Care Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

1: Schedule 5, page 104, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (1)

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open the Committee stage debates on the Care Bill. Schedule 5 relates to the establishment of Health Education England as a non-departmental public body. Schedule 5 is concerned with the membership of Health Education England and other matters to do with its establishment. As this is the start of Committee stage, I declare an interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust, and as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections.

The education and training of staff in the National Health Service is of course a critical responsibility, on which patients depend for good outcomes of care. The UK has traditionally enjoyed a very high reputation for the quality of our training and educational institutions and for the standing of the professional staff who come into the National Health Service. However, we should also acknowledge that there are a number of challenges facing the UK in ensuring that we continue to produce the right kind of people, in the right specialties and in the right numbers, taking into account the long-term challenges we face, not least that of an ageing population.

We received lots of briefings for this part of the Bill, for which I am most grateful. I was particularly struck by the briefing I received from the Royal College of Physicians, which points to trends in medical education and training. On demography, it points out that by 2033 there will be 3.2 million people above the age of 85, with the prevalence of dementia expected to double. On social trends, people have more choice and higher expectations. On efficiency, the economy of course will shape services substantially and we know that, in the short term at least, the NHS faces unprecedented austerity.

While the Royal College of Physicians believes that many elements of the current training structure are excellent, there is a need for change too. Many more physicians must train in internal medicine to meet the new needs of patients across hospitals and community services. There is an emerging view that too many consultants specialise too soon and that there is a need to focus more on general physician consultants if we are to meet some of the problems that hospitals are facing. A&E is a symptom of the need for hospitals, in particular, to change the way they are often organised in order to recognise that their key client group are frail, older people who probably need the attention of generalist physicians as much as speciality doctors. The RCP points out that the doctor-patient relationship is evolving and that this needs to be reflected during training. It says that there should be more flexibility for time out of training and career progression between different grades which meets the changing needs of the health service.

Every royal college and many trade unions and patient groups have made similar comments about the need to look at the training and education of our professionals. We know that there are formidable challenges with regard to nurse education. The Francis inquiry identified a number of these. There is a real worry that newly-qualified nurses are not well prepared to take on full nursing responsibilities. The excellent independent report of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, commissioned by the RCN, contains some very important messages for us in our debates. There is a debate among the public and in Parliament about whether the caring aspect of nursing has sometimes been neglected. There is also the issue of whether healthcare support workers lack mandatory training and registration. I have no doubt that we will also debate those matters.

The connection between this and Schedule 5 is that Health Education England will be faced with many interesting and difficult issues. I can say to the noble Earl that we support the establishment of HEE in statute and I am very glad that Sir Keith Pearson has been appointed as chair of that organisation. The noble Earl will know that he was previously the distinguished chair of the NHS Confederation and an NHS trust. He brings to the job a wealth of experience.

The amendments in this group are designed to enhance the ability of Health Education England to understand the pressures that the service is under in relation to staffing and to ensure that our education and training is flexible to the rapidly changing face of health and social care. There are three amendments concerning the membership of Health Education England, as set out in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5, which states:

“The members of HEE must include persons who have clinical expertise of a description specified in regulations”.

Amendment 1 seeks to delete that but I hasten to add that it is a probing amendment. I have no problem at all with people of clinical expertise being on the board—far from it. However, I seek assurance from the noble Earl that one of the members appointed will be a registered nurse. This relates also to Amendment 3.

I need hardly speak to the House of the importance of nursing issues to the workforce and to the work of Health Education England. I remind the noble Earl of recommendation 204 of the Francis report into Mid Staffs. It states that all NHS bodies,

“should be required to have at least one executive director who is a registered nurse, and should be encouraged to consider recruiting nurses as non-executive directors”.

I hope that the noble Earl will be able to respond positively. The nursing workforce is so important to the quality of care that it is crucial that Health Education England has nurses around the board table both on the executive and non-executive sides. Every time there is a restructuring of NHS boards, often there will be people who try to exclude nurses from those boards. They are mistaken. I do not think that boards in the NHS can do without nurses around the top table.

My noble friend Lord Turnberg will of course speak to his own amendment but I support its thrust, which is to appoint one or more members with expertise in research and one or more with expertise in medical education and training.

I also hope that recognition will be given to the needs of those staff who are not professionally registered. My Amendment 4 refers to that point. How are the needs of healthcare assistants going to be met if there are not people around HEE who understand the constraints and pressures under which they work?

Managers in the health service, many of whom are not qualified in the traditional sense of being professionally registered, have a crucial role to play. I had hoped that Health Education England would be concerned about the identification and development of those managers. I remind the noble Earl that there is a big problem in recruiting chief executives to NHS bodies, perhaps because their length of stay is almost as bad as that of football managers. That tells it own tale about the job. I hope that Health Education England will consider that it has some responsibility to look at how the managerial cadre can be developed and trained, and how they can be given some security in their jobs and reassurance about what will happen to them if they need to move on from one organisation to another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

It may not surprise my noble friend to know that I asked my officials the self-same question, because I anticipated an appetite for draft regulations. I am, unfortunately, not in a position to make that promise, much as I would like to do so, because there may not be the necessary time available for the regulations to be drawn up in draft. However, I will take back the strength of my noble friend’s request and see whether there can be any reconsideration of that point.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it has been a very good debate, and I am grateful to the noble Earl and other noble Lords for taking part. It is the role of noble Lords always to ask the Government for draft regulations but, alas, I fear that we may not see them. If we cannot, perhaps we could at least get a sense of instructions that might be given on policy direction.

First, let me say that the Government’s reflection on the Joint Committee’s recommendation with regard to clinical expertise, and the change that has been made, is welcome. I listened with care to the noble Earl when he said that the needs of Health Education England and the education and training of staff may change over time, which is why that is best left to regulation. That makes sense, but I cannot believe that there will ever be a time when research and nurse representation will not be important. I ask the noble Earl to give that further consideration.

I will just reflect on the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that this has been a consistent theme of restructurings over the years. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I have lived through many restructurings and they always start with the premise that there will not be a nurse on the board. Then, after argument and sometimes experience, it is discovered that you need to have a nurse. I would have thought that the Francis report, at its heart, focused a lot on nursing experience and leadership. I ask the noble Earl to give this further consideration. It would be a very visible sign that the Government are listening to this point and that they actually set out in primary legislation that a registered nurse should be appointed.

I am glad that the noble Earl picked up the point about non-registered staff and managerial staff. It is not just in the health service. In the further education sector there is a similar problem, with only a limited number of people applying to be college principals. We need to think very hard about what we can do to give greater support and encouragement to bright young people coming through so that they aspire to take on these top jobs. No one should underestimate the pressures that those leaders are under, but we really want good people. I endorse the noble Earl’s reference to clinicians. We need to encourage more clinicians to take on leadership roles.

I was very interested in the contrast between the desires of the noble Earl not to give autonomy to the board to appoint its own chief executive, but to give it autonomy when it came to the salaries of its staff. I ask for some consistency here. If the Secretary of State appoints the chair and the non-executives—which is absolutely right—he or she should then have confidence in their judgment to allow the board to appoint a chief executive.

Finally, on the intervention of the noble Baroness on integration, it might help our future debate if the noble Earl could confirm that Clause 88, on matters to which HEE must have regard and in which subsection (1)(h) refers to,

“the desirability of promoting the integration of health provision with health-related provision and care and support provision”,

answers the point that the noble Baroness raised—that in effect HEE does have to have an understanding of the needs of those providing social care because of the contribution that they can make to integrated services.

[Earl Howe]

I can answer that immediately by saying yes, it does mean that; indeed, it is that particular provision to which I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is attached.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 36. I just want to pick out something that the noble Earl mentioned a little while ago in response to another question from me. He mentioned the work being done by Skills for Health and Skills for Care. Certainly in the context of this amendment—which, I agree, is a probing amendment—alongside the royal colleges and the other professional bodies, the work that Skills for Health and Skills for Care are doing is hugely important. Can the noble Earl enlighten me on what relationship Health Education England will have with those bodies? For instance, the noble Lord just referred to what the future looks like and what Skills for Health in particular is doing alongside Skills for Care. It is looking at what provisions there are for apprenticeships inside the health service, which is hugely important and allows people to develop from smaller roles to bigger roles over time. I wonder how, in the scheme of things, that relationship exists, how close it is and what influence Skills for Health and Skills for Care have, so that they are not working in opposition but are working integrally with what HEE is doing.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have a few amendments in this group. It is an important group because it concerns not just the functions of Health Education England and its duties to co-operate but also, of course, the membership of LETBs, the local committees of HEE.

It is very important that HEE works with NHS bodies that have expertise in education, training and regulation, so I am very happy to support my noble friend’s Amendments 9, 18 and 34, and Amendments 15 and 36 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I would add two organisations from which HEE must seek representations: the CQC and Monitor. I imagine the noble Earl will say that they are implicit in the generic list of bodies in Clause 89(2). However, it would be good to hear a little bit about how the noble Earl expects HEE to work with the two core regulators for the health service, the CQC and Monitor. In a sense, the CQC will, on a very regular basis, be picking up issues to do with staffing and staffing levels. Equally, Monitor will be concerned with financial issues. Of course, the two sometimes do not run easily together, so it is very important that HEE has very close contact with those two bodies.

As regards Clause 91 and LETBs, which are essentially committees of HEE charged with ensuring sufficient skilled healthcare workers in the area of the LETB, the Bill makes clear that in carrying out its main functions, the LETB must represent the interests of all persons,

“who provide health services in the area for which the LETB is appointed”.

I have already referred to my interest as chair of a foundation trust, and I very much welcome the architecture in which it is clear that, at the local level, the people in the driving seat should be the people who provide services. In the past, people running hospitals and other services have been divorced from decisions about training commissions. That is one of the reasons why I believe there has been such a problem with the ability of people coming out of universities and other education institutions to practise when they get into the field. Having the people who provide services round the table is a very important development.

Of course, it is also important that other people are involved in those discussions. In the architecture of the Bill, there are two categories of membership provisions. In Clause 91(3)(a) and (3)(b), it is clear that LETBs must include,

“persons who provide health services in the area”,

and,

“persons who have clinical expertise”.

It is consistent with the provisions in relation to Health Education England. Then in Clause 91(5), people involved in education may be appointed to a LETB—but, by implication, if they may be they do not have to be. My Amendments 40 and 42 to 46 really seek to ensure that LETBs have a broad-based membership. Surely, it should be mandatory to have the involvement of education providers and health workers who are not professionally registered. My noble friend Lady Wall made that point very well indeed.

Also, where are the representatives of patients and carers? After all, they understand the output of the workforce. Surely, they ought to have a place around the table as well when it comes to these decisions about training commissions: where they are placed, what the demands are and what the monitoring is. Again, I would replicate the argument about nurses that we had on the membership of HEE. In some sense, we could have grouped those amendments together because it is the same argument: that around the table of the LETB, you must have some senior nurses when so many of the discussions of the LETB will be about the quality of nurse training.

What about the health and well-being board? We have heard earlier debates. In fact, in the House of Commons Select Committee this morning, when witnesses were giving presentations about what has happened in emergency care, the representative of the LGA made a very strong point about the potential role of health and well-being boards, which are concerned not just with public health but with how well the whole system is integrated. I very much agree with that, so I would have thought that a LETB would be well advised to have the chairmen of relevant health and well-being boards around the table to discuss issues of staffing. I hope that the noble Earl will give me some reassurance that in establishing LETBs as provider organisations, something with which I certainly agree, there will be room for these other interests to be represented as well.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendments 9, 18 and 34 seek to require Health Education England to seek the advice of regulatory bodies and royal colleges in the exercise of its functions. Similarly, Amendment 36 seeks to amend Clause 89(3) to require Health Education England to seek advice from all the medical royal colleges. Amendment 15 seeks to amend Clause 85 to require HEE to seek representations from relevant organisations to define sufficient workforce numbers and the appropriate skills mix when carrying out its duty.

The education and training landscape is multifaceted. Many organisations have an interest in the development of health professionals, ranging from local employers in the NHS through to national organisations such as the professional regulators, including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and professional bodies such as the medical royal colleges and those supporting other professions. To carry out its role effectively, Health Education England and the local education and training boards need to tap into all this knowledge and expertise. These bodies have crucial responsibilities in setting professional standards, shaping curricula and driving forward improvements in the quality of education and training. Health Education England simply has to work closely with them to deliver its functions.

The medical royal colleges in particular play an essential role in supporting the development of the medical profession, shaping curricula and the development of training programmes, supervising training, examining trainees to ensure the highest professional standards, promoting and supporting research, supporting audit and evaluation of clinical effectiveness, and generally providing support and advice for doctors at all stages of their careers. So I can reassure the Committee that Health Education England is already required to work with the professional regulators and medical royal colleges to obtain their advice on the exercise of its functions.

Clause 89 requires Health Education England to obtain advice on the exercise of its functions. Clause 89(2) requires HEE to seek to ensure that it receives representations from bodies which regulate healthcare workers and persons who provide, or contribute to the provision of, education and training for healthcare workers. This includes universities, professional bodies and the medical royal colleges.

The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that Health Education England is already working with the professional regulators and medical royal colleges. When he gave evidence to the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill, Professor Ian Cumming, the Chief Executive of HEE, was very clear that he saw the professional regulators and royal colleges as partners in developing the next generation of staff. Professor Peter Rubin, the chair of the GMC, gave evidence in the same session and reinforced that view, reassuring the committee that the GMC has a very good working relationship with Health Education England.

HEE is not starting from scratch in building these relationships. It is building on the good work previously done by Medical Education England and others to strengthen engagement and partnership-working with the professions. As I mentioned earlier, the HEE special health authority has established profession-specific advisory groups, involving employers and key partners including national regulatory and professional bodies. These will look at profession-specific workforce development across medicine, dentistry, nursing and midwifery, the allied health professions, pharmacy and healthcare science. They will each have a patient representative and be co-chaired by Health Education England and the professional lead in the relevant field.

In addition to having profession-specific advisory groups, Health Education England is establishing a multi-professional advisory group to bring all professions together to look at cross cutting issues. I hope that is a positive piece of information for the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, in particular. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be pleased that it is also setting up a patient forum to ensure patients and service users can engage in education and training and inform work in that area.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am very grateful to the noble Earl on that point. Is there a case for replicating that at local level, through the LETBs?

[Earl Howe]

Certainly, I do. I am happy to take that idea away, and if I can give him any further information during the course of our debates I will. Equally, the LETBs have strongly established connections with professional regulators and professional bodies. For example, the postgraduate medical and dental deans, who are now an integral part of the LETBs, work very closely with the GMC and medical royal colleges in the management and quality assurance of training for junior doctors. I hope that those remarks will reassure noble Lords sufficiently for them not to press the relevant amendments.

In reply to my noble friend Lord Willis, who expressed concern about the way the Explanatory Notes were framed, it is important to look at the entire context of the passage he quoted. The words “such as” appear in that passage before “the medical Royal Colleges”, so it is not meant to denote an exclusive reference to the medical royal colleges; it is very much trying to say that the professional bodies in general will be relevant here.

Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, seeks to amend Clause 89 to require HEE to seek advice from the Care Quality Commission and Monitor. It is very important that Health Education England works closely with those two bodies. The Care Quality Commission plays an important role in assessing the quality of healthcare services, and in so doing it assesses their ability to deliver services safely and effectively. In doing so, it will consider whether healthcare providers have suitably skilled staff and in the right numbers. It will need to work closely with Health Education England to share findings and evidence to support improvements in education and training. Health Education England will also be able to share information on the effectiveness of providers in supporting clinical placements and training programmes to support the Care Quality Commission in its role.

HEE and Monitor will work closely together to ensure the financial stability of the health system. This will include working together on the reform of education and training funding and the development of education and training tariffs. To reflect the importance of these relationships, the Bill places a clear and reciprocal duty on Health Education England to co-operate with both the Care Quality Commission and Monitor. I hope noble Lords will feel reassured by that and will be able to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

11: Clause 84, page 72, line 11, leave out “, with the consent of the Secretary of State,”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we come to a series of clauses that deal with the functions and priorities of HEE. I have a number of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 11. Clause 84(6) states:

“HEE may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, carry out other activities relating to … education and training for health care workers”.

I am curious to know why the Secretary of State has to give his consent. Does not the mandate in Clause 87 give the Secretary of State enough oversight, without the micromanagement that this part of Clause 84 seems to imply?

Amendment 12A relates to the duty of HEE to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of persons with skills and training. What does “sufficient” mean? Does it mean an equilibrium of supply and demand, or do the Government want an oversupply? This is a matter that the Select Committee looked into, and about which a number of royal colleges are concerned. They take the view that it takes so long for doctors to come through the training grades that one wants an equilibrium rather than a situation where people who have committed themselves to 15 years’ training find that there is no work for them at the end of it. Perhaps the noble Earl might take up that matter with me in writing.

Amendment 14 asks HEE to,

“have regard to any official guidance on staffing numbers and skills mix”.

We will come back to this issue. The Minister will know that the Francis report recommended that NICE essentially should produce benchmarking measures for minimum staff numbers and the required skills mix, including for the number of nurses on wards. It is too late to have a debate on issues to do with nursing staff ratios, but it would be good to know whether the Government will take forward recommendations 22 and 23, because that work will be very relevant to HEE’s own work on the number of staff required in future.

Amendment 19 relates to Clause 86 and deals with quality improvement in education and training. All I ask from the noble Earl is a recognition that in future we will need to revisit the curricula of the universities to make sure that when doctors, nurses and other practitioners leave those universities and are ready to go into employment, they will have some practical-based training from having undertaken clinical duties. I am not convinced that the bodies that set the curriculum have got it right yet. Whenever challenged on these issues, they always claim that everything is hunky-dory and that we should not worry and yet there is a complete loss of public confidence in those training programmes. I do hope that HEE is going to be able to give a kick to those bodies that are concerned with the curricula and those education institutions to ensure that people are ready to practise when they are given their ticket to go into the health service.

On Clause 87, which concerns the objectives, priorities and outcomes of the HEE, I have another series of amendments. I want to tease out the Government’s recognition that, although in the construct of the Bill HEE will have an annual plan, it will also be required to look three years ahead. I wonder whether that is long enough. The argument that has been put to me by a number of organisations is that the time between the commissioning of a training place and that person practising in the health service can be many years. One of the questions is whether it would be better if HEE had to develop five and 10-year plans and match those with the demographic and the demand pressures on the health service. It would be helpful if the noble Earl would recognise the need for much longer term planning.

Clause 88 sets out important matters to which HEE has to have regard. In Amendment 28 I ask whether HEE will have to have regard to a need for equality of funding across England and consistency in education and training opportunities. Given the mismatch between a population and the education and training facilities available, will HEE have a duty to balance where those resources go?

On Amendment 29, will the noble Earl confirm that specialist training-place issues will be dealt with nationally? I need hardly remind him of the sensitivity of this in relation to junior doctor training. I wonder whether it is good enough to leave it to local LETBs to decide. I do think that some national provision and direction is required.

Amendment 30 concerns HEE’s relationship with other countries of the UK. There is a reference to the need for HEE to undertake duties in relation to the devolved Administrations. Surely much more is required. We are talking about a UK health service. Scotland definitely trains more people than is required for the Scottish health service. The same may be the case in Wales which has big problems in attracting junior doctors. There needs to be a UK-wide view of education and training and I hope that the HEE has both the remit and the encouragement of Ministers to work across those borders.

Amendment 32A covers the matters to which HEE must have regard. I have put down an amendment to ask HEE to give specific focus to arrangements for end-of-life care. The noble Earl has taken part in a number of debates on the Liverpool care pathway which have served to raise issues not so much about the policy behind the pathway, although I know that a review is being undertaken, but more about the way in which that has been interpreted by some organisations. It suggests that more is required in relation to the training of staff in end-of-life care. I am sure that in Part 1 we will come back to the issue of social care provision for end-of-life care but it would helpful if the noble Earl could reassure me that this one of the matters that HEE may look at. I beg to move.

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 24, which explores the benefits of placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the objectives and priorities of Health Education England. In particular, I wish to explore how the Secretary of State will consult vulnerable people, including people with a learning disability, to ensure that education and training provided by this body will create a workforce that meets this group’s needs. Consulting and listening carefully chimes with the Government’s intentions through their response to the Francis inquiry, which stated:

“We will listen most carefully to those whose voices are weakest and find it hardest to speak for themselves. We will care most carefully for the most vulnerable people—the very old and the very young, people with learning disabilities and people with severe mental illness”.

This is a most welcome commitment, as currently people with a learning disability are not receiving appropriate care. On Tuesday 21 May, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its report into the death of Tina Papalabropoulos. Tina was 23 and had a learning disability. She died on 30 January 2009 at Basildon hospital in Essex. The ombudsman found that the hospital did not give her the treatment she needed or even meet her basic care needs. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, and there is substantial evidence that poor care exists across the health service.

Early this year, the confidential inquiry into the premature deaths of people with learning disabilities in the south-west reported on its study of the deaths of 233 adults and 14 children with a learning disability. It found that 42% of the deaths were premature and that 37% would have been avoidable if good quality healthcare had been provided. On a national level, this equates to over 1,200 adults and children with a learning disability across England whose deaths should have been avoidable with good quality healthcare. This comes as no surprise to many. The Department of Health highlighted the issue back in its Valuing People and Valuing People Now strategies, and the excellent report by Sir Jonathan Michael, Healthcare for All, set out a series of recommendations for improving care for people with a learning disability. It is these people whom the Secretary of State should consult when setting objectives and priorities for this most important of public bodies. Without the input of people with a learning disability and their families, we will fail to change a system and a culture that in many cases provide substandard care for the most vulnerable in our society.

I realise that the Minister will probably reply that in order to publish the objectives and priorities for the forthcoming year of Health Education England, the Secretary of State will have consulted the parties concerned. However, as an actor who, years ago, used to drop his trousers for a living, I nowadays prefer the security of belt and braces, and I hope that the Minister will be able to offer this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I understand the point. In view of the hour, if I may, I will write to both noble Lords to flesh out the remarks that I have made. I hope that I can give them some comfort in that area.

Amendments 25 and 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, focus on the importance of long-term and national approaches to workforce planning in education and training, as does Amendment 26. We have strengthened the Bill, following feedback in consultation and at pre-legislative scrutiny, in Clauses 87 and 93 to reflect the importance of HEE and the LETBs taking a long-term perspective on workforce planning and education and training. It is the Government’s expectation that all workforce planning, be it national level planning by HEE or local planning by the LETBs, should be based on a well informed, long-term workforce strategy that looks at needs over the next five years, 10 years or beyond. Any workforce strategy to be credible and deliverable has to be developed in partnership with those partners and stakeholders who have a stake in it. The very same principle applies to the development of national workforce priorities and outcomes and the Government are committed to working with everyone involved in education and training to shape the education outcomes framework and the mandate for Health Education England.

Health Education England will be expected to develop a national workforce plan, building on the local plans developed across England by local education and training boards. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured by those comments.

I turn now to Amendments 33 and 14, which seek to amend the Bill to require HEE to have regard to any official guidance and standards on staffing numbers and skill mix. HEE must work with commissioners and healthcare providers to ensure that workforce plans focus not only on how many staff are required but the breadth of skills required to deliver safe services. These plans need to be integrated with service and financial planning so that the needs of all patients and local communities can be met. Individual healthcare providers are best placed to determine how many staff they need to employ, the skill mix required across the various teams and how they need to deploy them to support services and so on. It is the responsibility of individual healthcare provider boards to be accountable for staffing levels and the skill mix of staff in their organisations. Where changes are planned to the size and shape of the workforce, including the skill mix, healthcare organisations must provide assurance that the safety and quality of patient care is maintained or improved. The process should include clinical involvement, leadership and sign off. I hope that these comments will be reassuring.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about the definition of “sufficient” and whether we were talking about equilibrium or oversupply. I will write to him on that, but in delivering that duty, HEE will seek to match supply and demand so far as that is practically possible. It will also promote the importance of a flexible workforce that can adapt to changing circumstances.

I will also, if I may, write on the issue of staffing ratios. I would just say here and now that staffing is clearly not just about crude numbers and not just about nurses. It is also about how the staff work and ensuring that the right staff are in place to meet the needs of the patients whom they are looking after. Again, it is local healthcare providers that are in the best place to decide how to configure those staff in the right way and to ensure better outcomes and value for money. It really depends on the skill mix, the clinical practice and local factors. I think we would say that it is right that nurse leaders should have the freedom to agree their own staff profiles. But I shall follow up that point.

Amendment 19 seeks to amend Clause 86(2) to add to Health Education England’s main functions the promotion of the importance of practical based training in the education of clinicians. I wholeheartedly agree that practical experience while training is essential to ensure that clinicians have the necessary skills to deliver high-quality and compassionate care and have the correct values and behaviours to practise in the NHS and public health system. It is the responsibility of the professional regulators to ensure that the right standards are in place for professional education and training. Practical experience is already a requirement of the professional regulators. Nursing students, for example, are required by the Nursing and Midwifery Council to undertake half of their training in a practice setting. The GMC also expects every medical student to gain practical experience of working with patients throughout their degree. We have placed a strong duty to secure continuous improvement in the quality of education and training on Health Education England. HEE is already working with the professional regulators, as I have already mentioned, to ensure that the Bill remains clear and simple. However, we have not specified the integral elements of the training programmes to which this duty applies. I would add, though, that the need for practical experience is one of the key priorities that the Government have set for the Health Education England Special Health Authority in the mandate. Health Education England will work with the LETBs and healthcare providers to deliver high-quality clinical and public health placements that provide students and trainees sufficient time working with patients to gain experience.

On Amendment 29, I can reassure the noble Lord that, where appropriate, Health Education England will take a national lead in the planning and management of education and training activities. The Bill already makes provision for this in Clause 94(2). The HEE Special Health Authority has already taken on responsibility at national level for crucially important arrangements to manage recruitment into foundation and specialty training programmes for junior doctors. Where there are controls on workforce numbers at national level—for example, in medicine or pharmacy—it will work with partners such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England to develop national plans that will deliver the staff needed across England.

Amendment 30 seeks to amend Clause 88 to add a requirement for Health Education England to have regard to the need,

“to co-ordinate its activities with the NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

Of course, it is very important that HEE works closely with the other UK nations in developing workforce plans and shaping education and training. It will be important for it to take a UK-wide perspective and, where appropriate, an EU-wide or indeed global perspective in planning for the future and reforming education and training. I refer the Committee to paragraph 17 of Schedule 5, which enables Health Education England to exercise corresponding functions on behalf of the devolved authorities. The special health authority is already working closely with its partners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, building on previous arrangements.

I sympathise completely with Amendment 28 and I wholeheartedly agree that there should be equality of funding for education and training across England. Moving to a tariff-based system for funding clinical education and training would enable a national approach to the funding of clinical placements and would provide a more level playing field between different providers. It will ensure that providers are reimbursed fairly for the education and training that they deliver and are incentivised to provide high-quality clinical placements to their students and trainees. For consistency of opportunities across the country, Clause 85 places a duty on HEE to ensure that sufficient numbers of health professionals are trained and available to work in the health service throughout England.

I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured by those remarks. Before I close, I will quickly respond to my noble friend Lord Willis, who expressed concern about the mandate containing little on nursing and support workers. There is a clear and strong commitment to supporting the development of the care assistant support workforce. Similarly, there are clear national priorities focusing on development of the nursing and midwifery workforce. Again, if I can elaborate on that in writing, I would be happy to do.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that comprehensive response. I am sure that we will all want to study it very carefully in Hansard. I will just make two points. One is that I hear what he says about the obvious intention of HEE to undertake long-term planning, but putting something in the Bill might help it with that. Secondly, I realise that my amendment on practical-based training is not very sophisticated but there is a kernel of truth within it that I would like to pursue on Report. But I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 11.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

NHS: GP Services

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my health interests as set out in the register. The noble Earl is certainly right about one thing: that the health and social care system is under huge pressure. Hospitals are full to bursting, discharge is becoming ever more difficult, and social care and the voluntary sector are struggling to fulfil the demands being placed upon them. However, from the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place, it seems that the Government are seeking to blame everyone but themselves.

For instance, we have heard a lot about the GP contract, but can the noble Earl say why it has taken nine years for that contract to impact on A&E services? These are the very same GPs to whom, only a year ago, the noble Earl was saying we should hand over £80 billion for them to commission services without expertise, experience or inclination. Does he agree that the real causes of the crisis are the government-induced collapse of adult social care, the reduction in nurses, the closure of walk-in centres and ministerial pressure to introduce the NHS 111 service way too soon? Does he accept that all that has happened on the watch of the noble Earl and his ministerial colleagues?

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we are approaching the end of what has been a serious and expert debate on the Care Bill, which has clearly drawn considerable support from your Lordships’ House. However as speaker after speaker has pointed out, there is a marked contrast between the Bill’s intentions and the reality of the health and social care system, which is under huge financial pressure at the moment. Of course, this Bill puts new pressures and responsibilities on local authorities, but there are no signs yet as to how those authorities are to find resources.

We are happy to co-operate in postponing deliberation of Part 1 of the Bill, to allow it to take place after the spending review has been announced. However, in a sense that concerns the future and future responsibilities. The fact is the crisis is here now in relation to social care. Very little has been heard from the Government about how they intend to respond to it. I hope the noble Earl will say something about it tonight. Many noble Lords have referred to the eligibility criteria and the intention to set this at a national level to get consistency and deal with the issue of the huge variation that is now apparent throughout the country. This has been widely welcomed, but I would tell the noble Earl that we certainly expect the Government to publish the all-important draft regulations before we go into Committee to deal with this important matter. I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm that he intends to do that.

He will know that there is widespread expectation that the Government will set the national level at the “substantial” level. I do not expect the noble Earl to confirm that tonight, but does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that local authorities have increasingly moved the threshold up to the substantial level, with, of course, prevention and early intervention being unavailable? May I also ask him about the risk of those local authorities which do not at the moment set the threshold at the substantial level, actually raising it in the light of the national criteria being set at that level? That way, we will have national consistency, but it will be consistency where provision is at the meanest. That would cause considerable concern in many local authority areas.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and my noble friend Lord Warner raised the question of Clause 22 and the all-important boundary definition between the means-tested social care and the free-at-the-point-of-use NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, hopes that at some point this might be a thing of the past, but at the moment this is a critical delineation between the two services. The Minister will know that the Select Committee was concerned that a court might view any changes in the wording as implying a change in the meaning of the provision. It is important that we hear a response from the Government about why we ought not to worry about that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke so eloquently of the problems of people being shunted between the two services because of the cost implication between local authorities and the NHS. At the same time, the noble Baroness passionately promoted the need to support disabled people to be as independent as possible. This is not an issue that will go away and we will need to come back to that in Committee in terms of the new meaning—if it is a new meaning— in Clause 22.

This is not just a Bill for older people, but the challenges that older people face are formidable, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell said. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I welcome the Dilnot provisions and the cap—as far as they go. However that is not the complete picture. The cap and increased threshold will reduce the risk of catastrophic costs, but there is a concern about the way that people of modest means will be treated. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said about the operation of the means-tested tariff and the impact on people with modest income. My noble friend Lord Warner does not quite take his view on that, but it would be good to have a debate on this in Committee.

I would also be interested to know whether my noble friend Lord Lipsey has taken into account that in some benefits the first £6,000, and in others the first £14,000, are exempt from the tariff, which in itself is progressive, with those with the most savings hardest hit. It is important we come back to that.

My final point on Dilnot is about the insurance market, which a number of noble Lords raised. What is the noble Earl’s current assessment of the prospects of an insurance market developing? Has his department been in recent communication with the ABI and can he say any more about the confidence that he has in insurance products developing? This is very important in reaching a conclusion about the likely success of the Dilnot proposals in this legislation.

Finally in this area, I turn to a point raised by my noble friends Lord Lipsey and Lord Warner. The actual administration and assessment that will have to take place, particularly as thousands of self funders will need to be assessed under these proposals, will lead local government into a major administrative task and to an increase in disputes and legal challenges. The Joint Committee was not confident that Ministers had fully thought out the implications for local authorities of these changes. Will the noble Earl comment on that and also on my noble friend Lord Warner's suggestion that we need to establish tribunals in order to deal with disputes to keep them out of the courts as far as possible?

Very good points were made about the need for impartial information in relation to Clause 4. When one thinks about some of the financial consequences of the decisions made, it is a powerful argument. I also hope that the noble Earl will respond to my noble friend Lord Patel in relation to Clause 68 and the question of aftercare and the implications that it has in relation to Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. We had extensive debates on these matters only a few months ago. I hope that this is not opening up the question and is not a reinterpretation.

On carers, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley spoke eloquently about the importance of these provisions, and we welcome them. But there is a question about why they do not relate either to parents caring for disabled children or young carers. As Barnardo’s has said, young carers represent a uniquely valuable group of people whom the Government should be ensuring receive help to address the very serious effects that caring has on their lives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made an important point about the need to ensure that, in the case of children caring for adults, the impact on the child must be given due consideration.

My noble friend Lady Wilkins talked about housing. The point she raised is surely right. What concerns me is the lack of very much reference to housing provision or housing authorities in the Bill. I am sure that we can look forward to some amendments in that direction from my noble friend.

On safeguarding, it is a matter of regret that there is no duty on providers to report to local authorities where they suspect the risk of abuse. It is also a matter of regret that there is no clause allowing for power of entry. This was raised by the Joint Committee and it was clear that there should be a power of entry for local authority representatives where a third party is refusing access to a person who may be at risk of abuse. I know that the Government will say that the consultation produced a lot of people opposed to that. But if we are to take abuse seriously, we should come back to examine whether a power of entry is necessary and should be required.

On Part 2, there is the NHS failure regime. I was pleased that the noble Earl’s officials gave us a briefing on this. It is rather complex and there seems to be a risk of confusion of roles between the two regulators, CQC and Monitor. Will he respond to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Warner about non-foundation trusts? I should have declared an interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust and indeed as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections. Why are the weaker organisations subject to a much less regulated framework than the foundation trusts? Why are the non-foundation trusts not covered in the Bill?

I am disappointed that there is only a partial implementation of the Francis recommendations, particularly as far as primary legislation is concerned. For instance, where is the duty of candour? We have the offence in Clause 81 of publishing false or misleading information. But Francis wanted a statutory duty of candour on healthcare providers to inform patients or appropriate persons if treatment has caused death or serious injury to the patient. Why is that not in the Bill? Where is the registration of healthcare support workers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, suggested?

On public health, I agree with noble Lords who regret that there is no provision for standardised packaging for cigarettes. I look forward to a continuing debate on that matter. On Health Education England, some very important points were raised by noble Lords. I would particularly refer to my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s comments about the LETBs and the need to ensure high quality in training and the involvement of postgraduate deans. As regards research, again, the provisions are very welcome but there is real concern that this country is losing out in terms of the number of multi-centre trials that take place here. Does the noble Earl thinks that the HRA should be given more authority over both the local research ethics committees and NHS trusts in terms of R&D approval? We cannot just leave it to these different bodies when the whole prosperity of our country is in many ways based on this kind of investment.

This has been an excellent debate. We look forward to the responses from the noble Earl. He will know that there are a lot of provisions here that command general support but, ultimately, the real concerns relate to current and future resources, and to the need for the Government to respond strongly in convincing argument about the kind of integrated services that are required to ensure that the provisions of this Bill will be implemented. The Government need to show that they really do get it and are going to come forward with those proposals.

NHS: GP Dispensing

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the rules as they stand do not present a major obstacle for disabled patients. Many pharmacies, for example, offer a free prescription collection and delivery service if a patient encounters difficulty in getting into the pharmacy premises. Under that arrangement, the pharmacy collects the prescription from the surgery on behalf of the patient, dispenses it and delivers it to the patient. Patients can contact their local pharmacies to see whether they offer that service.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. I well understand why the noble Earl does not want to reopen the issue, having chaired meetings at the department of the two representative bodies myself. However, I wonder whether the current arrangements are justifiable in 2013. Does the Minister not think that it might warrant his department asking an independent reviewer to look at the situation again, particularly from the point of view of the consumer and patient rather than of either the pharmacist or the dispensing doctors?

[Earl Howe]

I am sure that the noble Lord is as aware as anyone of the balance that has to be struck here. A GP’s primary purpose is to provide comprehensive medical care and treatment to his or her patients. More than 90% of prescription items are dispensed by pharmacies, which is what most patients expect. However, we must have arrangements to enable patients who live in rural and more remote areas to access medicines more easily. I think the noble Lord will understand that the arrangement for some GPs to provide dispensing services has always been the exception rather than the rule. I do not think there is an appetite on anyone’s part among the professions to reopen these arrangements.

Emergency Services: Paramedics

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, it is up to the employer—in this case, the ambulance trust—to ensure that it has a body of suitably trained and experienced staff. That depends on regular monitoring and ensuring that training is kept up to date. Equally, it is up to commissioners to ensure that the service that they are receiving is delivered by suitably experienced and qualified people. The CQC will also have a role in this regard.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register. To follow on from the noble Earl’s final comment, is this not an example of staff such as nurses being trained to be practitioners in the health service but finding that they have not been given enough practical training when they come to treat people on the front line? The noble Earl will know that Health Education England is being established as a non-departmental public body in the Care Bill. Can we ensure that that body has much more control over the curriculum of those being trained to fill these very important posts?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes a series of very important points about training. The answer to his final question is that, yes, Health Education England will certainly be looking at the degree of training required to fulfil specific professional tasks across the piece in the health service, including the ambulance service. However, I do not think that this case reflects a lack of appropriate training on the part of the individuals involved. They were appropriately trained; they were just incompetent. That is the point.

NHS: 111 Telephone Service

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the implementation of the NHS 111 service.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register.

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

My Lords, we recognise that the NHS 111 launches in March did not go as smoothly as planned and that a number of providers have delivered an unacceptable service, especially at weekends. NHS England is working closely with clinical commissioning groups to stabilise providers who have failed to deliver an effective service and to ensure that areas yet to go live are in a safe and fit state to do so.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that response, but on what grounds was the decision made to go ahead with the national rollout in the light of the results from the pilots, which showed problems with the scheme, and the fact that many people in the NHS advised Ministers and NHS England not to roll it out because it was not ready?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the University of Sheffield did work for the department reporting on the first four NHS 111 pilots. That showed that 92% of patients were satisfied with the service and that 93% felt that the advice given was helpful. It also found that, overall, the service was meeting its objective of getting people to the right place first time. On that basis, it was considered safe to go ahead with a rollout. Unfortunately, in particular areas of the country, the resources deployed to meet the demand have not been accurately assessed, but I stress that that is in a minority of locations.

National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, laid before the House on 11 March, be annulled on the grounds that they do not implement the assurances given by Ministers to Parliament during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that NHS commissioners would be free to commission services in the way they consider in the best interests of NHS patients (SI 2013/500).

Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, one of the main concerns in our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill was the fear that clinical commissioning groups would be compelled to put clinical services out to tender, forcing doctors and nurses to compete with each other at huge expense and at risk of fragmentation of clinical services to patients. In response, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, told this House that commissioners would not have to create markets against the best interests of patients. He said that they would be free to commission services in the way they consider best. The regulations we are debating tonight are concerned with the circumstances in which contracts for the provision of services to patients within the NHS must be put out to tender.

When an NHS commissioner goes to tender for a service, the commissioner is already required to operate within a framework of EU and domestic law. These regulations are different from the existing regime in which NHS commissioners operate. They impose for the first time legal obligations on NHS commissioners to tender services with NHS trusts. They remove the discretion that commissioners have to decide when it is in the best interests of patients to expose the service to a compulsory competitive tendering process. We are deciding which organisation is best placed to deliver service. At the moment, commissioners can look at the needs of the NHS as a whole and make a holistic judgment about who is best placed to deliver a service. These regulations, in my contention, make it far more difficult for commissioners to take such a whole-picture approach.

Many NHS organisations, including the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and many more, have sounded the alarm about the effect these regulations will have on the NHS. Your Lordships’ Scrutiny Committee reported them with substantive criticisms for the special attention of the House on the grounds that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objective. Not least of the committee’s concerns were that because of the withdrawal of the original regulations and their hasty substitution of these ones, the Government have allowed insufficient time to enable thorough scrutiny. The committee says that it cannot be good or effective policy-making to seek their immediate implementation when they are so widely misunderstood.

The Health Minister, Mr Burns, told the other place that it was not the Government’s intention that the regulations would impose compulsory competitive tendering requirements on commissioners. But surely that is what Regulation 5 does. The only circumstance in which a CCG can avoid a tendering process is if that CCG is satisfied that the services under the contract are capable of being provided only by a single provider. The single provider test will never be satisfied apart perhaps from the case of a single rural hospital which is the only provider for acute services in a large geographical area. I fail to see how it could operate in cities such as Birmingham or London because there will always be multiple providers. Having mentioned Birmingham, I ought to remind the House of my health interests. Hence, in those circumstances it will not be for commissioners to decide, as the Minister has assured us. It will surely be for commissioners to undertake a competitive process in all cases, unless there is no remote possibility of another capable provider coming forward. This will be bureaucratic and very expensive. One question that I want to put to the Minister is why the Government have not set a contract value below which the single provider test will not apply. Why is that not in line with all other procurement regimes?

When we met the noble Earl for a briefing a few weeks ago on the regulations he gave examples of the circumstances in which services are capable of being provided only by a single provider. He particularly mentioned the possibility of bundling services together in a single contract. But, even in those circumstances, there will often be more than one provider. I remind the noble Earl that the recently published review of the economic regulator for the NHS, Monitor, entitled A Fair Playing Field, makes a number of criticisms of bundling. Monitor said that it restricted the ability of providers to enter the market and that bundling services together was likely to exclude some providers from offering services. Monitor is being asked to police the regulations. The noble Earl will have seen the letter that noble Lords have received from a number of leading charities which say that the bundling of services could put them out of reach of the voluntary sector. If that is the view of the voluntary sector, what of private companies that may feel similarly aggrieved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I will be speaking in this debate. I oppose the Motion in my noble friend’s name. He will not be surprised by that, although I know that he hoped that I would have more pressing engagements elsewhere. I should declare my registered interest as an adviser to two companies.

I begin, briefly, with some context in which these draft regulations sit. Much of the comment and briefing that I and, I suspect, some other noble Lords have received has an underlying assumption that, somehow, competition is bad for NHS patients. It would let in what are usually described as slightly distasteful people called private providers and should be prevented at almost any cost. Much of that seems to overlook the legal procurement framework that the NHS operates within now and within which it operated when I was a Minister some years ago.

The NHS has to operate within the terms of EU competition law, with certain constraints related to clinical services. NHS bodies operate under a set of process rules in how they conduct procurements. There are regulators that patrol the territory of competition with jurisdiction in relation to the NHS, namely the Office of Fair Trading and Monitor. That is not new. It is not a nasty invention by the coalition. We can get all fanciful about it but it has been around for some time. We may not like it, we may prefer it to be different, but that is the legal context in which the NHS has had to operate for some time.

I would argue—this may be rather uncomfortable for some of my colleagues on these Benches—that this contextual framework makes any persistent attempt to make NHS providers preferred providers, irrespective of these legal constraints, profoundly anti-competitive. I believe that it is vulnerable to successful legal challenge. We got quite close to that before the 2010 election. This set of contexts in which the NHS has to operate means that we have rather a complex area for NHS commissioners to operate in. They need a clear set of rules to guide their conduct on procurement and competition, and that is provided for in Section 75 of the legislation, which we passed after a great deal of discussion and debate. That is the context in which these draft regulations are being prepared.

They are also operating in another important context, one in which the NHS itself faces enormous financial and clinical challenges over the rest of this decade. It was the Public Accounts Committee under a Labour chairman that made it very clear that virtually every NHS trust was financially and often clinically unsustainable in its present form. Change is absolutely inevitable within the NHS, whether we have these regulations or not. A massive programme of service reconfiguration awaits the NHS to meet the unavoidable fiscal, demographic and morbidity challenges it faces. In the past two months, two acute hospital trusts have gone bust, and in my view another 20 may be well on the road to the same fate. The idea that we can somehow solve these problems without an injection of new providers with some new ideas and some better management techniques is fantasy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for his enormously helpful speech tonight.

[Lord Warner]

There is plenty more to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am delighted and I look forward to making further interventions. My noble friend and I very much agree on the need for a massive reconfiguration of services. We have argued that this needs to be done from the centre with authority and vigour, but what does the noble Lord say to the interventions of the OFT and the competition panel into perfectly sensible reconfiguration proposals? Does he not see that that is entirely consistent with the general direction in which the Government wish to take us, whereby in essence they are saying that the integrity of the marketplace is more important than reconfiguring these services?

[Lord Warner]

I am not prepared to second-guess the OFT before it has done its inquiry into this set of arrangements. I cannot see the point of having regulatory jurisdictions such as the Office of Fair Trading and Monitor if, every time they do something some of us disapprove of, we jump in and tell them they are out of line in undertaking that kind of investigation under the legislation on competition as it stands today. I am not prepared to engage with my noble friend in a discussion about whether the OFT has behaved reasonably. I would sooner wait and see what action it takes to investigate these arrangements, and that is the position that most of us had to take when these things happened while we were Ministers sitting in the same place as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is today. We have to be a bit more statesmanlike about some of these things.

In the UK, we seem to prefer a situation in which we bail out what are in many cases public monopolies. We seem to forget that in our sister organisation of adult social care we have had a mixed economy for nearly 30 years, and that local government has quite amiably—

--- Later in debate ---

If this House tonight decides to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it will do two things. First, it will knock out Monitor completely, and send those who wish to protest about an unfair contract off to the courts to spend taxpayers’ money in arguing their cases for having been unfairly treated—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I do not understand that. Clearly, if a CCG decides that a potential contract meets the single provider test in regulation 5, for instance, a disappointed provider can go to the courts in any case.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

In this particular set of regulations we are giving statutory underpinning to Monitor in a way that will mean, as it did previously, a much greater opportunity to deal with most objections on the spot and not have them carry on into the courts at great expense to the taxpayer and to patients. If we turn it down tonight it will leave us without that structure altogether and we will go back to where we were.

In conclusion, while I have very strong sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that the National Health Service of the 1980s was a more true state service than anything today, I am afraid we cannot go back; we are where we are. The best thing we can possibly do is to make patients’ interests the very centre of what the NHS is all about and to recognise that this new route is the way we are going. It could, however, be very exciting and it would lead to a very much more accountable NHS than we have had in recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we are debating a set of regulations on which, as we have heard this evening, a great deal of passion and a large quantity of printers’ ink has been expended over recent days and weeks. I would like to begin with three very simple statements, which I hope will be helpful as mental marker posts before I respond to the concerns and questions that have been raised.

First, amid the many changes that the Government have made to NHS commissioning, one area of the law that we have not changed one iota is the law relating to competitive tendering. That law has been in place for a number of years. It has been governed by a European directive, and as regards the rules that govern NHS procurement, these regulations usher in nothing new at all.

Secondly, there is no government agenda to privatise NHS services—quite the contrary. The House may remember that we made it illegal in the Health and Social Care Act for the Secretary of State, Monitor or NHS England to have a policy of deliberately favouring the independent sector.

Thirdly, it is NHS commissioners and no one else who will decide whether, where and how competition in service provision should be introduced. These regulations do not confer any obligation on commissioners to create or promote markets, nor do they require commissioners to unbundle or fragment services against the interests of patients.

I begin with these simple statements because they are key to understanding what the Government are doing and what they are not doing. What we are doing, above all, is having a set of arrangements in place that will protect the interests of patients. The basic purpose of the regulations is to prevent commissioners failing to think about how the needs of their patients can best be met. Equally, their purpose is to ensure that commissioning in the NHS is protected from abuses arising from conflicts of interest or anti-competitive behaviour that works against the interests of patients. There is no encouragement in these regulations, explicit or implicit, to commission services from the independent sector, or indeed any other sector. The regulations enshrine the principle that patients must receive services from the providers, from whichever sector—public, private or voluntary—that are most capable of meeting their needs and improving the quality of services that they receive.

Mechanisms to make sure that this happened were put in place by the previous Administration. These mechanisms consisted of the Principles and Rules for Co-operation and Competition, which were overseen by the Co-operation and Competition Panel. Now that primary care trusts no longer exist, we need to carry over those arrangements so as to apply them to clinical commissioning groups. The Government committed, in their response to the NHS Future Forum report, to maintain the previous rules and place them on a statutory footing in order that they could continue to apply to commissioners. That is exactly what we have done; the panel has been transferred into Monitor, so that there is absolute continuity in how the rules will be applied.

This is a key point for noble Lords to understand. Monitor is now the sector-specific regulator for the NHS. In practice that means that it, not the courts, will be the guardian of patients’ interests and will adjudicate if allegations of anti-competitive conduct arise. In effect, it will act as a firewall between commissioners and the courts. If the House annuls these regulations, that firewall will disappear and I suggest to the House that this could not possibly be in the interests of the health service.

The regulations also make it clear that Monitor has no powers to direct commissioners to go out to tender, which brings me to Regulation 5(1). People who have looked at that regulation have stated that it requires commissioners to go out to tender for just about every NHS service. That is not so. It is not even remotely near the reality. First, the wording of Regulation 5 which refers to “one capable provider” is almost exactly the same as that of the previous Government’s guidance to PCTs. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was quite right in pointing this out. I shall now read from that guidance. It said that PCT boards “must act transparently” and without discrimination,

“and be able to demonstrate rationale for decisions on whether or not to competitively tender. In particular, where the commissioner decides to procure through single tender the rationale must demonstrate that there is only one capable provider to deliver the services”.

The circumstances in which a commissioner may therefore award a contract without a competition under the regulations are exactly the same as they have been up to now. There is no daylight between them.

It is worth my making a point about that guidance. It was not guidance that PCTs could take or leave but guidance that was declaratory of public procurement law, which applied to PCTs, so those who think that we are replacing a rather loose arrangement with something more stringent are mistaken. The law was binding before and it is binding now. These regulations are declaratory of the existing legal position, just as the previous Government’s guidance was. However, we also need these regulations to ensure that the various protections for patients and commissioners afforded by Monitor, as agreed during the passage of the 2012 Act, are in place.

We have heard concerns this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about what might happen to the unbundling of hospital services. I would like to put that misconception to rest. Elective hospital care is not relevant to these regulations. The previous Government brought in a policy known as “any willing provider” for elective hospital services. We have continued with that policy, which means that patients have a free choice between hospital providers who meet NHS quality standards and contractual terms. There is therefore no question of tendering for those services.

In the main, the services where tendering might be relevant are those delivered in the community and certain more specialised services. Again, the overarching principle to guide commissioners is Regulation 2—to do what is in the best interests of their patients. In some circumstances, tendering may be appropriate, but in many cases it will not: for example, where there is only one provider capable of providing the integrated package or pathway of services which the commissioner wishes to secure for its patients. In another situation, they may judge that only one provider is able to meet the clinical quality and safety standards that they require. They may decide not to tender where they conclude that it is necessary for services to be co-located because of the interdependencies between them—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, once again—in order, for example, to ensure patient safety.

It is worth looking at the actual wording of Regulation 5(1), which says:

“A relevant body may award a new contract … without advertising … where the relevant body is satisfied that the services to which the contract relates are capable of being provided only by that provider”.

The relevant body has to be satisfied. This means that a commissioner needs to go through a process to make sure that it is taking sensible decisions that genuinely address the interests of its patients. In other words, it must have a rationale for what it does and be satisfied that it is doing the most appropriate thing. As long as it has that rationale, that is where the matter ends. I repeat: in those circumstances there is no one who can oblige the commissioner to go out to tender.

Those who maintain that these regulations usher in a lawyers’ charter are not looking at the evidence. The evidence to date tells us that only a tiny handful of cases have been referred to the Co-operation and Competition Panel in the space of several years. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that none has gone to court. Since the rules on NHS procurement are staying exactly the same, I fail to see why we should expect a sudden avalanche of challenges to commissioning decisions.

As I said during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act, there is no requirement in these regulations or anywhere else to create markets. Nor, as I have said, is there any requirement for commissioners to unbundle or to fragment services to facilitate competition: in other words, to separate out individual services so they could be provided by a larger range of providers. The decision whether and when to create these conditions and the services to which they apply remains entirely with commissioners.

One of the arguments produced by the noble Lord for annulling these regulations is that they lack clarity, particularly Regulation 5(1). I suggest that is a specious argument. First, the law has not changed. Secondly, employees of commissioning support units, whose job it is to support CCGs in commissioning decisions, are very largely the same people who did exactly the same jobs in PCTs and are entirely familiar with this area of the law. Thirdly, there is already guidance out there, produced by the NHS Commissioning Board Authority last year. Fourthly, Monitor will be providing further guidance to support commissioners in understanding the circumstances in which single tender is appropriate, including specific case studies. This guidance will be consulted on shortly. Monitor will continue, as the Co-operation and Competition Panel did before it, to provide informal advice to help commissioners understand the regulations. We really do not have to worry about lack of clarity here.

I turn now to one or two of the specific questions that were posed in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, asked why other countries have not applied these procurement laws. All member states in the European Union have been required to transpose the EU directive on public procurement into their own national legislation. In fact, it has been applied in Wales and Northern Ireland through the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, maintained that the OFT’s role in mergers is evidence of the Government’s agenda to marketise the NHS. First, that issue is in no way related to the regulations that we are debating tonight. Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord that the OFT is acting independently under the powers conferred on it under the previous Administration through the Enterprise Act 2002.

With regard to the Competition Commission gagging clinicians in the Bournemouth and Poole merger case, I suggest that that is not relevant either. My understanding is that those arrangements are simply to prevent the merger proceeding further while it is being reviewed. They should not get in the way of providers co-operating with each other in the usual way in the interests of patients. The noble Lord said that Monitor is anti-bundling and that it would be policing the regulations at the same time. That is misleading. Decisions about whether or not to bundle services are not for Monitor to make; they are squarely for commissioners to take in the best interests of their patients, and Monitor is under a duty to enable integrated services.

The noble Lord, Lord Owen, raised concerns about charities. I have seen the brief from National Voices, Marie Curie and others in this regard. Those concerns are helpful in illustrating the point that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the commissioning of services. It is interesting that some stakeholders have raised concerns about unbundling leading to fragmentation, while others are concerned about the effects of bundling too many services together. In practice, it is for clinically led commissioners to take decisions on whether or not services should be bundled in the best interests of patients. That is their job, and these regulations do nothing to require them to bundle or unbundle, as I have said.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked me whether the regulations take into account the financial viability of hospitals and economies of scale. First, I remind the noble Lord that these regulations are not relevant to the vast majority of elective hospital services, so they do not herald the prospect of large numbers of services being hived off. Secondly, it is for commissioners to make decisions about the need for services to be bundled or co-located, as I have said. It is not in their interest to destabilise providers. Thirdly, the NHS tariff is being improved in order to ensure that it is properly reflective of the costs faced by providers. This would mean that profit-making services would no longer need to cross-subsidise other services.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me why there is no contract value threshold below which commissioners do not have to go out to tender. Where the value of a contract is such that it would be disproportionate for the commissioner to hold a tendering exercise, there is no requirement under the regulations or the law to do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that Monitor should publish figures relating to the cases that it considers. Paragraph 21 in Schedule 8 to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 requires Monitor to publish an annual report on the exercise of its functions and lay a copy before Parliament, and to provide the Secretary of State with such other reports and information relating to the exercise of its functions as the Secretary of State may require. We would also expect Monitor to publish reports on cases considered by it, as the Co-operation and Competition Panel has to date.

I of course took due note of the criticisms made by your Lordships’ Scrutiny Committee. However, I would say that there was a formal public consultation on the requirements of the original set of regulations between August and October last year. Engagement events were held up and down the country. The response to the consultation demonstrated broad support for the proposals from a wide range of stakeholders. The revised regulations did not substantially change the policy, and for that reason I suggest to the Scrutiny Committee that further consultation was not necessary.

Let me be clear about what we would lose if the regulations were not in place. The main thing that we would lose is the adjudication role of Monitor as an expert health sector regulator with an overarching statutory duty to protect and promote patients’ interests. That would mean that NHS commissioners would be exposed to the full force of public procurement law, as interpreted by the courts. I firmly believe that in that situation we would be more likely to secure the very kind of risk-averse behaviour by commissioners that some have argued today must be avoided. In addition, without the regulations, patients’ right to choice under the NHS constitution would not be protected; commissioning processes would be much less transparent and accountable; we would lose safeguards to protect against and address conflicts of interest, discrimination and anti-competitive conduct that work against the interests of patients; and requirements to ensure that the objective of procurement must always be in pursuit of meeting the needs of patients and improving quality would not be in place.

Although in one sense, the regulations can be seen as unexceptional, because they largely carry forward existing rules and arrangements; but in another sense they are more than that. They are vital for anyone who believes that the central interest that the NHS should have at its heart is that of the patient. With that observation in particular, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the Motion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we have had a long debate and I know that the House will want to come to a decision very soon.

I agree with the last comment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. These are very important regulations, although there is disagreement about what they mean when it comes to practice in the field. The essential test of the regulations is whether they accord with the assurances given by Ministers during a difficult time in getting the Bill through your Lordships’ House and the other place as to whether clinicians would be free to commission services in the way that they considered best.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is always reassuring and was so tonight on the content of the regulations. If you read them and the comments of your Lordships’ Scrutiny Committee, you will see that that simple statement—that clinicians will be free to commission services in the way that they wish to—has been hedged in by the product of many statutory rules contained in the regulations. When it comes to Regulation 5, there is a division of opinion between the Government and the Opposition, and between lawyers, as to what the single capable provider test means. It is arguable that the health service will be confused as to whether it can define a local service as one that can be provided only by one provider, or whether, in many parts of the country, similar services will provided by different organisations within the facility of the CCG. There will be considerable doubt whether the CCG will be able to go ahead and award a contract without some competitive tender process. That is at the heart of some of this argument.

I do not accept the idea that Monitor’s involvement will somehow prevent legal action from ending up in the courts. The general confusion about these regulations will inevitably lead to cases coming before the courts. The advice that will be given to many CCGs by their legal advisers is to act defensively and to go out to more competitive tendering than the noble Earl has suggested.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, are of course strong supporters of the National Health Service. I say to them that every day, up and down the country, a market is unfolding in the NHS. People in the NHS believe that that is happening. They are seeing contracts already being won by the private sector. They see themselves being undercut, and they worry about the fragmentation of services and about the overall intent of the Government.

Of course the NHS is not perfect but, my goodness, it enjoys tremendous public support. I have worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, over many years. She referred to international comparisons. I end by referring her to the US Commonwealth Fund, which produces an evaluation of the most developed health care systems in the world. Its latest evaluation placed the UK as No. 2 overall. It placed the US, where the system of markets and competition is most to the fore, as No. 7. When people look at the NHS internationally, they see a lot of things that they wish to commend, not least of which is the integration of purpose and the support from the public. My concern is that at the end of the day I think the noble Earl is right: these regulations are vital. The problem is that they hold open the door to a competitive, marketised service in which I am afraid that, despite the wording that has been used tonight, the interests of patients will be not first but last. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

NHS: Leeds General Infirmary

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I say to my noble friend with great respect that the premise of his question is incorrect. The Government have not taken a role in this matter. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, this is a matter that the NHS itself has led. There is no agenda by the Government at all, apart from our desire to see the best possible children’s cardiac services provided in this country.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. Would the noble Earl accept that Sir Bruce Keogh has an outstanding record in the health service in improving outcomes from heart surgery, and therefore he has to be listened to with a great deal of respect?

On the more general issue of the reconfiguration of services, on which NHS England has promised to become much more assertive—which, I am sure, is welcome—is the noble Earl concerned that the Office of Fair Trading and the Co-operation and Competition Panel seem to be intervening in sensible reconfiguration decisions on the spurious basis that they impact on competition? Will he tell these bodies to desist?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, if the noble Lord can supply me with some examples, of course I will look into them. I remind him that tomorrow we are debating a set of regulations that bear on this very question and I shall have plenty to say on that occasion, which I hope will assuage his concerns.

NHS: ECMO Machines

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I fully agree. The noble Lord is quite right. ECMO cannot be provided by just any ICU team. It is a highly specialised treatment with significant potential for serious complications, and considerable expertise is therefore required, including having a multidisciplinary team of the kind that he outlined. In general, capacity has much more to do with having suitably trained staff than with having the equipment itself.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about evidence, would the noble Earl consider referring this to NICE for its expert advice?

[Earl Howe]

I shall certainly take that idea away with me, but I think that there is broad consensus among the medical community that the key to success with ECMO is getting the patients connected to the equipment quickly. Although it is a moving scenario, all the evidence so far suggests that ECMO confers no benefit if some hours have elapsed since the cardiac arrest.