, which is about creating common standards of interoperability so that data can be shared, not just through health but, critically—a point made by my noble friend Lady Redfern—across social care and local authorities as well. Therefore, wherever you turn up in the health system, your record will be at hand. As of now, through the NHS app, you can find your summary healthcare record in digital form. However, the exemplar programme is about your entire care record, which is critical for the reasons that we have discussed. The goal, in time, is that everybody—not just healthcare and care professionals but individuals themselves—will have near real-time access to the information that they need, wherever it was captured, to help them make the best clinical decisions.

As well as digitising the information that we have, we also need to make sure that new forms of information are added to those data records. Here, I would like to highlight the potential of genomic medicine and genomic data. Our work in this area is a shining example of partnership between the public sector, the life sciences industry and the research community, working together to benefit NHS patients. Through the 100,000 Genomes Project and the new genomic medicine service, which launches in October, we will sequence genomes for patients with rare diseases and cancers so that they can receive more personalised treatments and benefit from improved outcomes and reduced adverse drug reactions.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others, said that we need to make sure that we can harness data generated by patients through wearables and information about other aspects of their lives that may have a health impact, such as housing, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out. As the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord St John, pointed out, that takes us to a very interesting, fundamental question about who owns the data. In my view, it is about co-ownership and having a joint record, which everybody contributes to but which is jointly owned. That reflects the collective nature of the National Health Service. However, the noble Lords are absolutely right that we have to settle that fundamental question.

We will clean up the data and then start adding more data to it. Then, we need to add the analytical capacity that will unlock its potential. This is where we get into the realm of artificial intelligence. AI can transform prevention and improve diagnosis and the treatment of disease. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, pointed out, it can improve cost-effectiveness. Its impact will be profound, as my noble friend Lady Rock said. As we have heard, it is already transforming diagnostic imaging, and, through investment made in our life sciences industrial strategy, we are investing in a network of digital pathology, imaging and AI centres of excellence across the United Kingdom. However, as my noble friend Lord Suri and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, pointed out, it is true that we lag behind other industries. We need to go faster. We are now coming to the thorny issue at the heart of this: we need to make sure that the benefits of applying AI to NHS data are fairly distributed.

It was a pleasure yesterday to be able to announce our initial code of conduct for data-driven technology, which sets out the principles of how these kinds of partnerships should work. They describe our expectations on data governance and commercial agreements, about which I will say more in a minute, and provide a basis to deepen the trust between patients, clinicians, researchers and innovators. Our goal is to create a safe and trusted environment in which to encourage innovation.

I would like to highlight quickly two things that will be critical to delivering that. First, digital innovation hubs will provide a safe, secure, legal opportunity for innovators from the public sector, academia and the private sector to access patient data to test algorithms and new products for research purposes in a way that delivers the very highest standards of probity. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, pointed out, we need to talk about having the right regulation. I have asked the NHRA, which is an outstanding regulator, to look at how we can provide a framework to encourage the regulation of digital health technology from the point of view of safety and efficacy, as we do not yet have that.

On the topic of commerciality, we know that data in the NHS is a crucial national asset with huge value. Making it available for research will incentivise the life sciences sector to locate in the UK, which is something that we all want. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was unwarrantedly pessimistic about the potential of these public/private partnerships. They have existed for decades between the pharmaceutical sector and the NHS, which has offered data through clinical trials and other means. This, of course, is about taking it up another level. We need to make sure that these partnerships develop, but that they do so in a right and proper way and that the NHS gets a fair deal.

[Baroness Thornton]

I absolutely accept what the noble Lord is saying, but the record so far of the NHS’s business acumen has not been great.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

That is a point to which I will return. I recognise absolutely the concern voiced in this Chamber and in debates elsewhere about making sure that the NHS gets a fair deal.

We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Freyberg, about Sensyne Health. One of our own number, the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, founded this company, which has taken an interesting attitude while working with lots of university hospitals and trusts. It has both shared equity in the company with those trusts and given them royalties for algorithms built on the data that it holds. For me, this is a step change in how we conceive of data as being not just a service rendered but a form of capital invested. As we work to create more guidelines on the right kind of commercial strategy—and I reassure noble Lords that we will work on that over the autumn—these must recognise that people view data more like a form of capital, and therefore the commercial arrangements need to reflect that. Having said that, we also need to provide a degree of flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, explained the difficulty sometimes not just in valuing this data—we are engaging in that Treasury exercise—but in making sure that the right arrangements occur between the public sector, the private sector and academia.

If I may, I want to take issue with something that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said about the difference between “maximised” and “fairly”. We are slightly dancing on the head of a pin here, and I will explain why. Of course we want to maximise the benefits to the NHS, both directly through value sharing and, down the line, in the development of new technologies and treatments. Equally, as is the case with oil, if you ask for too high a price, people will not buy it and there is nothing to share. Therefore, when I talk about fair distribution, it is about making sure that we maximise the benefits and that the role of the NHS’s contribution in the creation of maximal benefits for health and wealth is recognised fairly.

I am interested in the noble Lord’s idea of a sovereign health fund. He and I have discussed that previously and I want to consider it more. However, it is a fair criticism that we need to improve the commercial acumen in the sector. Some ideas have been mentioned, including the creation of a technology transfer office or similar for the NHS, and we are certainly considering that.

I want to very quickly touch on the issue of skills, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. We have asked Dr Eric Topol to lead a review on changes in technology and new developments to make sure that we have the right skills in the NHS. He will publish his final report by the end of the year, and that will feed into the long-term funding plan that we are developing.

We know that the NHS has a huge asset in its hands. People have bequeathed a precious gift to it and we have to get the maximum benefit from it. At the same time, we need to bring people’s trust and provide reassurance at all times. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it is a fine balance—a line that we need to tread. The Government are very conscious of that. Things are moving quickly; we need to move quickly as well. That is why this debate has been extremely useful both in raising the salience and highlighting some of the issues but also, as I said, in providing a ground for new ideas.

Many noble Lords asked whether we will have a strategy. They will know, have seen and it has been mentioned that we have a new Secretary of State. He is not just a technophile but I believe was actually a coder at some point in his life. I reassure noble Lords that not just embedding technology but realising the potential for value and making sure it is maximised and fairly distributed will form a core part of the long-term plan we are developing. I look forward enormously to working with all noble Lords in this House who have contributed to this debate and elsewhere to make sure that we are able to achieve that goal.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments tests the proportionate nature of the decisions being taken. Amendment 29 would put the views of the cared-for person at the centre of the assessment and ensure that adequate weight was given to their wishes and feelings. I have not been able to find in the Bill where that is expressed, and that is shocking and surprising. We have to see a clear statutory duty to consult the cared-for person, and the scope of that consultation must include their past wishes, feelings, values and beliefs. I invite the Minister to tell me whether he believes that the Bill as it stands achieves that, because I cannot see that it does. If this amendment is not agreed to, the Minister and the Bill team must think about how they can best make sure that the Bill reflects the need for consultation with the cared-for person.

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

I thank noble Lords for tabling their amendments and for contributing to a debate that has continued the discussion that we had before dinner. It again gets to the heart of why we are here, which is to make sure that when people need to be deprived of their liberty, it is in their best interests to do so and that the restrictions are proportionate and necessary and so on.

I agree with the spirit of the amendments. It is important that we intend to, and do, safeguard the well-being, wishes and feelings of the cared-for person. Dealing with the first set of amendments, I take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that the changes being sought are already required by law in several ways.

First, the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that a decision on whether arrangements are necessary and proportionate must include consideration of the cared-for person’s wishes and feelings about the arrangements. It should also be noted that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, wishes and feelings are already a part of the first-stage best interests decision-making under Section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act and I can confirm, as I have done already, that the Bill does not change this. Furthermore, wishes and feelings will also be considered as part of the “necessary and proportionate” test, and the code of practice will provide further detail about how that will work in practice.

Going even further, as has been referenced by several noble Lords, we have created in this Bill a specific requirement to ascertain a person’s wishes and feelings in relation to the proposed arrangements through the duty to consult with anyone with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare—first and foremost the person themselves, as well as their family, carers, friends, advocates, interlocutors or anybody with a substantive interest in their care. I believe that there is substantial legal protection, force and direction to make sure that the person’s wishes and feelings are considered first and foremost in any of these kinds of arrangements. As this debate has demonstrated, there are clearly lingering concerns that that is not the case, because of the existing framework, notwithstanding the enhancements through the duty to consult that we are introducing. However, I am eager to make sure that it is well understood, and to work with noble Lords so we can make clear that those responsibilities already exist, both in statute and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I take the points that the noble Baroness is making. Obviously we will discuss this further. But it is important to reflect on the new duty to consult. It is not a duty to consult everybody but the person, so it is not fair to say that there has not been an earnest attempt in the Bill to make sure that the person is fully consulted in the necessary and proportionate test, even if the noble Baroness does not like the precise way that that has been done. It is important to set that out.

[Baroness Thornton]

It is a spectacular omission not to mention the very person whose liberty is being restricted. I ask the Minister and the Bill team to remind themselves of Articles 5 and 8 of the UNCRPD, which mandate such consultations.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this clause stand part. It was necessary for a number of reasons. I am also grateful for the contributions that have been made because they bear out the reason why it was important to put down this debate. The first reason has been alluded to by many noble Lords and is the very unsatisfactory scheduling of the Bill. It means that noble Lords and stakeholders have not had sufficient time to consider the Bill and all its amendments for today. The vast majority were put down last week, and the Marshalled List became available yesterday. It was difficult for anybody to see whether the tabled amendments probed the Bill sufficiently and made all the improvements that noble Lords deemed worthy of consideration.

There is a lesson here about scheduling: if you have the Second Reading immediately before a recess, a sufficient number of sitting days must be given to allow noble Lords to table amendments and have the necessary discussions with stakeholders and each other. Getting almost 100 amendments tabled from a standing start when the House rose is pretty good going, and I congratulate noble Lords across the House for that. Some of us were emailing each other and the Public Bill Office from the poolside or the middle of fields during the Recess. However, people are playing catch-up, which does not bode well for a thorough-going scrutiny.

I congratulate the Bill team for managing to talk to noble Lords during the Recess, but in some ways they must have had an unsatisfactory time as well because we did not have the full list of amendments until Friday evening. As many noble Lords have said—it is clear from my mailbox too—in the last two or three days stakeholders are also playing catch-up and are expressing great concern about some aspects of the Bill. In a way, the frustration that that has raised is why my noble friend has tabled his amendment to oppose the clause stand part. That allows us not only to mention things that are not covered in amendments but to raise these points.

From my point of view, and from these Benches, depending on what the Minister says in his reply, we might need to raise issues of scheduling and time to consider some of the serious implications of the Bill, and possibly table amendments at the next stage that address some of the concerns raised in this debate—particularly the issue of care home managers. Notwithstanding the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—she may well be right about people understanding the processes in the Bill—that does not alter the fact that we do not know who will authorise or whether it will work.

This links to my second point, which is about consultation. I would like to know where the care home manager’s role in this came from. It happened between the Law Commission draft Bill and this Bill. Suddenly, the care home manager is it, and I think that that might probably have been a surprise for some people—certainly for the noble Baroness, who did not hold back in her views about care home managers. On the consultation issue, it is clear from the Law Commission report that it did extensive consultation, leading to the creation of its draft Bill. There were something like 83 nationwide events and 583 written responses from interested persons and organisations. Some of those events were very significant indeed, with many stakeholders. Where did the issue of the role of care home managers come from? I should like the Minister to share that with us, as he must be aware of the level of disquiet about the expectations and the responsibilities that would have to be assumed by care home managers for the assessment required to authorise the deprivation of a person’s liberty when the person lives in their care home.

I also want to know the view of the CQC on this proposal. What is the view of the care providers, the ADASS and the LGA? They are all key stakeholders in that decision. I should be grateful to have the Minister’s take on the view of those important organisations on this proposal. I could not find the issue among the material circulated by the Minister or, indeed, in the letter he sent, which I found useful and informative.

My noble friend has done the House a favour in raising these issues and allowing a large number of questions to be asked at this stage, which might inform the next day’s discussion in Committee, the next stage of the Bill and perhaps also the discussions that we will need to have in the coming weeks.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that of course extensive scrutiny is deserved for legislation of this kind, which we have achieved both at Second Reading and, for those who could not be there, in the second Second Reading debate that we have just had. That scrutiny is obviously reflected in the 100 or so amendments that have been tabled. It is worth using this opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, did to some extent, to remind ourselves why we are here pursuing this legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked why now? Well, in 2014, the House identified that the DoLS system was not fit for purpose and the Government tasked the Law Commission with completing its report into DoLS. It recommended that the current system needed to be replaced as a matter of pressing urgency. I will come on to the point about the discrepancies between the two approaches but, nevertheless, that was its view. The Government stated that we would do this as soon as parliamentary time allowed—part of the issue around scheduling is indeed “when parliamentary time allows”. It is important to use opportunities when they arise to do important things, even if it means that people have to work during the summer or holidays. I realise that that is not always ideal, but the scheduling, for example, of Committee over a long period—and we will then need to think about Report—should give lots more time for these kinds of discussion. I reassure noble Lords that we want to have and are open to those discussions.

The model that we have created is based on that developed by the Law Commission and, like the Law Commission, we want to increase the protection of some of the most vulnerable people in society, to protect their rights, not just in theory but in practice, and to improve access to justice. I confirm to noble Lords that we have worked and continue to work with a range of stakeholders to build on the Law Commission’s model and to produce a streamlined system. “Streamlined” is an important way of describing this, because the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly, Lady Barker and Lady Murphy, talked about cost-cutting. This is in fact about creating a system that has the effect that we want with the budget that it is given; that is the point. As we know from the backlog, lots of people are being denied access to justice because of a system that is disproportionate in its application. That is what we are trying to solve, so that those cases that really do deserve the highest level of scrutiny are able to receive it. That really is at the heart of what we are trying to do. I emphasise that Nicholas Paines, the Law Commissioner who led this review, said that this Bill,

“will go a long way towards addressing the flaws of the current system and better protect the most vulnerable in our society”.

I would not claim at this point in the proceedings that it is perfect. I am sure that we can improve it, but it is important that we are doing it, that we are doing it now and that it has support from the Law Commission itself.

More recently, the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act: Interim Report, which was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and led by Simon Wessely, stressed the need for an,

“appropriate calibration between resources spent on delivery of care and those spent on safeguards surrounding the delivery of that care”.

That is what we are trying to achieve through this process. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who was quite right to talk about the interaction and interface between the two Acts and how they operate that, while we are taking this opportunity to act now while we can, if there are future recommendations that mean there have to be further changes, we would be open to those. This will not be the last opportunity to make sure that the interface between the two Acts, once the reviews have been completed, could be amended, if that is what is necessary. It is important that we have acted now and that those 108,000 people currently in the backlog will have swifter access to justice—that is the main argument. That is my Second Reading speech summarised and repeated.

From what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, I do not think that he wants to remove this clause, not least because it would remove the new system while not stopping the repeal of the current system, and nobody wants that. At the heart of what the noble Lord spoke about is this focus on care homes, which I think is worth dwelling on. The system has been carefully designed to ensure that there is independence and proper accountability. Care homes will not authorise any applications. That will fall to a wholly independent responsible body—the local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

I understood that the Minister said “escalate”, which means that something changes. Perhaps when he is answering the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, he could also explain the word “escalate”.

The Government may need to think about carrying out some form of assessment of the appropriateness and suitability of care home managers to undertake this task. If that has not been done, perhaps it needs to be done in the next month or so.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, the point that I was making is not that the role of the care home manager will not change but that they are not being asked to do something of which they have absolutely no experience or responsibility for at the moment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, care home managers are already required to make applications and to consider capacity and restrictions, so they already have a role. The distinction is that, as the Bill sets out, the assessments can be made within the care home itself—of course, not by a person with direct responsibility for care. That is one of the issues, of avoiding conflict of interest. In all cases, those will be authorised by the local authority. If there is any reason, through that authorisation, for concern—for example, of conflicting views between the person cared for and their family—then the AMCP, the mental capacity professional, will have the opportunity to decide on the right course of action. That is what I meant by escalate—not that there is a choice of whether to escalate authorisation to the responsible body, as that will happen in all cases, but that there is a further opportunity for consideration by an AMCP if there is any sense of this happening. We will explore in more detail in future groups whether there is a reason for further investigation, including, of course, speaking to the cared-for person, their family and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I would like to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Murphy, for tabling these amendments, which seek to apply the liberty protection safeguards to 16 and 17 year-olds in the same way that they apply to adults. Noble Lords have been absolutely right to point out, as they did at Second Reading, that in the Government’s response to the Law Commission report, we accepted in principle that 16 and 17 year-olds would be included in the new liberty protection safeguard system. I know that noble Lords are motivated not just get to get this right in general but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, in relation to specific cases that are known to them, sometimes very close to home. I understand and sympathise absolutely with the desire to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, is also right to say that it is something I said I would consider and would seek to bring further news. We are still considering this very actively. What is clear even from this brief debate is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, there are some critical interactions that we need to get right with other bits of the system. These include the role of parents, how the safeguards would apply to looked-after children, and interaction with processes such as the education, health and care planning processes for those with special needs and disabilities. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Thornton, reminded us, we need also to be mindful of the current court case.

At this stage, I repeat and underline our commitment to make progress and to offer the best possible protection for this group of vulnerable young people. Proper scrutiny and detailed thought is required, and that thought is ongoing. I recognise the arguments for including this group. Like all noble Lords, I want to make sure we get this right and get the interactions right, so that they do not end up being fixed subsequently by the courts, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out in a different context.

Our intention is to use the time between now and Report to continue having those discussions, both with noble Lords and with stakeholders throughout the sector, to make sure we can get this right. On that basis, having given the commitment that we will work hard to do what we can between now and Report to get the right outcome, I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for that. What can I say but, “Thank you, and let us hope so”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton]

These Benches support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others have said, the reference to unsoundness of mind is offensive to those with learning disabilities, dementia and brain injuries and their families. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has just demolished all the legal arguments for including the phrase in the Bill, and indeed a lot of organisations, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, say that it out of place in today’s society. The GMC argues that it is not clear what added protection or benefit is achieved by using the term. VoiceAbility says that “unsound mind” is not used in modern psychiatry and that it could lead to debate in disputes. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be as agreeable about this amendment as he was about the last one.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I do hate to disappoint. I thank the noble Baronesses for introducing this point. We discussed it at Second Reading and I have huge sympathy with the concerns about this kind of language. Frankly, it is not the kind of language that we use. As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, pointed out, she has not diagnosed anyone as being of unsound mind for decades. It is a throwback and we are in the process of destigmatising mental health issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, pointed out. That is an endeavour that we are engaged in earnestly together. However, it is important to distinguish between the operational language used in care and the language used in the courts, and I want to discuss that.

This is not just about semantics; it is about terms that have established legal precedent and a jurisprudence based on their interpretation. It is worth discussing the consequences of deviating from a term that is in current use because of its role and the fact that the phrase is used in the European Convention on Human Rights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, the term has not changed since the 1950s and the creation of the ECHR, and it has subsequently been used by the Strasbourg court. There is a risk, and it is worth recognising, even if it is one that noble Lords might be prepared to contemplate. The risk is that a different expression such as the one proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—it is a perfectly reasonable starter for 10, as I think she called it—could create a gap for some people who need access to liberty protection safeguards but do not meet the criteria of having a disorder or disability of mind, although they would have met the criteria of unsound mind.

It is important to note that the Law Commission used this language. We have been accused of deviating from the Law Commission Bill but it used this language and we have copied it to ensure that the liberty protection safeguards are compliant with the ECHR and that there is no gap with people not being covered. This could include people with learning disabilities, brain disorders or disorders of consciousness. In essence, the problem here is not this Bill. In a way, the Bill has a problem because of the language that has not been changed since its creation in the ECHR.

Therefore, although I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, new terminology would risk creating a gap for people between the ECHR and this proposed law, and we are all concerned to avoid such gaps. Any gap would require people to have recourse, instead, to the Court of Protection. Therefore, it is not the case that people would have no recourse; they would have recourse to the Court of Protection, but we know that the people being cared for and their families and carers can find that an intimidating and difficult process.

It is also important to note that the Court of Appeal has indicated that some people with certain forms of learning disability might not be considered mentally disordered under the definition put forward by the noble Baroness but would still be considered of unsound mind for the purposes of the convention. That is another reason why there is a risk of a gap. For example, there is a particular risk that some individuals with brain injuries, or certain disorders of consciousness, might fall within the gap.

At Second Reading I did say, earnestly, absolutely and honestly, that I wanted to take this away and consider it, because of the frankly unsatisfactory nature of the term when it comes to modern practice. We have also listened to the contributions of a range of stakeholders—a number of people are of course very interested in this, and not just in this House—and to the contributions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to see whether it is possible to use better language. I know this is not something the House will welcome, but I have concluded that, although the term is regrettable, there is a risk in using alternative language of creating a gap. Between those who would be captured under the definition suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—or, indeed, potentially any other definition—and those currently captured under the terminology “of unsound mind”—

General Practitioners: Indemnity Scheme

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 16th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the average GP paid indemnity costs that rose by 50% in a six-year period. That has had a knock-on effect of discouraging doctors from going into primary care and has been a factor in many leaving. It seems to me therefore that this is a matter of urgency, and so I am very pleased to hear that the scheme will be introduced in April next year. However, GPs are sorting out their indemnity insurance right now—they do it over the summer. What advice are the Minister and the Government giving GPs now to help them decide what the costs are? Given the shortage of GPs in this country, anything that the Secretary of State can do to encourage GPs into primary care would be a good thing.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I agree with the noble Baroness’s final point. Indeed, one reason for sorting out this scheme is that we know it is a barrier to people joining the profession and, unfortunately, encourages them to leave it. There is of course an urgency, but nevertheless it is a complex discussion with commercial partners. I can tell her that we are talking to GPs themselves and their representative organisations to make sure they understand what is at stake, what we intend to do and that we intend to introduce the new scheme in April.

NHS: Equitable Access

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 5th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that National Health Service patients have equitable access to the benefits of (1) artificial intelligence, (2) genomic medicine, (3) new drugs, and (4) innovative treatments.

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

My Lords, the NHS was founded on the principle of universal access and we are committed to making sure that that remains. To achieve this we are establishing a genomic medicine service to provide equitable access to testing across the NHS. We have commissioned the Topol review so that our staff can maximise patient benefits from technological advances and we are accelerating access to innovation across the country by expanding the role of academic health science networks.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, happy birthday to our NHS.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for his detailed Answer. My Question concerns the future in the next 70 years. One of the key barriers to ensuring that NHS patients have equitable access to genomic medicine, new drugs and innovative treatment is the pressure on the workforce and lack of protected time for the workforce to develop research and to translate new research into practice. Some 25% of medics do research in their own time. This suggests a welcome hunger for innovation, but only 0.1% of NHS money is set aside for the adoption and spread of innovation. That seems modest. With the new funding agreement and the 10-year plan in preparation, will the Government support and enable our research base and ensure the continuation of clinical trials across the EU post Brexit?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Question and join the whole House in wishing many happy returns to the NHS on its 70th birthday. She asked an extremely good question: how do we make sure that the NHS is equipped for the future and that everybody can benefit from the technological advances we are seeing take place? I point her in the direction of three issues. First, the National Institute for Health Research has more than £1 billion of funding and supports the translation of research into new technology every day. It is based in the NHS and uses NHS staff. I have also recently commissioned the department to look at the money spent on innovation, which we think is around £750 million in total, to make sure that it supports the uptake of effective medicines and treatments better than it does today, and to make sure that staff have time. Finally, in response to her last question, as we set out during the passage of the withdrawal Act, we will align ourselves to the clinical trials regulation as much as possible, whatever the outcome of Brexit.

Health: Endoscopy and Bowel Cancer

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of waiting times. The 62-day standard is unfortunately not being hit at the moment. The NHS has pledged to get back on that standard this year. We are also piloting a faster, 28-day diagnosis standard in five areas at the moment with the idea of rolling that out so that there is a higher standard of care and fewer people have to wait longer.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

We should probably be grateful that the Minister did not choose to bring a FIT as a visual aid, as his honourable friend did on the “Andrew Marr Show” yesterday. I welcome the Government’s announcement that that test will be in introduced in England in the autumn, but will the Minister confirm that all eligible people will receive the FIT kit in the autumn rather than through a phased introduction across England? How long will that take?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I will not be rummaging around in my pocket to reveal something; nobody wants to see that. My understanding is that FIT will be introduced from the autumn and the intention is to get national coverage. I do not believe that it will be achieved immediately, but I will write to the noble Baroness with the specific timeframe.

Hospices: Impact of NHS Pay Increases

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I will certainly do everything that I can. I agree that hospices are a fantastic example of the kind of mixed economy that this country does so well, with philanthropic and public contributions, and we must make sure that both those continue.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be aware that this affects not just hospices, which of course are an integral and very important part of the health service, but the pay of those who work in all the charities and social enterprises which contract with the NHS. I would like to broaden the Question slightly from hospices and ask what the Minister’s reaction is to the Royal College of Nursing, which has called on the Secretary of State to establish a non-NHS national staff council to facilitate a more integrated way of looking at the pay of all nurses and healthcare staff in health and social care settings across the piece.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I was not aware of that proposal but I will certainly look at it and write to the noble Baroness with our response.

Psychiatrists: Referral Fees

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to address concerns that psychiatrists treating patients suffering from addiction have been receiving referral fees from private clinics.

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

My Lords, the General Medical Council is the independent regulator of doctors in the United Kingdom. Its guidance is clear that doctors must not allow any financial interest to affect the way that they treat patients. The GMC is aware of the allegations in the media, will consider the evidence and, if it finds that doctors have breached its guidance, will take action. Serious or persistent failure to follow the GMC’s guidance may put a doctor’s registration at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Like many noble Lords, I am sure, I was alarmed to read allegations that people suffering from addiction were being used for what sounded like profiteering, which is absolutely against the rules. However, the wider issue seems to be that there is a shortage of mental health experts in the system at all levels and cuts in budgets, so there is vulnerability in the system that is being exploited. What are the Government doing to increase the number of psychiatrists and other physicians in mental health, and to increase funding given the amount lost in the mental health system?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

If these allegations are substantiated, there must obviously be serious consequences for the doctors concerned and clearly it is right that the GMC investigates that. In terms of the noble Baroness’s overall question, there is of course local authority-commissioned alcohol and drug treatment available; it does not need to be purchased privately. More generally, in terms of mental health support, she will know that there is a commitment to recruit 21,000 more mental health staff and that, through the new mental health investment standard, CCGs have to continue increasing their mental health spending year on year.

Abortion

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Our intention—that of the Government and the Northern Ireland Office—is to restore a power-sharing agreement and arrangement in Northern Ireland so that it will be up to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected officials to decide on abortion policy.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not meeting at the moment. This matter, which is the issue of the Question put by the noble Baroness, is not a devolved matter. Could the Minister give the House an indication of the Government’s response to the debate led by my honourable friend Stella Creasy in the Commons yesterday? A cross-party amendment will be tabled to the upcoming Domestic Violence Bill that will seek to decriminalise abortion across England, Wales and Northern Ireland through the repeal of Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. That is not a devolved matter.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I merely reiterate the point that abortion policy is a devolved matter. Indeed, that has been the policy of successive Governments of all hues. Of course, it is ultimately up to Parliament to make a decision, and any move that came from Parliament would emanate from within Parliament, from the Back Benches, on the basis of a free vote, as I set out in my first Answer.

Learning Disabilities Mortality Review

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating that briefing. He may find that the decision about the date of the publication was actually that of NHS England and, frankly, publishing it on the Friday before a bank holiday is either incompetent or shameful. However, seven years after the Winterbourne View scandal and five years since the avoidable death of Connor Sparrowhawk, the findings of this review show a much worse picture than previous reports about the early deaths of people with learning difficulties. One in eight of the deaths reviewed so far show there to have been abuse, neglect and delay in treatment and gaps in care. Women with a learning disability are dying 29 years younger, and men 23 years younger, than the general population; 28% of the deaths reviewed had occurred before the age of 50, compared with just 5% in the general population. This is a terrible situation.

I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, almost one in 10 of the people who have died have been in out-of-area placements, without the support of family, friends, or any local, familiar community support. The Government have repeatedly said that such placements must be avoided, so will the Minister tell the House what action is being taken to ensure that government statements and guidance on this matter are being followed? Secondly, will the Minister expand on the last part of the Statement, and tell us what action the Government are taking to address the alarming gap in life expectancy of people with learning difficulties?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions and agree with her that it is a troubling report; it paints a troubling picture of the shockingly poor outcomes that people with learning disabilities have in terms of their mortality and morbidity. I would not disagree with her about that picture and I will come to the actions we are taking to try and address it.

On the publication, I agree with her that the timing was less than ideal. The department did not have sight of it; it was an independent report commissioned by NHS England. We are investigating that, but I agree it was not done as it should have been and we will endeavour to ensure that this does not happen again. On the areas of policy that she referred to, on out-of-area placements there is a programme called Building the Right Support, which is trying to increase the amount of care delivered in community settings, bringing people with learning difficulties, disabilities and autism out of in-patient care to more suitable care in the community. The intention is to reduce the use of in-patient beds for people in mental health hospitals by 35% to 50% between March 2015 and March 2019. It is an attempt to locate much more of that care in the community.

The noble Baroness also asked about other actions we are taking to improve outcomes. I want to focus on the annual health checks that are now available for adults and young people from 14-plus years. That is happening every year. We know the use of these checks is increasing; it has increased by 17% year on year up to 2017-18. There is a real ambition to raise that further by 64% in 2018-19 compared to 2016-17. We know this group does not always feel equipped to come forward and bring health issues to the notice of the health system. It needs extra support; it needs people to be on their side, checking in with them to make sure their issues are addressed. I think this is one way in which we will make some difference.

Health: Cancer Nurses

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the shortage of more than 400 specialist cancer nurses reported by Macmillan Cancer Support.

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

My Lords, we welcome Macmillan Cancer Support’s report, which acknowledges the fact that the number of specialist cancer nurses has increased by nearly 1,000 full-time equivalent posts, or by 30%, since 2014. There is more to do, however, and Health Education England is working closely with Macmillan and the cancer alliances, so that we can achieve our aim that every cancer patient has access to a specialist cancer nurse by 2021.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. The census also pointed to the facts that there are vacancy rates as high as 15% for chemotherapy nurses in some areas, that the proportion of specialist cancer nurses who are over 50 years old continues to climb, and that almost one in 10 specialist cancer nurses comes from the European Union. We know that there has been a cliff edge for recruitment from the European Union. I want to ask two questions. First, will the Minister assure the House that this census will be used by the Department of Health and Social Care, Health Education England and the cancer alliances to inform their strategic workforce planning? Secondly, will he explain what steps the department has taken to assess the level of funding required to deliver the recommendations contained in the Cancer Workforce Plan, including the long-term strategy?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is quite right that the Macmillan report highlights some challenges around vacancy rates and the age profile of cancer nurse specialists. It was explicitly set out in the cancer workforce strategy that it would have a phase 2 of planning once the census had been published. This census has been published, so there is an absolute commitment by Health Education England to work with Macmillan and the cancer alliances to bottom out how many more staff are required to meet the standard that we have set out—for every patient to see a cancer nurse specialist by 2021—and how many extra people we would need to recruit for that, and therefore to deliver the funding that would enable that to happen.

NHS: Artificial Intelligence

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question and congratulate him and the rest of the committee on the excellent report, AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able?, which has a substantial chapter on AI’s application in healthcare. The potential to transform every element of health and care is susceptible to artificial intelligence. A couple of areas outside the clinical setting that I would highlight are workforce planning and triaging patients between different forms of care. As for support, in addition to the items in my first Answer, I highlight the work of the Topol review, which is designed to make sure that staff are fully equipped and trained to take advantage of these technologies as they come through the system, rather than letting them sit with a few early adopters and not becoming more widespread in the NHS.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is quite clear that the use of big data and AI will have transformative outcomes for patients. There are at least two challenges. The first is investment, which the Minister has already mentioned. What framework of accountability and transparency is in place to deal with that level of investment? How will we know whether it is being sensibly invested? The second is safeguarding and protecting data, and I use my local hospital as an example. A partnership between Google DeepMind and the Royal Free Hospital trust resulted in a breach of the Data Protection Act and the personal data of more than 1.6 million patients was transferred to the Google subsidiary as part of the creation of Streams, an app to diagnose and detect acute kidney injury—which we would, of course, all support. This suggests inexperienced procurement and negotiation skills in the NHS and the potential for the Googles of this world to run rings round them, to all our detriment. What are the Government doing to safeguard patients and their data?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The case the noble Baroness highlighted brings to the fore both the potential benefits and risks. There are tremendous benefits in having personalised healthcare, and we all want to see that delivered. At the same time, if data is not used safely and securely we lose the public’s trust. If we do not have that trust, we will not be able to get the changes that we want. The Government respect the decisions made by the Information Commissioner and National Data Guardian in their judgments about poor practice at the Royal Free. I am pleased to say that the hospital has responded well to these. We are doing a couple of things to make more systematic changes. First is implementing the proper data standards of the GDPR in one month’s time. We will also make sure that National Data Guardian’s 10 data standards are written into every NHS contract so that, when it comes to procurement, there is understanding about the kind of things they should and should not be doing to safeguard data.

NHS: Staff Pay

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I agree with his final statements, but never has it taken so long to get to this point of a pay increase. I do not wish to sound ungracious but the pay increase is too little, too late. The cap has meant that NHS wages have fallen by 14%. Last summer, the Prime Minister told a nurse on television that a pay rise would need a “magic money tree”; I am very glad that it seems to have been found.

The NHS is now short of 100,000 staff. In part, that must be because of this Government’s neglect of the NHS workforce. Exacerbating this situation is the chronic shortage of nursing and other staff in nursing care homes, with a 16% decrease in the number of registered nurses in the care sector since 2012. Then, there is Brexit and its damage to NHS staffing. Given that the Secretary of State now has responsibility for social care as well as health, will we see a joined-up staffing strategy for NHS and care workers? Can the Minister assure the House that, to pay for the proposed increase, the Treasury has said that it will fully match any proposed rise with new money?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her perhaps less than fulsome welcome for what is a fantastic deal, not least for the lowest paid staff in the NHS, some of whom will see very significant pay rises. They certainly deserve them; I do not think anyone disagrees with that. We have been able to find the additional money in the NHS budget to do this precisely because of good economic stewardship, rather than relying—as others would—on trees, magic or otherwise. That stewardship has meant that we have been able to provide the money while taking our fiscal responsibilities seriously.

The noble Baroness mentioned the joined-up staffing strategy. She is absolutely right that it is very important. I hope she knows that Health Education England has included work on the social care workforce in its draft strategy. We all understand that we need increasingly to view these workforces together—not just people such as nurses, who can work in both sectors, but carers and allied health professionals and so on. Frankly, there is more work to do on the social care workforce strategy. In the health service, we are starting from a lower base in terms of having a national picture, precisely because it is generally delivered locally. However, we are providing that strategy. I would encourage all parties who want to make sure that the strategy is joined-up to contribute their ideas, because there is a genuine willingness to make sure that we can do it.

Abortion: Misoprostol

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. No timeframe has been set for any decision on a policy change. She will understand that any change of policy would need to be done cautiously, in the light of the evidence and of legal developments—for example, relating to Scotland’s decision to name homes as a place. It is on that basis that we will consider any further evidence.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, if women in Norway, France and now Scotland can take this drug at home, not in a clinical setting, with careful safeguards and support in place—I have looked at what has happened in Scotland, and there is no doubt about that at all—it is important that the Government should afford the same facility to women in England. I would like the Minister to perhaps go further than he has now and say that there will be a timetable for this to happen.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

In terms of the experiences in other countries, of course only the countries of the UK are operating under the auspices and obligations of the 1967 Act, which any Government would have to act under. The Scottish Government have made that decision, but the noble Baroness will know that it is subject to a dispute and that a judicial review has been brought against it by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which is obviously testing the legality of the Scottish Government and their powers to act. We shall look closely at developments in these legal proceedings, as well as any other evidence that arises. Unfortunately, this is why I am not in a position to give her a timetable.

Children and Young People: Mental Health Services

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that response and Statement. What emerges from the Care Quality Commission’s review of children and young people’s mental health is the glaring finding, to which he has not referred, that children are suffering because of high eligibility thresholds. We know that 50% of mental health problems develop before the age of 14, and 75% develop before the age of 18. Does the Minister recognise that imposing high eligibility thresholds means that children and young people are treated only when their condition becomes very serious? Will he look into the referral criteria as a matter of urgency so that children and young people are getting proper treatment at the right time, thereby preventing a crisis that brings greater suffering for those children and their families, and greater expense for the health service?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. On the issue of high eligibility thresholds, we are grappling with a need to expand the amount of mental health services that can be provided. Currently, about one in four children with a diagnosable mental health condition accesses NHS services. That is clearly not enough and the intention is to get that figure to one in three by 2021. Again, that is not enough but it would be progress. There is a need to move along the path, dealing first with those in the most acute trouble and then rolling out to those with less acute conditions. I agree with the noble Baroness’s point and recognise the issue. However, this cannot achieved overnight, not least because a huge number of new staff are needed to be trained in order to deliver that. We are looking at the issue of referral criteria. I should also point out to her that we have made big steps forward on waiting times and new standards for early intervention in psychosis and eating disorders. We are piloting a waiting time for access to specialist help and hope that that will start to move things along in terms of more children being seen more quickly, which is what we all want.

General Practitioners: Workforce

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank my noble friend for her question. It is interesting to note, looking at the figures, that the total number of retirees from general practice has been falling in recent years, which is very welcome, even though in the past few years there has been an increase in the number taking early retirement. As for entering general practice, that is how we need to get more GPs. The number of training places has increased to a record 3,250, which is an 18% increase over the past three years. Finally, on certification, mutual recognition of professional qualifications is of course a matter for negotiation as part of our future relationship with the EU. However, I can tell my noble friend that the Government are committed, under whatever circumstances, to recruit 2,000 international GPs in the coming years.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of a CCG. GPs are indeed retiring before the age of 60; in fact, last year, twice as many retired as three years ago. More GPs are leaving the profession than are joining it, and soaring numbers of junior doctors are leaving the NHS after their two-year foundation training. How do the Government intend to fill the failing pipeline of junior doctors, and would the Minister care to speculate why there is a flood of departing junior doctors right now? Could it be due to junior doctors’ rock-bottom level of morale after their shabby treatment by the Secretary of State?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness might be interested to note that in 2014, the number of GPs in specialty training was 2,671, and in 2017, it was 3,157—an increase of nearly 400. That is how we are filling the places.

NHS: Waiting Lists

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the waiting lists for consultant-led NHS treatment; and to what timetable they intend to carry out such plans.

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

My Lords, the joint NHS England and NHS Improvement plans for 2018-19, published on 2 February 2018, set out how £1.6 billion of funding announced in the Autumn Budget will be spent on additional elective surgery as well as ensuring that the four-hour A&E waiting times standard is met. The guidance refreshes two-year plans already in place to improve waiting times performance.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Waiting lists at the end of November 2017 stood at 3.72 million. The head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, says that at present waiting lists will grow to 5 million by 2021, and the Minister’s Answer is inadequate in solving that problem. Does he agree with the findings of the Royal College of Physicians research that shows among other things that 45% of advertised consultants’ posts remain unfilled, 82% believe that the workforce is demoralised and 74% are worried about their ability to deliver safe patient care in the next 12 months? What are the Government’s plans to deal with this crisis in an NHS that is underfunded, underdoctored and overstretched?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

It is absolutely our goal and obligation to return to the referral-to-treatment standard. It is worth pointing out that the NHS has been dealing with an annual growth in demand of around 4%, which is extraordinary when looked at historically. What we have seen in the plan set out a few weeks ago are important steps to get a grip on that, including halving the number of 52-week waits, halting the growth in the waiting list and delivering more every year. Clearly that is an interim step and more needs to be done; the way to achieve that is by continuing to provide real-terms increases, which we have done and will continue to do, and by dramatically increasing the number of staff in the NHS, which again we have done. We have also increased the number of training places.

Disabled People: Social Care

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am very aware of this issue. Indeed, we have had the opportunity to speak about it in specific cases. Local authorities of course are obliged to provide respite care. The noble Baroness highlights an important point about care, which seems in a way to slip between the boundaries of the two. I shall write to her about the general policy work that is going on, but I know that we need to solve this because we have children who are now living longer who before might not have lived so long and who require care, as do their families. It is essential that they get the care that they deserve.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister will tell me and the House again about the extra billions that the Government are putting into social care. However, when everyone else says that there is clearly a social care crisis, we have some dissonance here. The evidence of this crisis is the regression of opportunity and care for young disabled people, which is there to see in personal cases where people are not receiving the sort of support that they need. I am not convinced about the Green Paper looking at social care for older people. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is right—that makes me more concerned, and I join her in that concern. Will the Minister explain how the Government will achieve their target of 1 million more disabled people being in work by 2027 if they cannot get out of bed and travel to work without help because of this combination of cuts and the stalling of a coherent support policy to make that possible?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I do not want to disappoint the noble Baroness, but she is aware that more money is going in. To address the specific issue that she talks about—and I obviously can talk about it only from the point of view of the Department of Health—we want and are seeing more disabled people going into work. I would point to one big investment that the Department of Health is making, which is the disabled facilities grant. That is about making sure that disabled people can live at home and have their independence, which of course is critical to maintaining their physical health and confidence to make them, in a way, ready to go into work. I know that there are other programmes being put through job centres and the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that they are supported, too.

NHS: Winter Crisis

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is quite right to highlight the issue of bed occupancy; it is very high. The service managed to get it down below 85% before Christmas but inevitably it has risen since then. There is a big improvement in delayed transfers of care; we need that to continue to happen, and it was welcome that the Secretary of State for local government announced more funding for social care so that we can increase those transfers into social care and free up space in hospitals.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, following the noble Baroness’s question about bed occupancy, it is absolutely true that in 30 of the last 70 days in the winter period occupancy has been above 95%, which is dangerous. Some hospitals are at 100%. Was that part of the winter plan that the Minister assures us was timely and thorough? Will he accept that the winter plans have now been compromised in the light of pressure on beds, lack of staff and the fact that at least 23 trusts are now on black alert, which means that they are under very severe pressure?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I agree with the noble Baroness that bed occupancy is higher than we want it to be and in some hospitals it is far too high. The question, of course, is what we do about that. It necessitated the difficult decision, for which the Prime Minister apologised, to cancel non-urgent elective surgery. Happily, that has not been repeated and rolled forward into February. We think and hope that the situation with flu, in particular, has stabilised and that that will start to relieve the pressure. I absolutely understand the hard work that staff are having to put in under tremendous pressure and I know that we all appreciate that.

NHS Winter Crisis

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement. Before I ask my questions, I also thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their responses to the United States President’s bizarre attack on our NHS.

Over 95% of hospital beds were full last week, leaving just one bed in 20 available. We saw the highest number of accident and emergency diverts for any week this winter, with 43 incidents across England. I pay tribute to our NHS staff, who have gone the extra mile in very challenging circumstances. We know that 50,000 elective operations were planned to be cancelled, but it would seem that some urgent operations have been cancelled, too. Will the Minister explain to the House why those operations have been cancelled, despite NHS England’s advice to the contrary?

It would also now seem that the accident and emergency targets that are enshrined in legislation and the constitution have been abandoned until March—that is, March 2019. Will the Government bring forward legislation to amend the constitution? Finally, will the Minister accept that the winter plans that have been outlined are now being compromised in the light of the fact that at least 23 trusts are now on black alert, which means that they are under severe pressure?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I agree with her that we are all proud of our NHS, on all sides of this House, and I am sure that we all have great pleasure in stating that through whatever means we are required to. I also join with her in paying tribute to the staff, who do such a fantastic job, often in challenging circumstances.

She asked first about urgent operations. It is clear in the guidance that they should not be cancelled when it would negatively affect patients’ outcomes. If that has happened, NHS England is investigating and reinstating those operations. The guidance is quite clear and NHS England has followed that up.

As for A&E targets, we know that they have not been achieved recently. It is important and instructive to look at the extraordinary increase, not just in winter but overall, in the number of episodes that are happening. They really are increasing at a very high rate. Demand is very high—higher than I think could have been anticipated—and it is a credit to the NHS that it has produced the performance that it has. The aim now, with funding given at the Budget, is to get us back to the four-hour target that we all agree ought to happen. That is what will be happening over the coming year.

NHS: Clinical Negligence

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I point the noble Baroness in the direction of a five-year strategy that was published by NHS Resolution, the body that acts on behalf of what used to be the NHS Litigation Authority. The strategy looked at many issues, not only how we can prevent escalation. One of the drivers of cost is unsuccessful claims; more of those are going on. It also looked at how we can reduce incidents in the first place and learn from deaths and injury throughout the system, so that we can start to reduce the burden overall.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is telling that if you google “clinical negligence”, the first four or five pages that come up are companies offering their services to support people making claims. According to the Medical Protection Society report last year, the annual costs to the NHS in England of settling clinical negligence claims was equivalent to training 6,500 doctors. That is expected to double by 2023, so the noble Lord is quite right that this is a terrible drain. I am very pleased to hear that the Government have plans to reduce the number of claims. Have they included taking into account the recommendations in the PAC report published at the end of last year?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

We absolutely have. Indeed, the PAC investigation and the National Audit Office report on this issue are very thorough and looked at the causes and drivers behind it. One is increased NHS activity—not worse safety but the fact that the NHS is doing more. The investigation also looked at the legal environment and some of the changes that have occurred. The noble Baroness is right: a number of firms offer these services. That is important for access to justice but we also need to fix the costs that they can claim so that we get this budget under control.

Public Health: Strength and Balance Programme

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 18th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out the benefits of physiotherapy. She might be aware of a scheme in Middlesbrough that is providing for people who have fallen a precise pathway from physio into community activities involving strength and balance work. As ever, one of the challenges is to make sure that all local authorities know about such programmes and put them in place. They are not necessarily expensive, but they take a bit of time. I will make sure that Public Health England is taking that attitude of spreading good practice across the country.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, NICE’s most recent and excellent quality statements in January 2017 offer guidance on falls and the importance of multifactorial risk assessments and interventions. These interventions require resources, particularly from social care specialists and public health workers, who we know are at the sharp end because of the financial pressure the Government have put on local authority funding and the successive reductions of public health budgets. Now that the Secretary of State has responsibility for social care, will he therefore ensure that strength and balance programmes are properly resourced? When will NICE next update its statistics on the uptake of guidance on this matter?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I will write to the noble Baroness with specifics on the NICE guidelines, which are incredibly important because they establish best practice. Of course, it is then incumbent on professionals to follow that best practice. We know that public health budgets have been under pressure, but local authorities are still getting £16 billion over five years. That is a lot of money and they can use some of it to focus on such activities. Moreover, in the spring Budget last year, there were big increases in the social care budget, which I know we all welcomed. That money is particularly focused on older people and preventing falls, which is what we want to see as part of that programme too.

Agency Nurses

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The number of those nurses has fallen—as have the numbers in mental health, which is worth pointing out—and we are trying to address this. I think I made a slip of the tongue a moment ago when I said that £5,000 more will be spent each year on training nurses; I meant that there will be 5,000 more student nursing places.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Question further teases out the sometimes expensive inadequacies in workforce planning in our NHS. Under the circumstances of the winter crisis and the 40,000-nurse shortfall, clearly trusts have no choice sometimes but to take on agency staff in specialist and other services—and this is expensive. Does the Minister expect that the late funding made available for the winter crisis will be spent largely in this way? Will his department penalise trusts for using agency staff in this way?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is quite right that agency staff are sometimes used to fill vacancies—about nine out of 10 vacancies are filled in that way. The key is to make sure that they are used in a proper, planned way that is not expensive. The point about the “break glass” clause is that the rules that exist to cap agency spend can be broken where there is a need and where that need is approved by the trust for patient safety purposes. That is an important feature of the system.

NHS Winter Crisis

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 8th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I am pleased to see that he is still with us and in his place at this time. I wish him a very happy and prosperous new year. I question the idea that the Government and the NHS were prepared for this winter crisis. It seems to me that, if extra funding was made available in November and December, that does not smack of preparedness at all. I was very struck and somewhat chilled yesterday by what Andrew Marr said to the Prime Minister on his show. He said that had he experienced, when he had his stroke, the kind of five-hour delay experienced by Leah Butler-Smith and her mother, he would not have survived. I invite the Minister to have a stab at making a better job of answering that question today. What would he say to those whose lives have been put at risk by this winter crisis?

Will the Government be making available to us an analysis of the impact on patients, and the lives cost, of a combination of: 55,000 cancelled operations; 75,000 people held in ambulances; overstretched accident and emergency departments, with people on trolleys and even on the floor; up to 90% bed occupancy, which is very dangerous; a shortage of GPs; and inadequate social care due to the starving of funding to local authorities over a long period? When will we know what the impact of this has been on people? When will the Government properly fund and manage the winter stresses in our NHS?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes, and I wish her and all noble Lords a happy new year. She asked several questions, and I will try to deal with them all. Her first question was about being well prepared. Those were the words of Sir Bruce Keogh from NHS England, not mine. I should also point out that Keith Willett, the director for acute care for NHS England, said that the service is better prepared than ever. Of course, that does not mean that there are not challenges. We know that this happens every year.

One of the ways that we see challenges happen is that there are cancelled elective procedures. I have been looking back over the data for the past 20 years. In quarter 4 of each year—January to March—those cancellations do happen. In fact, I was looking back at 2000-01 and there were 24,000 cancelled or postponed operations that year, which is actually one of the highest over that period. These things do happen during winter, and that is one of the ways of coping. The Prime Minister has apologised for that, and I endorse that. Of course, it is not a state of affairs that we want to happen, but it is necessary to make sure that the most urgent cases are treated. It should be pointed out that the direction about elective procedures made it clear that time-critical procedures around cancer operations and others can go ahead. We will see over time what the impact of that was.

I will mention one other thing about preparedness. The noble Baroness talked about bed occupancy. Of course, we know that high levels of bed occupancy are a concern. Bed occupancy was below the target of 85% going into this period—on Christmas Eve it was 84.2%, I believe—so that was put in place. We know it is going to be challenging. We know that flu is going to continue to have an impact over the next few weeks, and we will see what we can do, but we know that the NHS has put in unprecedented levels of preparation to make sure that we can get through what is always a difficult period.

NHS: EEA Doctors

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I recognise that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there has been uncertainty. That is why I am sure that the entire House will welcome the agreement reached last Friday to provide that certainty, and I encourage all noble Lords to look at and circulate the letter written by the Prime Minister to EU citizens explaining how much we value them, how much we want them to stay and how we have now agreed with the EU a process for doing that. The noble Baroness will be interested to know, as I am sure will other noble Lords, that there were 470 more EU doctors working in the NHS in June 2017 compared to June the year before—so, happily, we have not seen the exodus that so many people have warned about. We need to grow more of our own in the future, of course, and there are 1,500 training places for doctors coming on stream in September 2019, but I shall certainly look at the issue that she raises about providing opportunities for doctors—not least refugees; that issue has been raised with me—to upgrade their qualifications so that they can serve in the NHS.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister guarantee, if the Government sort out the immigration status of EU medical staff in a timely fashion, that this will be with the retention of existing workers’ legal rights such as the working time regulations and related employment directives in UK law for the current and future workforce?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I think I may have detected a qualified welcome from the noble Baroness for the achievements of last year in providing that reassurance. Clearly, we want to make sure that there is the best possible working environment for our medical staff, wherever they come from, and that involves, as the Prime Minister has set out, having world-leading employment rights.

Brexit: Health Policy

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank my noble friend for mentioning the sector deal. There are some big announcements in it on investments and creating growth and jobs in the UK, which is a huge endorsement of our leading role as a life sciences hub throughout the world. We have said that we want a continued relationship with EMA. The MHRA, our sovereign regulator, makes a huge contribution, by both approving licences for medicines and issuing safety notices. It is our intention as we move to the next phase of talks that we will have that kind of relationship going forward with the EMA.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, to follow on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there is great anxiety in the medical research and clinical worlds about research, medical trials, the regulatory framework and access to drugs, including new drugs. Can the Minister give the House a categorical guarantee today that UK patient access to crucial drugs will be maintained and that this access will not be restricted in any way when the UK leaves the European Union?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The Secretary of State has set out very clearly that patients should not be disadvantaged as a result of the new arrangements, whatever they may be. Clearly, those new arrangements will be a matter for negotiation, but we will make sure that patients are not disadvantaged and that the industry can continue to get its drugs and devices to the UK market as quickly as it does now.

Nurses and Midwives: Numbers

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Monday 4th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the report of the Nursing and Midwifery Council published on 2 November which found that the number of nurses and midwives joining its register from the European Union had dropped by 89 per cent over the last year, how they plan to make good the anticipated shortfall.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government value immensely the contribution of EU staff working across the NHS and social care systems. We are committed to ensuring a clear pathway to permanent residency for these EU citizens. The figures in the NMC report represent a 0.2% decrease in those currently registered. Meanwhile, there are more nurses on our wards since last year. Numbers will increase because of a 25% increase in training places.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that response, although I think it borders on the complacent. I asked this Question because the statistics are very stark and concerning. Although we know that registration of UK-based nurses is falling—by 9% last year—the decrease from the European Union varies between 70% and 95%. That means that instead of there being 1,966 nurses from Spain, for example, the number has dropped to 104 in the last year. The numbers from Poland have dropped from 305 to 34. Even from Ireland the numbers have dropped, from 381 to 204. That looks, with winter looming, like a crisis might be looming. Given that it takes at least three years or so to train nurses and midwives, I return to my Question: how will the Government make up the immediate shortfall and replace those nurses and midwives that come to us from the European Union?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a need for more nurses. That is why we are introducing more training places and new routes into nursing, such as the nursing apprenticeship. I know that she is particularly concerned about EU national nurses and health visitors. I think noble Lords will be reassured that between June 2016 and June 2017, there was an overall 5% increase in the total number of staff from the EU within the NHS, which is welcome. The one area, as I said, that has fallen marginally—by about 162 in practice—is in nursing and health visitors. That was significantly due to the new language test that was introduced. That is something that the NMC is looking at to make sure we are getting nurses capable of practising in this country to come here.

HIV Prevention Services: Public Health Funding

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 30th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I did not know about the closures that the noble Baroness mentioned. I reiterate that more tests are taking place. Indeed there has been a substantial decrease in the amount of new diagnoses, which is good news because it means that transmission is falling. We want to focus on the outcomes here, which are positive, particularly in London. She is of course quite right about other STIs being important. There is good news there as well, because diagnosis is falling, so some of the public health plans being put into place are starting to pay dividends.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, who is quite right, the facts are that there was a 28% decrease in HIV support services between 2015 and 2017, and in London that is 35%. Combine that with the local government public health cuts of £200 million this year and the wider impact that will have on all sexual health services. Does the Minister agree that the long-term implications of this reduction in services could have serious implications for both individuals—some of whom, perhaps, have not been diagnosed with HIV—and specific vulnerable communities? Can he commit to bring to the House an assessment of the impact of these reductions in services and expenditure?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The data that the noble Baroness refers to on spending also shows that STI testing and treatment in general has risen year on year. There is clearly still an improvement of the picture in the amount of testing and treatment. As I pointed out, the benefit of that is that fewer people are being diagnosed, which means transmission levels are falling due not just to testing but to other factors, including good treatment and preventive work. Indeed, the number of undiagnosed people is falling as well. This is all good news.

Brexit: Mental Health Research Funding

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the European Commission made it very clear in October 2017 that British researchers funded under Horizon 2020 programmes will lose access to their grants in the future. Given that the EU is the largest single funder of mental health research in Europe and that the UK is a net gainer, will the Minister inform the House when we will see the plans to ensure that the UK remains a leading contributor and beneficiary of European-wide mental health research?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

As I said, we continue to bid for funds that we can draw down, and the Government are committed to underwriting any successful bids as part of the Horizon 2020 programme. Our intention is to continue in that programme. Obviously, if that is not the case, we will have funding available to support health research in this area, but our intention is to continue with the partnership that has proved so fruitful.

Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord O'Shaughnessy

Thursday 16th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I realise that the House is working him hard today, but he has the comfort of a huge department to provide his brief for him. In some ways, that underlines the dilemma that he and the Government face on this issue. This report has caused such dismay and disbelief among campaigners, and every MP who spoke in the Commons, that it requires the Government to use their critical faculties, listen to what is being said across the piece and look again at the report, its genesis and its lack of transparency.

I have two questions. First, will the Minister explain why Marie Lyon was told:

“I could go to prison if I divulge what was discussed”?


Does he agree that that is about as far away from transparency as it is possible to get?

Secondly, the draft of the report, which was published in October, stated that:

“Limitations of the methodology of the time and the relative scarcity of the evidence means it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion”.


That sentence was removed from the final version. Why was it removed, why was there a delay of a month and did the Minister speak to the authors of the report about the sentence before its removal?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. The most important thing to stress is that this report was the product of an expert working group of scientists and included an independent member in Nick Dobrik, who is a noted thalidomide campaigner and certainly not a government yes man. The chair of the families group, Mrs Lyon, was an observer. We are beholden to take the evidence of those who are best qualified and who have given their view on what link there may or may not have been between these pregnancy tests and the abnormalities. The conclusion they have come to is that, in their view, there is no causal association on the basis of the evidence they were able to consider.

The noble Baroness asked about transparency. Every single member of the expert working group signed a confidentiality agreement. That is common to all such groups in the Commission on Human Medicines. Mrs Lyon was not alone in that. That expires at the point of publication, so she is now absolutely free to say whatever she wants, as indeed is any other member. I can reassure her that there was no particular or unusual treatment for her compared to other members of the panel or to other panels that have operated in similar ways. The minutes of all the meetings will be published. As the Statement pointed out, the full evidence set will also be published, once it has gone through due diligence.

Changes to the draft were suggested by the Commission on Human Medicines and accepted by the expert working group. There was no interference from me or anyone else—it was a discussion between those two bodies. The report was unfortunately delayed. That was in order to make sure that it was as clear and as digestible as possible for non-experts. I think the report is a very thorough and comprehensible piece of work. I recognise that it is not the response that families were looking for. In some cases, they have experienced horrendous events—they have either lost babies or, in some cases, their children have extremely severe deformities—but I come back to the point that the task of the group was to look at whether there was a causal association. The group had scientific expertise. It has given its advice, and we are following it and the recommendations that it made.