Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

I can quite understand the Minister saying that he cannot see that. However, is there not a danger that members of the public will not see it that way? If this amendment were to be adopted, it would send a clear message to the public that clinical judgment is outside the scope of the general provision. Is that not something worth achieving? I cannot see that it costs anything in terms of the Government’s policy and its implementation. However, it sends a clearer signal not just to the profession but to those who might feel that they should have recourse to the law when it has resulted from clinical judgment. It would be better to make that clear from the outset in the legislation.

[Earl Howe]

I come back to my earlier point: the bar is set high here because wilful neglect has to involve ill treatment that was intentional or reckless. The courts have traditionally interpreted that in a very narrow way, which is as it should be. I say this again and on advice: we do not believe that a doctor exercising his or her clinical judgment would fall within the scope of that offence.

I should make a couple of other points here. Amendment 33 refers only to “a registered medical practitioner”. The implication of that would be that other types of healthcare professionals exercising clinical judgement would not be excluded because they are not specified. So, for example, a triage nurse working in an A&E department would have very reasonable cause for concern about the kind of clinical judgments that they have to make perhaps not being outside the scope of the offence, because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill. Clearly, I would not want to create that kind of confusion and I am sure that the noble Lord would not either.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government have worked hard to ensure that a whole range of issues and concerns were properly considered in the formulation of the new offence of ill treatment or wilful neglect. In particular, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lords on their specific concerns and that she will now feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Mesothelioma

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Thursday 5th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register. Section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 requires the Government to review the application to mesothelioma claims of the provisions banning conditional fees. The Government have announced that, in the light of a consultation as yet unpublished, they will not treat those cases differently from other claims. They seek to conflate this issue with entirely different provisions in the Mesothelioma Bill.

Is the Minister aware that the Civil Justice Council has been unable to agree whether the current consultation,

“fulfils the conditions set out in Section 48 of LASPO”?

Is this not another example of the Government cravenly caving in to the demands of their friends in the insurance industry and ignoring the strong feelings of this House in support of those suffering from this terrible disease?

[Earl Howe]

I am sure that the noble Lord wants to take advantage of this opportunity to raise that particular issue, but it is a rather different one from the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. However, I will take his question away and ensure that a letter is sent to him in response.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

That is absolutely true. Neither is the provision of information and advice. However, it is not necessarily the role of a professionally qualified social worker or a professionally qualified health visitor or other person. I agree—it is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and I both made—that both sides, health and social work, must collaborate on this. It is perhaps the wording of the amendment, rather than the intention, that might be looked at.

There is a question about how best to proceed with the publicity that should follow the enactment of this legislation. The Joint Committee advised that the Government should work with all interested providers to launch a campaign to raise awareness of and support for the change. I hope that the noble Earl will confirm that that is the Government’s intention and bring us up to date on where the Government stands.

In the context of such a radical change, it might be desirable for there to be some pilots on the ground about this issue of information and advice, working in collaboration with the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation and other major national partners, to look at how these matters can best be explained. There could also be, at a fairly early stage, some examination of good practice. I am not suggesting that the whole scheme be piloted but that in a few areas, after a relatively short period, there might be a process of peer review and an examination of how it is working on the ground. Given that local authorities retain their scrutiny role for health and social care, it would be worth while developing with the Centre for Public Scrutiny, the LGA and relevant health service bodies, a way for the new system to be subjected to useful scrutiny at local level, and for lessons learnt to be disseminated across the country.

There are questions about the advocacy role. There is clearly a case for advocacy being included. One notes that there is a glancing reference in Clause 8, which is the reason for the stand part debate. It looks a little odd situated between Clause 4 and Clauses 18 and 20, as it does not seem to relate specifically to either. It has been mischievously suggested that there might have been references to advocacy in other parts of the Bill at an earlier stage that were removed and this was left behind. Can the noble Earl indicate the Government’s intention in referring to advocacy in that particular clause? We are not intending to move that the clause should not remain in the Bill; this is purely a probe.

We see most of these amendments as contributing to a refinement of the Bill’s proposals and we welcome that. However, it is necessary to reiterate the need for caution about the role of local authorities, particularly in the context of the financial situation that they are facing, which will get worse under a very tight regime. The Government are making provision for this, but we must be careful that the sum is not divvied up across a range of things without seeing the whole picture. If we are to give priority to this issue of information and advice, it would be helpful if the relevant departments, together with the Local Government Association, could look at the real cost of this and ensure that it is identified and included within the total package. It is easy to add desirable things against a budget. We do not know the extent to which these matters have been costed, for example, in the sum that the Government have allocated. We know that the demand is constantly rising, partly as a result of demographic change, and that the costs are also inexorably rising. This will be a cost. It is a justifiable cost, but it needs to be identified, provided for and kept under review.

Having said that, we are very much in sympathy with the thrust of these amendments and we look forward to the Minister’s reply and to working with others of your Lordships’ House in ensuring that the Bill is capable of delivering what it sets out to deliver and that all relevant players are engaged and financed adequately, so that we can afford the best possible level of care to those—of any age and with any condition —who need it.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments, which highlight the importance of access to good information and advice, including independent financial advice and independent advocacy, for those who have care and support needs or are planning how to meet future care and support needs.

First, I will address Amendment 82B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, Amendment 86E, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and Amendment 86F, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Clause 4 introduces a general duty to make a universal information and advice service available to everyone in the local community. I say to my noble friend Lord Sharkey in particular that we are clear that the information and advice service must be accessible to all, whether they fund their own care or get some care and support paid for by the local authority, and in order to fulfil its duty the local authority will need to facilitate access. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised the issue of early information and advice about Alzheimer’s in particular; this will be one of the vital areas that the services should cover.

The clause deals broadly with what the information and advice service must cover. Subsection (2) sets out the essential requirements for the service but— intentionally—this is not a definitive list. With regard to Amendments 86B and 86H, subject to specific qualifications, it will be for local authorities to determine the precise scope and manner of the information and advice that they offer. We expect many authorities to offer access to independent sources of information and advice, working together locally with the voluntary, not-for-profit and private sectors. We set out our expectations and additional funding for local authorities, which rises to £50 million a year by 2017-18, in the Caring for Our Future White Paper.

I would say to my noble friend Lady Browning that some authorities have also used qualified social care staff as the first point of contact and have found that this can be effective, efficient and timely, helping people to the care and support that will help them most. Others have provided a first point of access to information through more general services, which connect information and advice on a wider range of local authority responsibilities as well as local NHS provision.

I emphasise that statutory guidance will cover how information and advice can be provided in an accessible way and be proportionate to the needs of those for whom it is provided. My noble friend Lord Sharkey expressed doubts about the phrase “seek to” and suggested that it was rather too weak. Statutory guidance will set out the clear expectations of what the local authority’s service should cover or what it should seek to do in order to ensure that the information and advice is sufficient.

My noble friend Lady Browning asked about the number of social workers. More than 1.6 million people are employed in the social care sector, including 200,000 social workers. We do not set out any national targets but we recognise the need to improve skills, capacity and retention. We are working with stakeholders, including the National Skills Academy for Social Care and Skills for Care, to produce new national minimum training standards, which will further raise standards and encourage new people to enter the sector. My noble friend referred to my letter of 27 June. I confirm that this referred to Health Education England. Health Education England’s remit does not extend to social care; it covers health and public health.

Amendments 83ZA and 86A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, cover information and advice on health-related areas and information to people with specific medical conditions. As for many services, there will be a need for the local authorities to work with NHS organisations and more widely to provide focused information and advice to those who would benefit from it. There are already good examples of how information and advice services from a range of organisations can work together with the health and well-being of the individual at heart. Many use the national information provided by NHS Choices as a base. A lot of local authorities are providing information and advice directly to those who may have an entitlement to NHS continuing care. In addition, regulations under the Bill will specify the circumstances in which the local authority must refer the adult for an assessment for NHS continuing care. We will of course work with interested organisations to include such examples in statutory guidance.

Turning to the amendments addressing access to regulated financial advice, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, make some excellent points about the importance of appropriate financial advice for those who have or are planning for care and support needs. This kind of advice may be particularly relevant to people who are funding their own care and may include a financial adviser who is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, but there is no need for the Bill to set this out specifically. There are other kinds of advice that may be relevant to such people and, as I have mentioned, we think it is important to maintain the general terms of Clause 4.

I take on board the concern about the use of the term “independent financial advice”—that this may cause some confusion with the term’s general meaning within the financial industry and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We are happy to consider this aspect in more detail to ensure that no confusion exists. However, we do not believe that taking independent regulated advice should be compulsory. Whether a person takes advantage of independent advice is a matter of personal choice. This is particularly important because some financial advice may be subject to a charge.

There will be individual circumstances in which it will be appropriate to recommend independent advice from a regulated financial adviser, such as when people are planning to meet future care needs or when people go into residential care and are weighing up financial options such as selling the home. The fact that an organisation or individual is regulated is in itself no guarantee that the person has knowledge or experience of wider care and support issues; for example, housing or other care-related options. All this makes the adult’s choice of an adviser a vital aspect. The local authority should advise about the importance of independent regulated advice and signpost the adult to offer a choice of where they can obtain the best and most relevant advice. Again, we intend to cover such issues in statutory guidance.

We will also shortly be consulting on the design and technical implementation of the funding reforms, including deferred payments. This will include how the new duties to signpost independent financial advice will work. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about an awareness campaign about the funding reforms themselves. We are scheduled to discuss amendments on that very issue in a later group and I hope that the noble Lord will be content for me to cover the issue at that point.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My noble friend is right to draw attention, as many of your Lordships already have, to the need to integrate the provision and to avoid the sort of cost-shunting that can arise if organisations are kept separate. That is the point of the pooled budget: you look not just at the straightforward provision of care by one or other partner, or both partners, but at what will perhaps reduce the need for care in other ways. As I say, other local services such as leisure and adequate housing, in conjunction with the public health agenda, may very well reduce the demand for particularly expensive forms of care, as I am sure we all agree.

Of course, local government’s track record is not uniform, but it is right to say that local government has proved over the years to be the most efficient part of the public sector. There has been a huge improvement programme in local government, recognised by the shortly to be lamented Audit Commission, and others, over the years. The LGA in particular has sought, through a whole series of policies, including the very extensive and successful use of peer review, to engender new approaches and more cost-effective ways of dealing with a range of problems, including those in the social care arena.

I was about to conclude by drawing attention to another figure, which has just emerged today. It is a rather startling figure: £9.8 billion of uncollected VAT—10% of the total take—according to today’s Guardian. That dwarfs the amount that the Government are putting into the new arrangements. Just as local government needs, together with its partners, to engender the utmost efficiency in the mechanisms that it develops to provide services and make them cost-effective, as my noble friend suggests, so on the revenue-raising side central government has a massive obligation to ensure that it collects the taxes—instead of cutting the resources going into HMRC, which is responsible for collecting VAT, by a further 5% in the spending review.

We do not consider the cost of £3.8 billion and the welcome money that the Government are going to provide to be the last word in these matters. There will have to be a continuing process of establishing programmes that are effective and cost-effective. Looking at the totality, there is scope within the system to prioritise this area, providing that the Government take the right decisions—across the piece, not merely on the narrow front of health and social care but considering the implications for other services and functions of government—and collect the money that they are due anyway and which would relieve the huge pressure on these services and others.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that it would not be right to hold things up. We must get on, but in doing so we must be realistic about the challenges that will be posed to those responsible for delivering these services. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the various questions that have been raised in the debate.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I do agree with the spirit of this amendment. It is critical that care and support generally, and these reforms in particular, are fully funded. Without adequate funding, they will not deliver the benefits we all want to see. However, let me reassure noble Lords that we already have full procedures in place to ensure that there is proper funding for social care.

The first and very basic point is that the Government set spending plans for all areas of public expenditure at once during a spending review. This ensures that decisions can be taken about the future funding requirements of government as a whole, rather than assessing each part piecemeal. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, spoke about the review of priorities being a task of government. I agree, and that is exactly what spending rounds are designed to do.

Secondly, we have the new burdens doctrine in place, which requires that,

“all new burdens on local authorities must be properly assessed and fully funded”.

That ensures that all new funding pressures, including those that result from this Bill, are fully funded. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Best, that our commitments are in line with the new burdens doctrine, the costs have been identified in the impact assessment, and the funding in the spending round will support local authorities to deliver on current and future commitments through to 2015-16. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, yes, the work has been done.

It is only right that the Government take spending decisions for all areas of public expenditure at once. This ensures that future spending plans are drawn up which are coherent and consistent across all public services. This is exactly the purpose of a spending round, the latest of which concluded last week, as noble Lords know, and set spending plans for 2015-16. Fundamentally, this settlement delivers the funding required to ensure that service levels in the care and support system can be protected and are able to deliver on all the commitments in this Bill.

However, with additional pressure on the system, we must ensure that the Government, the NHS, local government and care and support services are all working together to offer the best possible services for patients while also addressing the growing demand on the system that the noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly referred to. That is why we have announced in this year’s settlement a £3.8 billion pooled health and care budget to ensure that everyone gets a properly joined-up service, so that they get the care and support they need from whoever is best placed to deliver it, whether that is the NHS or the local authority.

In 2014-15, the NHS will transfer £1.1 billion to support social care with a health benefit. The pooled fund will include £2 billion more through the NHS in 2015-16. But this money will be given only on the basis that services are commissioned jointly and seamlessly between the local NHS and local councils. I hope that that helps to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My question was not about the purpose of the pooling, which I think we all share. My question was rather more detailed. If part of the funding is to be based on outcomes, how and when is that to be judged? If the outcomes are not achieved, how will the money be reclaimed? All this is something of a mystery as matters stand.

[Earl Howe]

The details of the payment-by-results system will be worked through. We are working with our partners in the sector including the LGA and NHS England to ensure that the system is designed with a view to incentivising integration. Further details of those arrangements are in course and we will announce them as soon as we can.

The kind of things that we will be looking for are, for example, the results that we have seen in places such as Cheshire West and Chester. The pilots, the whole place community budgets, showed that savings from integration could be substantial if implemented effectively. A business case needs to be presented. In that context, the pilot suggested that, once proposals are fully implemented, the net savings that could be achieved over five years are considerable.

Cheshire West and Chester has made savings of £26 million, with £3.8 million for Greater Manchester, £190 million for the Triborough authorities and £90 million for Essex. These savings are being identified. It gives us confidence to say that there is real potential to save money across the country, as shown by the pilots and other reviews, such as the Audit Commission review. Oxfordshire recently announced that it was nearly doubling the amount of money in its pooled budget for older people. That is a significant move.

I agreed with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Wall, said. Savings are eminently possible without detracting from quality, by slowing and preventing the development of care needs or the onset of health conditions, or the loss of independence. We hope and believe that preventive care can increase the quality of life for individuals. A proactive stance by local authorities will deliver that. At the same time, preventive care will provide longer-term financial savings to the public purse. For the first time, Clause 2 creates a clear legal duty on local authorities to ensure the provision of preventive services.

I come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the Dilnot package. I do not view the Dilnot package in the same way that he does. I do not see funding reform as being about protecting people’s inheritances. It is about providing hard-working people with peace of mind about how much they will pay for their care. Deferred payments will ensure that people will not have to sell their homes in their lifetime to pay for care. That will prevent distressing sales of houses and provide everyone with breathing space to make decisions and choices about what happens to their home. In the long term, the scheme is broadly cost-neutral to government, because the deferred payments will be repaid. Everyone will benefit from these reforms, but they will particularly help people with modest wealth who are most at risk in the current system of losing their entire home and savings.

Delivering on these transformational changes to health and care is the only way to secure the long-term sustainability of services, both for the NHS and local authorities. I would be firmly against delaying this —I think we would be heavily criticised if we did. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, referred to the burgeoning weight of regulation during the past 60 years and one cannot argue with the statistics that he produced. This Bill serves to consolidate more than 60 years of legislation; it will repeal provisions from more than a dozen Acts of Parliament. Reducing the complexity of the statute and rationalising burdens on local authorities are our key aims in this context. I hope that, for the reasons that I have outlined, the noble Lord, Lord Best, will feel sufficiently reassured to be able to withdraw his amendment.

Contracting Out (Local Authorities Social Services Functions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2012

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival at this debate; I had my calendar wrongly set. I thought that this session began at 3.30 pm. Eighteen months ago I sat where my noble friend now sits. I was then the junior health spokesman for the Opposition and he, of course, is the spokesman for the Opposition. I raised some queries at that time about the pilots while welcoming the principle. Indeed, I entirely endorse what my noble friend has said in continuing to support the concept of the pilots. Some of those questions touched on the point made or implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in relation to the changing landscape of the health service, with which we are all too familiar. The question now arises of what impact, if any, those changes have for the operation of these pilots. Will they, for example, now come within the remit of the health and well-being boards’ assessment of the joint strategic needs? Will the role of commissioning groups now be embedded in the process? Previously, of course, the PCT would have had responsibility for the health input into these arrangements. The PCTs are virtually defunct and will be over the cliff edge to which the noble Baroness referred very shortly.

I think that I also raised evaluation on the previous occasion. The document that we then considered said that the trail-blazers,

“will evaluate the best ways to implement the Right to Control”,

in relation to that aspect. The question arises as to whether that evaluation, while obviously being sensible for the trail-blazers to undertake, will be the only evaluation? Will there be a collective evaluation of the experience nationally? Will local authority health scrutiny committees be encouraged to report—I suppose that they could in any event, of their own volition—on what is happening locally in order to feed back to the department on progress? It would help to know something about that.

One other aspect of the landscape has of course changed dramatically in the past year. We now have a situation in which local authorities—social services authorities—face dramatic reductions in their budgets. My own authority, Newcastle, will have to find, over the next three years, £90 million a year, which is just over a third of its current budget. Similar positions will be found no doubt in many other social services authorities up and down the country. For all the good intentions of this pilot, it does not seem possible that these new approaches can necessarily be financed to the degree that was originally intended. Does the Minister have any thoughts about the financial position?

The noble Baroness talked about funding the voluntary sector. However, the voluntary sector will also inevitably suffer from cuts across a range of services that the sector has helped to provide, sometimes in very innovative and useful ways. Although I welcome the extension—it is obviously a sensible move—there are clearly question marks about some of the details of the operation, particularly about how this project will stand in the context of the very significant cuts, from which it will be impossible to shield all the social services provision that local authorities would wish to make.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his welcome of the order and its content. I shall do my best to answer as many questions as I can and follow up those I am not able to answer in writing, copying to all speakers.

I begin with the trail-blazers and the Right to Control, which is where the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, began. He asked in particular about the evaluation of the programme. The interim evaluation was published in February this year and showed that disabled people are benefiting but that there is simply not enough evidence to make a decision on wider rollout. Clearly, an extension of the kind that we seek will give us more evidence. The early signs are positive but that does not provide the basis for a robust decision on permanent arrangements.

The noble Lord asked about the trail-blazer programme in Manchester and its link to public health. Officials in the Department for Work and Pensions and in my own department are working closely to ensure that the lessons from both pilots are gathered and shared. If I can provide him with any further information on that I would be happy to do so in writing. In general, we expect that the extension will provide further management information and case studies that can illustrate the potential efficiencies and the difference that the Right to Control has made to disabled people. We will also be able to capture more lessons learnt during the extension period.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about having a control group against which to compare the results from trail-blazers. I will write to her on that point also. However, the main source of evidence will be from the service users themselves, some of whom will have experienced care under normal arrangements. It is on their feedback on the benefits that they see from the Right to Control that we will take decisions.

Turning to the social work practice pilots, the interim report was published on 2 November this year and is available on the Social Care Institute for Excellence website for all to see. It is perhaps worth outlining what we hope success will look like under these pilots: better quality of service; greater work satisfaction for staff; greater satisfaction for service users and their carers through better outcomes; greater community involvement on the part of service users, both individually and through partnership with user-led organisations; greater community cohesion through more joined-up services, because we see the SWP acting as a catalyst to encourage wider partnerships within a locality; more opportunities for volunteering; less bureaucracy and greater efficiency in systems and procedures; and integration of services. If we can capture all those benefits, the pilots will have proved their worth.

On the evaluation of SWP, the social care workforce research unit at King’s College London is independently evaluating the programme for the department. The evaluation is making good progress, with interviews with practitioners almost completed. To date, 47 participants have been interviewed from across the seven sites, including: leads from host local authorities, managers, social workers and other staff in pilots; consultants employed to assist the development of pilots; and local NHS and voluntary sector stakeholder organisation representatives. The next steps include collating evidence on user outcomes and satisfaction and data on finance processes of the SWPs. As I have already said, the final evaluation report is due to be completed towards the end of next year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked me whether the evaluation of SWP would extend beyond the range of services that are normally encompassed. Certainly, the evaluation will also cover the effect of SWP on social workers and other practitioners, as well as on users and carers, and how the features of SWP differ from the usual practice control group. Again, if I can elaborate on that in writing, I will.

The noble Baroness also asked about other local authority services. Access to these is agreed between the local authority and the SWP as part of their contract. The SWP’s budget will reflect a proportionate transfer of funding, including corporate costs, so the SWP will be expected to make its own arrangements for support services and placements. It may also make arrangements to access those specialist services that the local authority may provide that have not been included in the funding transfer—for example, sensory impairment or HIV/AIDs—and this type of arrangement would be set out in the contract.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the relationship with the local authority particularly in the “new world” as we are moving to health and well-being boards. In general, both now and into the future, the local authority needs to maintain a close relationship with the SWP as it retains ultimate responsibility for the services delivered and the actions taken by the SWP, but it also needs to allow the SWP scope to innovate and make decisions about the best packages of support and services for the people in the SWP, and how to provide these. We expect the local authority to monitor the outcomes of the SWP, identifying issues early and providing support, while allowing the SWP sufficient autonomy to decide how best to meet the needs of the people with whom it works. It could well be that in many cases it will be appropriate for the SWP to engage with the emerging clinical commissioning groups to ensure that both health and social care provided to service users is joined up. We would certainly expect that to take place in appropriate instances.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 19th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the enormous effort that she has put in to moving the Government’s position somewhat although, as she says, in the view of some of us, not quite far enough.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, referred to a degree of separation. I would rather that we had six degrees of separation; I think that we will probably have to settle for the current single degree of separation. That is slightly unfortunate, because, as other noble Lords have stressed, the question of independence of the organisation is crucial. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised that issue and mentioned the Civil Service code and the possible inhibitions on employees of Public Health England and what was the Health Protection Agency in giving that advice independently and openly.

Bearing in mind the discussions that we had earlier this afternoon about the relationship between civil servants and Ministers, I hope that the noble Earl will address that, if not today in his reply then subsequently, to explain how that relationship will work and to confirm the complete independence of members of staff in advising not only Ministers but, as the noble Baroness said, the public. I reinforce the points made by other noble Lords. I think we got a verbal assurance from the Minister last time, but I would like it fully explained that the research capacity of the organisation will be maintained.

The amendment is slightly more modest than originally proposed by the noble Baroness, and even more modest than some of us would have liked. For the life of me, I cannot see why the noble Earl should not be able to accept it. If he is not prepared to do that, perhaps he will explain why. At the very least, I hope that he gives the assurances and undertakings that the noble Baroness has sought and that we can take forward this part of the Bill, which in turn complements the best part of the Bill, which relates to public health in general.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to return to this issue and for the extremely constructive and sincere manner in which she and other noble Lords have pursued it during and between previous debates in this House. My noble friend is anxious for Public Health England to be and to be seen to be a trusted and impartial champion for the protection of the health of the people and free to provide advice based firmly on the science and the evidence. So are we.

The Health Protection Agency has built an enviable international reputation that Public Health England must first live up to and then surpass. I take on board the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about downgrading. No, of course we want to build on the HPA’s undoubted achievements and have Public Health England seen as a world leader. All the current activity undertaken by the Health Protection Agency will transfer to the Secretary of State.

With that in mind, we have listened very carefully to what my noble friend and others have had to say and thought long and hard. I am happy to set out to her fresh proposals to meet her concerns and to build on the undoubted successes of the Health Protection Agency and the other organisations that will evolve into the new organisation.

The Bill gives a new and vital duty to the Secretary of State, and only to the Secretary of State, to protect the health of the people of England. To a very large extent, Public Health England will exist in order to help him to discharge that duty. It is for that reason that we feel we must preserve a very direct and clear line of accountability between the chief executive and the Secretary of State. While Public Health England undoubtedly needs operational independence to be most effective—a point raised by a number of noble Lords—it will be essential for it and the Government to work together seamlessly and to share the same objectives. Anything less could severely limit the Secretary of State’s capacity to undertake his statutory duty.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, on closing a lacuna and promoting integration, which has been a strong theme of our debates. He has spotted a difficulty and has dealt with it extremely competently. I trust that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment, which makes great sense and should contribute to the fulfilment of local authorities’ obligations in this sphere.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ribeiro for tabling these amendments, which address the important issue of ensuring that patients have consistent access to appropriate and cost-effective drugs, whether a service is commissioned by the NHS or by local authorities.

As the House will know, NICE’s technology appraisals provide important recommendations on the clinical and cost-effective use of medicines and other technologies in the NHS. The funding direction that applies to recommendations in NICE technology appraisals has helped to ensure equity of access to NICE-recommended drugs and treatments wherever patients live in England.

While technology appraisals are perhaps most commonly associated with specialist drugs or interventions used or initiated in NHS secondary care, they also make important recommendations about drugs and interventions for use in other care settings, including preventive interventions. In future, these are likely to fall within the scope of local authority commissioning responsibilities for public health. My noble friend mentioned the example of Champix. He is right: technology appraisals could address drugs to aid smoking cessation and treatments to tackle substance misuse.

I agree with my noble friend that extending a funding mandate to NICE-appraised drugs or treatments commissioned by local authorities would bring important benefits. It would guarantee patients access to appropriate and cost-effective drugs, whether a service was commissioned by the NHS or by local authorities. In doing so, it would protect patients’ existing rights as set out in the handbook to the NHS constitution, to which he rightly made reference. I am very pleased that I am able to support these amendments and I hope that your Lordships will feel able to support them as well.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Thursday 8th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I was going to come on to that in replying to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I hope that I will cover the point.

Amendment 238A would require local authorities and CCGs to specifically consult relevant health professionals when preparing the JSNA. As I have said before, in preparing the JSNA and joint strategy, local authorities and CCGs will be under a duty, which the health and well-being boards will discharge, to involve people who live or work in the area. In practice this could well include health professionals. Indeed, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made a powerful point in this regard, and I do feel that we are broadly accepting the spirit of the amendment.

In relation to Amendment 238AZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I should like to reassure both of them that the health and well-being strategy will be a shared, overarching response addressing the health and social care needs of an area identified through the JSNA. In the joint strategy, the board will be able to consider how the commissioning of wider health-related services could be more closely integrated with health and social care commissioning. For example, the board could consider whether and how housing, education or local authority leisure services could affect health and, if they do, how commissioning could be more closely integrated with the commissioning of health and social care services. The model we have chosen for health and well-being boards is designed to enable those wider conversations to take place, and in answer specifically to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I genuinely believe that the arrangements in the Bill afford a much better chance of us having joined-up thinking and joined-up services than we have had before. Clinical commissioners will be best placed to work in the interests of children, especially when this requires working with other professionals. There are strong duties on commissioners as to promoting integration, as the noble Earl will be aware.

On Amendment 238H, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, we believe that health and well-being boards will provide an opportunity to build strong relationships with an open culture of peer-to-peer challenge. The JSNA and joint strategy will provide all members with a common understanding of local needs and priorities. However, giving boards a power of veto over commissioning plans would undoubtedly undermine that relationship. I am afraid that we are firmly against that idea.

We are in agreement on that matter with the Future Forum and the Local Government Association, both of which recognise that placing a duty on CCGs to agree commissioning plans with the health and well-being boards would confuse lines of accountability and be unworkable—confusing and unworkable were the words of the Future Forum. CCGs are ultimately responsible for their budgets and to give the health and well-being boards the right to make decisions that might incur costs for commissioners without taking responsibility for expenditure would be wrong.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords adequately—although I know that I will not have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—and they feel able not to press their amendments.

Finally, I should like to speak to the government amendment in this group, Amendment 239, which is a minor technical amendment in relation to Clause 195. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that a local authority may delegate any functions exercisable by it to the health and well-being board. I hope that it will receive the support of the House.

[Lord Beecham]

I remind the noble Earl of my question about whether that extends to general powers of competence rather than statutory functions. I invite him to communicate later as I suspect that he may not be in a position to do that immediately.

[Earl Howe]

That is a very gracious invitation on the part of the noble Lord. I will take him up on that if I may by responding to him in writing. That would be best.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 184. In Committee, we debated the role of the OFT in merger policy and looking into mergers between foundation trusts. I tabled an amendment because it seemed to me at the time that the Enterprise Act was a relatively blunt instrument for the OFT to use to look at those mergers, compared to the usual way that it would look at the competitive effect or impact on competition of such a merger. The response of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was extremely helpful in guiding us through the relevant provisions of the Enterprise Act—in particular, pointing out that the OFT has a duty under the Enterprise Act to look at relevant customer benefits.

The issue is that “customer” is not normally how we describe patients in the NHS and the way that the NHS operates is rather different from considering whether Dixons taking over Comet, for instance, will impact on the customer or the consumer. There is a difference. It seemed to me that the best way to handle the matter would be specifically to provide for Monitor to be inserted into the process so that it would give specific advice to the OFT on those matters. Although the definition is “relevant customer benefits”, its perspective would be on the impact on patients.

I appreciate the earlier amendments which the noble Earl has tabled, but this would add the extra dimension to Clause 77 which will enable the OFT and Monitor to have a really powerful role in the way that they oversee foundation trust mergers and, I think, settle some of the concerns which surround Clause 77 as drafted.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the amendments are a good example of the thickets and undergrowth of the elaborate structures to deal with competition generally in the economy into which the health service is being drawn. I have no doubt that the noble Earl is right in describing the amendments as technical; the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is also technical. It is not the worse for that, but this whole area ought to be removed from the Bill. Our Amendment 184A would remove Clause 77 altogether. Our view is that that elaborate machinery and the use of the Office of Fair Trading is not appropriate for mergers of foundation trusts. Having said that, we do not intend to divide the House; we simply deplore the fact that this machinery, somewhat refined by the amendments, is being cranked up to apply unnecessarily.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I said earlier, retaining Clause 77 would have several substantial benefits. The OFT already has jurisdiction to review foundation trust mergers under the Enterprise Act. The problem, as I said, is that there is legal uncertainty as to when that applies in individual cases. That creates the risk of double jeopardy for foundation trusts, as their mergers are also reviewed by the Co-operation and Competition Panel. There is also a problem of unnecessary duplication of specialist skills between the Co-operation and Competition Panel and the OFT which, incidentally, brings with it a cost to the UK taxpayer.

Retaining Clause 77 would avoid that duplication and eliminate the current legal uncertainty and risk of double jeopardy for foundation trusts. That would encompass mergers between two or more foundation trusts and acquisitions by a foundation trust of another foundation trust or a private business, such as UCLH’s acquisition of the London Heart Hospital under the previous Administration.

However, it is important for me to make it clear that the Bill would prevent any takeover of a foundation trust by a private company, contrary to what some commentators outside this House have suggested. Secondly, the OFT has a proven track record for light-touch, proportionate regulation of mergers and ensuring good value for public money. By contrast, under the system we inherited from the previous Government, the Co-operation and Competition Panel has reviewed several mergers of community services at considerable cost and delay to the NHS that would have been permitted automatically under the OFT’s materiality thresholds.

Finally, the approach provides better value for public money by avoiding duplication of specialist resources between the OFT and Monitor. Mergers are a specialist area. Given the variable frequency of mergers in the NHS, it would be a far better use of resources to consolidate the responsibility and expertise within the OFT, where they could also be put to good work for the benefit of the wider economy, rather than resourcing another public body at the taxpayer’s expense.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, not only on the substance of his amendments but on his sense of timing, because we are now very familiar with complaints from the voluntary and community sector in relation to the welfare-to-work programme. It was anticipated that the sector would be heavily involved in helping to place people into work, but, in practice, we have seen most of that endeavour carried out by much larger companies, with the sector playing a very limited role. It is precisely to avoid that outcome that the noble Lord has tabled his amendments. In particular, I am attracted to and wholly support subsection (2) of the new section proposed by Amendment 64A, which would confer on the board the capacity to,

“take specific action to support the development, including capacity building, of the voluntary sector, social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals”.

That seems to me the kernel of the two amendments, which we very much endorse. In a mixed economy of provision, that sector needs to be developed and supported.

A further potential opportunity is raised by new Section 13W, on page 23 of the Bill, which confers on the board a power to,

“make payments by way of grant or loan to a voluntary organisation which provides or arranges for the provision of services which are similar to the services in respect of which the Board has functions”.

That may be implicit in subsection (2) of the amendment, although new Section 13W appears to limit that power to grant or loan to a voluntary organisation, which would not necessarily include the social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals referred to in the noble Lord’s amendment. Perhaps the Minister, if he is sympathetic to the amendment, will look at whether the provision about grants and loans in new Section 13W might be expanded.

It is never too late for a little pedantry. I want to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, a couple of questions about the wording of parts of his amendments. Proposed subsection (1) of the new section proposed by Amendment 64A refers to the board exercising its functions,

“so far as it is consistent with the interests of the health service”.

I think that he means the interests of patients, rather than the service as such, which I would have thought more consistent with the general approach.

There is also a potential problem with subsection (3), which seeks, understandably, to provide that the board should take such steps as might produce,

“a level playing field between providers … meaning that one sector of provision is not more disadvantaged than another and relative benefits can be taken into account”.

That seems potentially to conflict with Clause 146 of the Bill, which would appear to rule out such a deliberate adjustment in favour of the sector. That is one good reason why my noble friend Lady Thornton will move an amendment to delete that clause and I hope that the noble Lord will support it.

A further question concerns a matter touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and relates to the second amendment, which, I confess, I do not quite understand. The amendment provides that the board may promote the inclusion of weightings in the procurement process,

“which reflect wider social, economic and health outcomes for each local health area”.

Does that relate to the conditions that exist at the time of the procurement rather than outcomes? I do not see how outcomes would fit and I am not clear what the weightings are. They cannot be only financial weightings. Is it to be a consideration to encourage the letting of contracts to the voluntary and social enterprise sector because of the particular nature of the locality? It is not clear and perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will—at least for my benefit— touch on that.

Interestingly, the two amendments relate to the part of the Bill dealing with the functions of the National Commissioning Board but purely to the health service provision, whereas proposed new Section 13M on page 19 refers to both health and social care provisions. I can understand why the amendment is limited in the way that it is, but I assume—again perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this—that he would envisage ultimately the same principle being applied to the provision of social care services. Is it not an illustration of the failure to develop the social care part of the Bill, which we touched on earlier?

Having said that, I strongly support the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment and repeat my congratulations to him.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Tyler was quite right because the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has spoken compellingly, as he always does, and I, for one, am grateful to him for the insights that he gave us.

I begin with an observation which I hope is incontrovertible: voluntary organisations, staff mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises all play vital roles in delivering innovative, high-quality, user-focused services within their local communities. The Government firmly believe that such organisations have a strong role to play in the health and social care system. This is due to the experience, expertise and insights that they can offer to commissioners and the system more widely.

As I hope your Lordships will recognise, the Bill shows the Government’s commitment to fair competition that delivers better outcomes and greater choice for patients and better value for the taxpayer. We want to see providers from all sectors delivering high-quality, person-centred health and care services: we do not want to favour one type of provider over another.

The Government are also supportive of everything that the noble Lord said about the importance of social value and the key role that social enterprises and other organisations can have in building and promoting it. On my visit a few months ago to the Bromley by Bow Centre with the noble Lord I was able to see first hand the excellent work that Andrew Mawson Partnerships has done in reviving and stimulating the local community. One cannot fail to be impressed by this model and vision, which we know works and want to see more of.

Having said that, we need to pause and reflect because these amendments are unnecessary. Amendment 64A is not appropriate because it cuts directly across the role of the NHS Commissioning Board. Simply put, the role of the board is to be a commissioner, not to build providers. We are clear that no provider, whether due to its size or organisational form, should be given preferential treatment in the new system. The provisions introduced by Clause 22 prevent the board, and the Secretary of State and Monitor likewise, giving preferential treatment to any particular type of provider, be they public, for profit or not for profit.

I know that this has generated some concern among voluntary and community organisations. I would like to assure noble Lords and the sector that the board will still be able to make grants and loans to voluntary sector organisations. It will not be able to do that for the sole purpose of increasing the proportion of services provided by the voluntary sector. The board could, however, invest in voluntary organisations where they bring the credible voice of patients, service users and carers to inform commissioning and the development of care pathways, or where the sector’s expertise could contribute to the commissioning support required by CCGs and the board. Those are just some examples. The power—which we included in the Bill through an amendment in Committee in another place—mirrors the power that the Secretary of State has now under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which is exercised by strategic health authorities and PCTs. Equivalent provision is also provided in the Bill for CCGs in Clause 25, inserted as new Section 14Z4 of the National Health Act 2006. Voluntary organisations should therefore have no reason to fear that they will be unduly affected by the new system. However, as drafted, Amendment 64A would disadvantage NHS trusts and foundation trusts for profit providers. As a result, I cannot accept it.

[Lord Beecham]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Could he clarify the situation? Does the voluntary sector, as he has described it, relate also to social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals, or are they regarded as being in a different category and therefore not eligible to receive grants and loans under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as regards grants and loans, we are clear that voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises—and I include bodies of that kind in the same grouping—are and will still be eligible for grants. The key is that those grants must not be given solely because they are voluntary sector organisations or social enterprises. It is a nice distinction, but really it means that voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises will still have to compete fairly for a contract on a fair playing field with other providers. As I have indicated, that means that NHS providers and others are not disadvantaged in the market for NHS-funded services. Nevertheless, the scope will still be there, and they are indeed classed as voluntary sector.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for raising the important issue of social value. I can assure him that the Government are sympathetic to these principles. That is why the NHS procurement guide already enables NHS commissioners to take account of social and environmental outcomes in their procurement. The Department of Health has also, through its social enterprise fund, invested more than £80 million in the health and social care sector. To answer my noble friend Lord Newby, I am also fully aware of the support for these principles in the Public Services (Social Value) Bill currently being considered by noble Lords. Put simply, if that Bill receives Royal Assent, Amendment 64B will not be necessary. The Public Services (Social Value) Bill will make NHS organisations have regard to economic, social and environmental well-being in procurement, and the Government welcome that. The NHS procurement guide, as I said, already enables NHS commissioners to take into account other outcomes in procurement, and we will continue to encourage them to do that, so I think, in the NHS at least, commissioners will notice little change in the guidance that is given to them. Make no mistake, we see a valuable role in the future healthcare system for voluntary sector organisations, social enterprises, staff mutuals and co-operatives. However, that cannot be at the expense of other types of provider, including particularly NHS providers. I hope very much that your Lordships will agree that these two amendments are therefore unnecessary.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

Rubbish is the responsibility of district councils, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would point out—at least its collection is.

We clearly do not agree about this. The Bill does not go sufficiently far to underpin democratic accountability. It goes too far to entrench professional and bureaucratic interests, whose voice should certainly be heard but who should not be able to vote on these decisions, just as they are not in central or local government.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this group of amendments has prompted a very worthwhile debate. They all relate to health and well-being boards, and in particular their statutory minimum membership, their responsibility for preparing joint strategic needs assessments and joint health and well-being strategies, as well as their role in promoting integration. On the first of these issues, concern has been expressed about the membership of health and well-being boards. I am sympathetic to the very important points that several noble Lords have raised. We are all keen to ensure that health and well-being boards access the best expertise and professional advice on the myriad complex challenges facing the health and well-being of their local populations. However, taken together these amendments would significantly increase the minimum membership of each health and well-being board, making the requirements substantially more prescriptive. We want to preserve local discretion and flexibility in these arrangements and the ability of boards to shape wider membership in a way that reflects local priorities. These amendments would severely limit that flexibility and discretion. Their other big downside is that they could lead to larger and somewhat unwieldy boards, making meaningful dialogue and decision-making more difficult. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was absolutely right to sound the note of warning that she did.

In general, we want to avoid being too prescriptive. The Bill sets out a minimum membership for health and well-being boards, but members can be added by either the local authority or the health and well-being board. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in particular that following the Future Forum report, we made a commitment that it will be for local authorities to determine the precise number of elected representatives on their board. We fully recognise that health and well-being boards will want to draw from a range of expertise beyond the statutory membership, such as clinicians, allied health professionals, police, probation service and voluntary sector groups. However, in deciding who to invite, they will need to consider local needs and priorities and the delicate balance between having the right people and having too many to make it an effective board.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was quite right to emphasise that the right people needed to be there. It is perhaps worth highlighting in that context that we have retained the power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the preparation of joint strategic needs assessments, and there will be power to issue guidance on the preparation of joint health and well-being strategies, particularly when it comes to defining what best practice looks like.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked how the NHS Commissioning Board would fit in with health and well-being boards. The NHS Commissioning Board will be required to send a representative when asked by the health and well-being board and where the discussions touch on the proposed exercise of local commissioning functions of the commissioning board, for example when discussing primary care commissioning. It will also be required to send a representative to participate in the health and well-being board’s preparation of the JSNA and a health and well-being strategy. With the agreement of the health and well-being board, the Commissioning Board may appoint someone to represent it who is not its member or employee, such as a clinical commissioning group representative.

[Lord Beecham]

Does that mean that it will be the local outpost, if that is the correct phrase, of the national Commissioning Board that will have that relationship, or will this in effect be directed from London?

[Earl Howe]

It will almost certainly be the local outpost that will have direct responsibility for those matters.

A number of amendments would introduce specific requirements in relation to the JSNA, but before I move on to that I have been informed of something that I think I probably implied, if not stated. It would be up to the board to decide who would be most appropriate to attend at a particular health and well-being board meeting.

I agree that the JSNA must be a full analysis that covers the current and future health and social care needs of the local population. It will be a framework to examine inequalities and the factors that impact on health and well-being. This could include aspects such as deprivation. Its scope will naturally include health and social care needs that are related to a wide range of areas, such as alcohol harm, disability or older people.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it saddens me to say that 41 years ago I became opposition spokesman on the Newcastle City Council health committee. Within two years, we had the Seebohm report and a change of structure, leading to the creation of a social services committee that embraced both children’s and adult social care and replaced two committees—the old health committee and the old children’s committee. That seemed to me then and, frankly, it seems to me now to have been the right approach, because I do not think that you can sensibly divide children’s and adults’ social services. We do not have that system now. My personal view—which is not necessarily the view of the Opposition—is that it may be time to look again at that division. To an extent, the group of amendments that the noble Baroness has spoken to seeks to secure that objective.

As a consequence of the way in which amendments are ordered, the actual order of the amendments in this group is not quite logical. I suppose one should start with Amendment 269B, which would give Monitor functions relating to children’s social care services. Earlier, we touched on the possibility of Monitor having a role in respect of adult care services. Presumably, one would look at both services coming under their auspices, or neither, rather than keeping a division. Amendment 269B sets out the basic role for Monitor in this context. I note that proposed new subsection (2) would include within the functions,

“inspection of, and reporting on, the potential impact of children’s social care services in a particular area on the potential need for adult social care in that area”.

I am tempted to say “and vice versa”, because so often problems of parents and adults impinge on the needs of the children, and that would make perhaps a more rational disposition of functions.

The other two amendments in this group are, in effect, consequential, and sensibly would require local authorities to ensure a smooth transfer and, as Amendment 270AA puts it, “a careful handover” for children moving into adult social care. All of those seem to me very sensible suggestions. Nevertheless, it is probably better to look at the whole context of where social services fall within the remit of the Bill.

I imagine that there will have been some discussions between this department and the Department for Education, although the way in which Whitehall and, for that matter, local government tend to work, it is not necessarily the case that the relevant organisations come together to discuss these issues. It may be, therefore, that the Minister would wish to consult colleagues in other departments before giving a measured response. Perhaps this matter might be best brought back at Report, because it raises significant issues. As I have indicated, I have felt for some time that the division of responsibilities at the moment is not terribly sensible, with children’s social services being, arguably, at best a sort of fifth wheel on an education coach. At the very least, that matter ought to be re-examined. Perhaps it is too late in the day for it to be part of this Bill, but at some point, I think, this issue certainly needs to be referred to. I congratulate the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on having put down this amendment, which gives us an opportunity at least to ventilate concerns about this issue.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I understand and well appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness to ensure a high standard of children’s social care services and, in particular, a smooth transfer for young people moving from children’s to adult social care services. I would, of course, be very happy to speak to her and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about this issue away from the Committee, if they consider that to be an appropriate way forward.

On the specific amendments that we are looking at, I really do not think that Monitor is the right organisation to ensure that local authorities are carrying out their responsibilities on these issues, or to act as a regulator of children’s social care services. I am confident that existing arrangements for the regulation and inspection of children’s social care are sufficient and robust. Joint working is important and I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that the relevant inspectorates are already working together to improve the arrangements for joint inspection, which will address the very important issue of child to adult transition that she has raised.

Children’s social care is regulated and inspected by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills—Ofsted. Its inspection remit covers all local authority social services functions relating to children—that means services for children in need, safeguarding children, children in care and care leavers, as well as adoption and adoption support services. Local authority adoption and fostering functions must be inspected by Ofsted at a minimum of every three years. Ofsted can of course make unannounced inspections.

We are already working to improve these arrangements. Ofsted consulted over the summer on local authority child protection inspection arrangements that will be more child-centred and less bureaucratic. This new type of inspection will begin in May next year. In addition, all relevant inspectorates have agreed in principle to Professor Eileen Munro’s ideal model of joint inspection, which looks at the contribution all services make towards protecting children. Noble Lords may recall that Professor Munro last year conducted a thorough review of child protection arrangements for the Government. The Care Quality Commission is one of the inspectorates working with Ofsted to establish what those services will look like and when they will begin.

For children with special educational needs and disabilities, the recent Green Paper proposes a new education, health and care plan, covering support from birth to 25. The new plan will include a much clearer focus on the long-term outcomes for children and young people including independent living and employment. This should improve outcomes for young people with special educational needs and disabilities as they make the transition from school into employment or training.

I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate that work in this area is ongoing. I sympathise with the tenor of all she said, but if she is content to wait for a discussion following these Committee proceedings, I hope that she will, in the mean time, withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Clause 63 sets out several provisions detailing how Monitor should deal with potential conflicts in relation to its general duties, and conflicts with regard to its functions. It would be helpful to cover each of these in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, will not be surprised to learn that I did not agree with much of what he said. We should not find it surprising, because it is not uncommon for bodies to have potential conflicts of interest. What matters is how they are dealt with, and the Bill sets out a robust framework for Monitor to operate effectively. In theory, there is a possibility that Monitor’s general duties, as set out in Clauses 59 and 62, might conflict—if, for example, the most economic, efficient and effective provision did not deliver fair access because that access was limited to certain days and times or locations. If a conflict did arise, we are clear that it would need to be resolved effectively.

In order to be a successful independent regulator, Monitor would need to be able to resolve any conflicts that may arise. It would be closest to these conflicts, and it would be best able to weigh up the potential risks and benefits. Balancing competing priorities is just a reality of life, and resolving such conflicts is a key function that all public bodies need to carry out. When considering how to resolve conflicts, we believe that Monitor should do so in the manner it considers best, in line with its overarching duty to protect and promote patients’ interests. I am not going to call patients “consumers”, but in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who has tempted me, it was Alan Milburn who said in 2004, when he was Secretary of State for Health:

“In the business world success today depends on being flexible enough to innovate and responsive enough to meet consumer demands. Public services have to apply the same lessons”.

I do not want to press that analogy too far, but we all know what we are talking about when we talk of patients as consumers who require the same kind of care in terms of centring priorities on their interests.

I want to reassure the Committee that when resolving any conflict, Monitor would have to take into account the need to maintain the safety of the people who use healthcare services. Indeed, Monitor would be able to take this and a range of other issues into account when resolving any conflict between its duties. However, Amendment 274ZA would go further. Its impact would be that, in resolving any conflicts between its general duties, Monitor would always act with a view to maximising safety—potentially at the expense of its other duties. This would be inappropriate: it could cut across the role of the CQC, not to mention potentially undermine the role of commissioners and the independence of clinicians. It could also undermine individual patient choice. I can elaborate on that if noble Lords would like me to.

Similarly, while I sympathise with the desire to ensure that providers do not face unnecessary burdens, there may be occasions where a conflict solution that imposes the least burden on providers is not the most effective. Amendment 274ZAA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would impose resolutions that prioritised the least burden on providers over all other considerations. I think that is a mistaken way to go. We believe that Monitor should be free to decide how best to resolve conflicts between its duties, and therefore I would encourage the noble Lords who tabled these amendments to withdraw them. Nevertheless, I will consider—as I indicated earlier—whether it would be appropriate for the Bill to rationalise within Clause 62 matters to which Monitor must have regard. This would help Monitor decide how to resolve any conflicts. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I am not impervious to their suggestions on this clause.

Let me turn now to potential conflicts between Monitor’s functions. For clarity, Monitor’s functions include those it has as sector regulator, which are: ensuring continued access to NHS services; setting and regulating prices; preventing anti-competitive behaviour and licensing providers of NHS services. In the short term, Monitor would also continue with specific oversight functions over foundation trusts. As with Monitor’s duties, we need to ensure that any conflict between these functions is resolved effectively. Clause 63(2) requires Monitor to make arrangements to avoid potential conflicts of interest between its specific functions as foundation trust regulator and its broader functions as sector regulator, which are provided for in this Bill. I think we are all clear that we need to have appropriate arrangements within Monitor to mitigate and manage potential conflicts of interest between its functions. The Bill does not prescribe exactly what arrangements Monitor should make for this; it gives Monitor flexibility to determine the most effective arrangements, but we would expect that this would necessarily involve some separation of decision-making. This may need to be underpinned by informational separation and other working arrangements at operational level.

[Lord Beecham]

Would such proposals by Monitor have to be approved by the Secretary of State or would it be left entirely to Monitor to decide without reference to the Secretary of State?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I think we will rely on Monitor to make its own arrangements and, as the Committee will appreciate, there are limits to how far it is sensible to prescribe in legislation what the arrangements should be. Nevertheless, picking up the noble Lord’s prompt, I am sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised in this general area and I undertake to discuss the matter further with Monitor.

To create legal certainty, Clause 63(3) clarifies Monitor’s arrangements to resolve conflicts further, so when preventing anti-competitive behaviour and setting and regulating prices, Monitor must ignore its transitional regulatory functions relating to foundation trusts. I hope that addresses Amendment 274ZB, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams. The meaning of this provision—

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 5th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my point was that such conflicts have been managed in the past and can be easily managed in future. While there may be a specific example my noble friend wishes to draw to my attention, which of course I shall take seriously, I am not aware of any such examples. The clustering arrangement in practical terms is working efficiently around the country. Of course, I regret if hard-working non-executive directors who have served PCTs in the past have stepped down, because they have done sterling service, but it has been necessary to rationalise that structure.

[Lord Beecham]

Would the Minister care to reply to the rather disturbing question of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, about the threat to members of the PCT who decline to resign and the consequent apparent disqualification from subsequent appointment?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend refers to the current legal position—that a non-executive director can leave his or her office in only one of two ways: by resigning or by being forced to resign. There is no desire on anybody's part to force non-executives to resign. These are not non-executive directors who in some way have misbehaved—not at all. However, it is necessary in the interests of the NHS that we rationalise the system.

The proposal put before non-executive directors was that, in the interests of the health service, they should consider their positions. That is not because they have done anything wrong but because of the transition that we find ourselves in. I would ask any non-executive directors who are listening or who read Hansard not to take offence at this. It is no reflection of their service to the public or the health service; it is simply a reflection of the transition that we are going through.

With my noble friend's permission, I should cover some of the other questions that have been raised. Of the many functions transferring from SHAs, Amendment 236AAA specifically seeks to address the role of postgraduate medical and dental deans in the new system. I recognise the vital role that the deans currently play to ensure quality within education and training. The important work of the postgraduate deaneries will continue through transition and into the new arrangements from April 2013. The SHAs will continue to be accountable for postgraduate deaneries until 31 March 2013, allowing time for a phased transition of their functions. This will ensure stability and help develop the improved system.

As the noble Baroness indicated, I have undertaken to come forward with more detailed proposals on education and training between now and Report. I repeat that assurance. Further work is under way on the detail of those arrangements with the right accountabilities for the quality of education and training to Health Education England and the professional regulators. That detail will be published as soon as possible. I hope I can reassure her that we have listened to the concerns in this area and that we are taking steps to address them

I would also like to address the matter of Clause 45 standing part of the Bill, which is part of this group. This clause will ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to establish new special health authorities only temporarily, for a maximum of three years. If there is a compelling reason for a special health authority to continue to exercise its functions beyond the three-year deadline, it is possible to extend its existence. However, any decision to do so would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure. This is to reflect our intention that any body in the health system exercising functions on a longer-term basis should have those powers transparently conferred on it in legislation.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

This is one area where the Secretary of State has a direct interest to ensure that administrative costs are kept low. In answer to the noble Lord’s first question, of course I would be happy to write. There is already a great deal in the impact assessment, to which I would direct noble Lords’ attention. However, I shall be happy to write an individual letter to him and copy it to noble Lords in answer to the questions that he posed.

[Lord Beecham]

When the Minister writes to us about the risk register, would he indicate whether this topic of the cost will be referred to?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am not sure what question the noble Lord is asking me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Does the list of issues that are covered in the risk register include the question of the costs of transition and reorganisation?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the cost of transition was certainly very much an issue that was thought about when the risk register was put together.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I sympathise with the motives of the noble Baroness who tabled the amendments but I am not sure whether they are persuasive. Mandating is not necessarily the right approach. It is certainly not the correct approach for health and well-being boards, because they are not executive decision-making bodies. We hope that the boards will produce joint strategic needs assessments, to which the clinical commissioning groups will have to have regard. There will certainly be joint working there, but the boards will not be in a position to mandate anybody. Therefore, while the aspiration is noble—appropriately—the phraseology does not necessarily achieve what is intended.

I expect the Minister to say that he envisages that the precise object that the noble Baroness is pursuing will be taken into consideration and acted on by the relevant parties: in this case clinical commissioning groups in particular. Obviously these are probing amendments. They should not be reflected in a substantive amendment put to the vote—unless of course the noble Earl departs from his usual practice and accepts them.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the amendments concern the issues of integration and advice, and in particular the use of arrangements under Section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 between the authorities and clinical commissioning groups. Section 75 arrangements would effectively be a means for CCGs and local authorities to work together in an integrated manner, often to commission health and social care services. The Bill contains a number of provisions to encourage and enable the NHS, local government and other sectors to improve patient outcomes through more effective co-ordinated working. It provides a basis for better collaboration, partnership working and integration across local government and the NHS at all levels.

Health and well-being boards will have a strong role in promoting joined-up commissioning between health, public health and social care. Through their duty to promote integrated working between commissioners, they will also be in a good position to be able to promote more integrated provision for patients, social care service users and carers. They will also be able to encourage close working between commissioning of social care, public health and NHS services and aspects of the wider local authority agenda that also influence health and well-being, such as housing, education and the environment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I understand the noble Lord’s point; it is one that we have thought carefully about, as he might imagine we would. The trigger for local service reconfiguration is often a joint decision by commissioners and providers that the current configuration of services does not offer the highest quality care or that it does not meet current and modern clinical practice. It is usually a dialogue between commissioners and providers which identifies services as being, in some way, not optimal for patients, and that a reconfiguration is the most appropriate way to improve and modernise services, rather than smaller scale operational change.

We are proposing that commissioners should engage and consult on these changes in the normal way, working closely with providers and engaging with patients, the public and local authorities in developing their proposals. However, I agree that there are clear roles for the board, and for Monitor, in ensuring that this process is given a fair wind. They have an interest in ensuring that services are of high quality and sustainable and they will wish to add value to the process.

We talk as if all reconfigurations were long and drawn out—we all know of some that are like that—but the successful reconfigurations tend to be those that have involved more, rather than fewer, local stakeholders. That is why we are strengthening the powers provided by the Bill, so that reconfigurations can take place in a genuine spirit of local engagement and partnership.

[Lord Beecham]

What does the Minister mean by local consultation and local considerations? One can envisage a situation when hospitals serve just a particular locality. However, in many areas, there are trusts and hospitals serving a much wider community—a sub-regional or perhaps even a regional community—and who then is to lead the process? Who then is to take the decision? There could be several commissioning groups involved, looking at the facilities in question, rather than just the one or two in a particular town or county.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. In that kind of situation the process would inevitably become more complex. I do not know whether the noble Lord noted the comments of Dr Jennifer Dixon of the Nuffield Trust when she gave evidence to the Commons committee, but she said:

“If you look at some of the more successful attempts at reconfiguration, more involvement of local groups was necessary in order to get change. Some of the unsuccessful ones have been those where they have communicated less and involved fewer people”.

So paradoxically, she said, having more local organisations involved,

“could have the opposite effect”.

I think that that was a very perceptive comment. We think that the Bill should strengthen and encourage these relationships, either within a local area, or within a larger one, where services are commissioned over a larger area, as very often they will be, and you will get a broader dialogue taking place. The main object for all of us is to ensure that the mechanisms for this kind of partnership-working and local engagement are in place.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the length of time that some reconfigurations have taken in the past. We are very conscious of that. Under our plans, local authority scrutiny functions will be required to publish a timescale for when they will make a decision on whether to refer proposals for substantial service reconfiguration. We intend to change the existing regulations so that, where scrutiny functions are delegated to joint committees of two or more councils, councils could not step in and exercise those functions. This should prevent proposals which have taken time to develop and agree through a joint overview and scrutiny committee from falling apart at the end of the process by one local authority choosing to refer.

I understand the noble Lord’s concerns and will of course reflect on his proposal. However, I think that we are creating what could be an effective framework that would allow commissioners and providers to work together to reconfigure services where that is needed to protect patients’ interests. To support that, the Bill sets out a commissioner-led framework. We think that it is right for patients that it should be framed in that way. With the prospect of continuing dialogue on this subject, which I think will rear its head on more than one occasion as we go through these Committee proceedings, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content for now to withdraw his amendment.

NHS: Waiting Times

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients currently waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment will benefit from the recent directive on waiting times; and what are the most common conditions from which they suffer.

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

My Lords, we have introduced a strong performance measure in 2012-13 for patients still waiting to start treatment more than 18 weeks after referral. This, and the requirement to treat patients in order of clinical priority, will ensure that the NHS focuses on minimising waiting times for all patients. At the end of September 2011, 242,540 patients were waiting longer than 18 weeks to start treatment. The largest numbers of patients were waiting in trauma and orthopaedics specialties.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, does not this U-turn underline the folly of abandoning targets in the first place? Will the Minister say how, under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to intervene in similar circumstances should they arise in future?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this is not a U-turn. The Government have always been clear that the standards laid down in the NHS constitution should be adhered to. As the noble Lord will know, that includes the expectation that patients should not wait for longer than 18 weeks. It is also a condition built into the NHS standard contract. We have been absolutely consistent all the way along. Those things will continue to have to be measured after the Government’s modernisation proposals are put in place.

NHS: Hinchingbrooke Hospital

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, so serious were the problems of Hinchingbrooke, both clinically and financially, that frankly the alternative to a franchising solution might have been closure of the hospital. I think that Ministers in the previous Administration reached that conclusion. It is one of the largest accumulated deficits that we have ever seen in any hospital. The problems facing Hinchingbrooke are therefore very significant.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, given the number of trusts that are in financial difficulties, can the Minister indicate whether he anticipates any further moves of this kind? If so, what processes would the department wish to see in place to ensure both value for money for the taxpayer and the highest possible clinical standards after any such transfer of responsibility?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we do not envisage any other solution of this kind in any other trust. Of course, close monitoring will be necessary, and the contract with Circle is very clear in this instance—it has to perform according to the specification. As I said earlier, if it does not turn the hospital around, the financial risk up to £5 million of deficit, cumulatively, lies with it. I believe that this is extremely advantageous for the taxpayer. On the clinical side, of course the CQC will be extremely concerned to ensure that quality of care is not just turned round but significantly improved.

Southern Cross Care Homes

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I do not think any of us feels comfortable if the directors of struggling companies take substantial bonuses. I have to say that I do not have a briefing on whether the directors of Southern Cross have taken substantial bonuses in recent months, but I shall make it my business to try to ascertain that. But of course the right reverend Prelate is right to say that we must be clear that the stability of care homes, looking after frail, vulnerable, elderly people, should not be put at risk by mismanagement. I am afraid that Southern Cross has been a story of mismanagement since it was established in its present form.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornton referred to the fact that the owners of many of these properties are offshore companies. Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that according to a claim by the GMB union, some 336 of these care homes—just under half the total—are owned by companies outside the UK, with 325 of them registered in tax havens? Does the Minister agree, as I asked yesterday of his ministerial colleague about the Statement on the White Paper on public service reform, that the high proportion of residential care places managed by Southern Cross—some 18 per cent of the total of places, with roughly a further 18 per cent managed by another five companies—does not represent diversity of provision and increases the risk of things going seriously wrong on a large scale, as has happened in this case? Does that not lead to the possible conclusion that to talk about diversifying without any indication of a limit on the number of places that might be operated in a field like this needs to be rethought?

[Earl Howe]

I think the noble Lord and I are at one in wanting to see diversity of provision. The restructuring that I suspect we are likely to see emerge from this will result in just that, as a matter of fact. It appears that Southern Cross is to be split into a number of smaller enterprises, and that in itself should, we hope, lead not only to a more diverse arrangement but a more secure one. However, I do not take issue with the thrust of the noble Lord’s remarks at all.

On the issue of the ownership of some of these care homes, our concern as Ministers is not so much where the shareholdings lie as on whether that in itself has implications for the quality of the care that residents receive. I am not aware that that has been a factor. As long as the ownership of these care homes is legal and we are not seeing tax evasion as opposed to tax avoidance, to an extent it is not an issue for the Government. But it is something that is likely to be examined quite closely as the restructuring takes place.

NHS Reform

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I can reassure my noble friend Lord Ribeiro instantly on that. He will know, I am sure, that the acronym that was coined by the previous Government, QIPP, which stands for “quality, innovation, prevention and productivity”, is symbolic of a whole series of workstreams not just in the Department of Health but throughout the health service to ensure that quality is maintained and enhanced in the service. Unless we deliver higher quality to patients, the service will not be sustainable. Some people say that higher quality care costs more money but, as my noble friend will know from his own craft speciality, the better the care that you deliver the less costly it often is because care that is delivered in a substandard way often results in unintended consequences, such as patients returning to hospital with complications. We need to drive safe care and right care in the system.

Many of the levers that we have to improve quality are not in the Health and Social Care Bill at all—for example, the need to roll out the information agenda, without which there can be little transparency of quality. Those activities are being pursued with energy and drive in my department.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, months after the Bill was launched upon an unsuspecting world—including, apparently, the Prime Minister—it seems to have been admitted to the fracture clinic if not to the intensive care ward. A number of questions arise from the Statement itself. For example, the Statement says:

“Some services, like A&E or major trauma, clearly will never be based on competition”.

Is not the implication that other services will be based on competition? Will the Minister comment on the predominant role of Monitor as a promoter of competition, as opposed to being simply an economic regulator?

On the GP commissioning groups or consortia, will the Government look again at the composition of those groups as well as their degree of local accountability? Will he also look at the powers of the health and well-being boards? Does he have any views about those in addition to the question of their composition?

As for the NHS being in a healthy financial position, does the Minister have any comment on tonight’s story in the Evening Standard about people who were made redundant last Friday having to be re-engaged by PCTs and other organisations, at considerable cost to the NHS?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, those who have been re-engaged by the health service, having taken redundancy or early retirement, will forfeit their redundancy pay because there is a clawback arrangement in force, as I told the House the other day.

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. I want to be very brief because I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, wants to get in before the time is up. Monitor was described as a promoter of competition. Expressed in stark terms like that, it sounds as though its job will be to go around drumming up competition where there is none already. That is not a correct reading of its functions; it is there to bear down on anti-competitive conduct and to ensure fair competition. The composition of consortia is a concern that we have heard about, and we will listen to that concern. It is now up to the pathfinder consortium to think about this kind of question. The early implementers of health and well-being boards are starting to think about those powers and how they can be used and we will listen to whatever they have to tell us.

Healthcare

Debate between Earl Howe and Lord Beecham

Thursday 28th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, under current powers introduced by the noble Baroness’s own Government, GP commissioning can take place within certain limitations, but it is possible for GPs to engage now in the kind of joint working that we envisage and indeed that her Government put in place. I see no inconsistency there, and I think that that will helpfully inform our debates on the Bill.

GP commissioning, as I said, opens up the potential for working closely with local authorities to jointly commission services, even for the pooling of budgets to tackle local priorities. For example, by working closely with the local authority and social care providers, far more can be done to help older people or those with a disability to live independently, reducing their reliance on the NHS by avoiding things such as hospital admissions.

GPs will lead but they will not be alone. The NHS commissioning board will be there to support and advise GP commissioners and to share and spread their experiences. There will be no need to reinvent the wheel hundreds of times. One thing that the commissioning board will do as little as possible, though, is tell health professionals how to do their job.

We will also give far more power to patients. Research clearly demonstrates that treatment is better and often cheaper when the patient is an active participant in their care, not simply a passive recipient. In the coming years, we will give patients real control over when, where and by whom they are treated. They will be central to all decisions about their aftercare, often—where appropriate—spending their own budget in a way that suits their needs rather than the needs of the system.

Personal choice will not be the only way that people will be able to shape their care; they will also have a say in how local services develop. Strong local democratic accountability will be an essential part of the new system. Patients will have a strong voice in local decision-making through local authorities and HealthWatch, a new patient champion. For the first time, local people will have real powers of scrutiny over local health services.

We are very good at treating ill health in this country but we are less good at preventing it. We have the highest rates of obesity in Europe, rising levels of drug and alcohol use and, despite recent falls, stubbornly high rates of smoking. As a result, nearly one-quarter of all deaths in England stem at least in part from an unhealthy lifestyle. We have to do far more to stop people from needing treatment in the first place—to keep people healthy. We need a new emphasis on public health. Later this year we will publish a second White Paper on public health. Its aim will be to transform our approach to public health, protecting the public from health emergencies such as swine flu and improving the nation’s overall health and well-being.

I turn to some of the questions that have been asked. As I said earlier, the debate has ranged far and wide, and there have been a great many questions. We are short of time and I apologise to those noble Lords to whom I shall have to write, but I shall endeavour to cover as many topics as I can.

The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was uncharacteristic of him. I am sorry that he does not buy into the vision that we have set out. I am sorry that he does not think that we published the White Paper in good faith. The noble Lord gave the House to believe that the considerable efficiencies which we have signalled to the NHS it needs to achieve over the next four years were initiated by this Government. He will, I am sure, recall that they were in fact instigated by the previous Government. They are necessary and have nothing whatever to do with the Government’s White Paper. We need to treat more patients for approximately the same money without diminishing quality. That is the challenge.

I could hardly believe what the noble Lord said about the research budget. The announcements that we have made about research, arising out of the spending review, have been widely welcomed by the research community. We were clear that we wanted to protect science and we have done so. In the current economic climate, that is exceedingly good news.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, in particular, should be reassured of our commitment to the promotion and conduct of research as a core NHS role. The White Paper makes that commitment clear. It also commits the department to a culture of evaluation. The reasons are straightforward. Research provides the NHS with the new knowledge needed to improve health outcomes. Research enables the department to know whether our policies are effective, cost effective and acceptable. The Government are committed to maintaining a ring-fence on research funding and will cut the bureaucracy involved in medical research. Work is in hand to achieve that.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, also expressed scepticism about the whole idea of measuring health outcomes. Again, I was astonished that he, of all people, should pour cold water on our wish to do so. Just because it can sometimes be difficult to measure certain outcomes in a meaningful way does not mean that you should just give up. Great care must, of course, be taken when interpreting outcome indicators. You cannot simply make black-and-white judgments. However, if we focus only on processes, we risk creating a whole system of accountability that has lost sight of the overall purpose: improving the health of patients.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wall, asked me to underline the importance of local decision-making in the NHS. I readily do so. Those in a position to know what services are required to meet the needs of their patients are those closest to those patients—not politicians in Whitehall, but local doctors in general practice, local doctors and managers in hospitals and patient groups with local knowledge. All of this is part of our vision, which we intend to give substance. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for all that he said on this.

I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about health and well-being boards. It is not only they that will be scrutinising their own activities. As part of the public health service, health and well-being boards will be subject to quality and outcome standards set by the Secretary of State, and will be supported in their efforts by the public health service centrally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke in her characteristically impassioned way about patient safety. I agree with her that patient safety is absolutely vital. It is a key domain of our proposed outcomes framework; a key part of the quality agenda. My noble friend Lady Knight will, I am sure, agree that the most important thing that we need to do is bring about an open and transparent safety culture within all NHS organisations, a culture that is open about when mistakes are made and in which the number of serious incidents falls. Most importantly, it must be an NHS that learns from its mistakes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the case of the tetraplegic man in Wiltshire whose life-support machine was cut off. This is a tragic and deeply distressing case, currently being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Under the new registration framework, introduced in April 2010 for NHS trusts, all providers of regulated activities must register with the Care Quality Commission and meet a set of 16 requirements of essential safety and quality. These include a requirement to ensure that all staff have the necessary qualifications, skills and experience, which are necessary for the work to be performed. All agency staff must meet the same professional standards as permanent staff, as set out by the independent regulator, the CQC and each local safeguarding board. The Department of Health expects all NHS trusts to ensure that they employ appropriately qualified and supervised locums and agency staff.

My noble friend Lady Miller set out her view on which outcomes patients want. Her remarks were very helpful. I am pleased that there appears to be much commonality between what she set out and what was included in our proposals for the NHS outcomes framework. At the highest level, the outcomes that we felt mattered were preventing people dying prematurely; enhancing the quality of life of patients with long-term conditions; supporting people to recover from acute episodes of ill health and following injury; ensuring people have a positive experience of care; and, finally, treating people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm. Those domains get very close to what most of us would regard as a synoptic view of what good outcomes mean.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke about the need to achieve integrated care across primary and secondary sectors. I agree with him. The purchaser and provider split that the White Paper refers to must not be seen as a reason or excuse for GP consortia not to seek the advice, support and collaboration of clinical expertise on the provider side to ensure that the best possible services are commissioned for patients.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, asked how we can ensure that GPs will work across the community and public sector generally. Health and well-being boards have a critical role to play in co-ordinating a strategic patient-centred approach at a local level. GPs, local community representatives and democratically elected councillors will be tasked with making sure that they act on behalf of their patients and communities to deliver integrated services. A board will have a formal duty to involve and consult local people.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked in particular how GP consortia will work with local authorities. We have proposed that local government should have an enhanced responsibility for promoting partnership working and integrated delivery of services across the NHS, social care, public health and other services. It will be important for GP consortia to work in partnership with local authorities—for example, contributing to joint assessments of the health and care needs of local people and neighbourhoods, and ensuring that their commissioning plans reflect these needs.

[Lord Beecham]

What steps will be taken to ensure coterminosity between consortia and the relevant local authorities?

[Earl Howe]

This is obviously an issue that is in the minds of those of us in the department as well as those in the health service more widely. It is difficult to give the noble Lord a clear answer at this stage. Coterminosity does help; I agree with him. However, it is too early for me to tell him exactly how consortia will be configured. We can return to that issue.

As part of the consultation exercise, we specifically asked GP practices to begin making stronger links with local authorities and to see how they can best work together. We are currently reviewing the responses that we have received on this.

My noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lady Hussein-Ece spoke well about having informed and engaged patients. This goes back to what I was talking about a moment ago—“no decision about me without me”. That principle is a critical plank of our policy. Shared decision-making means patients jointly working with clinicians to ensure better outcomes and higher satisfaction. As my noble friend Lady Fookes said, the idea is to make the NHS genuinely patient-centred.

My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece made the vital point that our need to focus on outcomes must reach well beyond simply measuring clinical outcomes. We need to measure patient-reported outcomes as well as patient experiences. Our proposed outcomes framework, as I have just outlined, seeks to do this. However, it is not all about measurement. It is critically important that all parts of the system, whether providers or commissioners, listen to and engage with patients, patient groups and the public more widely about their concerns and ambitions. That is exactly why we have set out proposals to strengthen the patient voice in the new system. The design of HealthWatch draws on the best of previous models of patient and public engagement.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I fundamentally take issue with his point that all the major health think tanks disagree with our reform proposals. Most, if not all, agree with the vision of a health service judged against outcomes with the patient at the centre of commissioning and provision. The questions they have asked—they are natural ones—are mainly around the implementation. We have consulted on the implementation and will publish our response to these consultations. I look forward to debating the details of our proposals with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, when the Health Bill reaches the House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that that is likely to be in the spring of next year, although I hope that she will not hold me to a precise date.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked us to rethink the whole idea of GP commissioning. I say to him that reform is not an option but a necessity if we are to sustain and improve our NHS. The fundamental problem is that PCT commissioning is remote from patients and does not have sufficient involvement of GPs and clinicians, who are those closest to patients and whose referrals and decisions incur the expenditure of the NHS budget. They are the people who can do much to improve the quality of care, but it needs to be clearly understood that our proposed model does not mean that all GPs have to be actively involved in every aspect of commissioning. A smaller group of primary care practitioners is likely to lead consortia.

I could address many other matters and I am sorry that I do not have time to do so. As I say, I will write to noble Lords. I apologise to them in that the clock is against us. I hope that we can come back to these matters. Suffice to say now that we are living in a financially constrained environment. An extra penny spent on new cancer drugs is excellent. We have the luxury of being able to spend those extra pennies within the confines of a protected budget and of being able to plan on the basis of stable finance over the next three years, unlike colleagues in some other departments. We also have the luxury of being able to plan for higher quality, integrated, patient-centred, outcome-focused health services led by clinicians and patients. I look forward to doing that. Leadership is about making hard choices in difficult times. The choice we have made is to put health first, and the way to do that can be put very briefly—we need to trust the NHS.