Health Care and Associated Professions (Indemnity Arrangements) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Emerton

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Emerton (CB)]

My Lords, I have one or two points to make. It is not very often I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but we really have to focus on the safety of mother and child.

I am talking about independent midwives only, not the whole directive, because I support the directive. I think there is a problem in that the midwifery profession generally is the most regulated of the nursing professions. They are required to be relicensed every year. They are under a supervisory midwife. They are, if anything, more supervised than the nursing profession. I chaired the professional conduct committee of the previous regulatory body and the midwifery cases that came forward were, in the main, where things went wrong with independent midwives. Mistakes are made—I am sure we all accept that—but the problem is that very often they lack support out in the community.

In a situation where things go badly wrong, there is the issue of who is going to pay the compensation to the mother or baby who has to be cared for for many months or even years. The other noble Baroness—I am afraid I cannot remember her name—said that we ought to be looking at something to help the independent midwives, but how do we help a very small group among a very large number of midwives and try to support them when very often the compensation is enormous?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his introduction to the order, following, as he said, the Finlay Scott review. The Opposition have no argument with the principle of the order, but I want to raise with the Minister some of the practical consequences of its implementation. The Government’s consultation states that about 4,200 self-employed nurses and therapists may be required to obtain indemnity cover. For most concerned, the insurance premium is modest. The Department of Health’s consultation estimate was that for nurses the insurance premium would be £195 per annum, and for therapists between £255 and £256 per annum. There should not be a problem with those practitioners being able to pay that premium, but we run into great difficulty when it comes to independent midwives.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that of course the safety of the mother and baby is paramount, and her point about the issue of professional support for independent midwives. I am sure that she would recognise that for some women, the support of an independent midwife is very important to them. Sometimes the reason why a woman will turn to an independent midwife is that they find that statutory services are either not prepared to help her to have a baby at home or are less than sympathetic. It would be a great pity if, as a result of the order, that very small group of professionals was unable to practise. The RIA accepts that affordable commercial cover is not available to independent midwives working as individuals. The consultation estimates that there would be an annual cost of indemnity cover of about £15,000 per individual independent midwife. There is no way that an independent midwife is likely to be able to pay that sum.

It is fair to ask the Minister whether he considers that independent midwives will be able to practise in future as a result of the order. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made, about the benefit of this EU regulation, but what an irony that the Conservative Party, in particular, with its histrionics about Europe and the extraordinary behaviour of our Prime Minister in the past few days, is now bringing in a European order that will put independent midwives out of business. I wonder whether the Government really recognise that. They may find that independent midwives are in fact no longer able to practise, and the Government may come in for considerable criticism as a result.

I was unimpressed by the response given by Dr Dan Poulter in another place. He has been very unsympathetic to the issue of independent midwives. That is a great pity. When this order was debated in the Commons a few days ago, I thought that the government response was weak, unsympathetic and gave very little comfort indeed. It is all very well talking about social enterprises in the Wirral as if that is an answer. Clearly, that will not be an answer for many independent midwives. The impact of agreeing to the order is that independent practitioners will not be able to practise any more. Either they will be forced to come into the NHS or they will simply not be available to women in future. I would like the Minister to give his assessment of what he thinks the impact of the order will be on those independent midwives.

Having read the Commons debate, I am not clear what happens to staff who provide care, sometimes complex care, independently but who are not a member of a regulated body. What about care assistants practising independently? The Minister said that where they are employed they are covered because of the vicarious liability of the employer, but I am not clear about those practitioners in the health and care field who provide services but who are not part of a regulated profession.

As a general principle, the Opposition support the order because it is eminently sensible, but the Government could have found a more sympathetic way to help independent midwives to be able to practise in the future. I for one am fearful that, as a result of the order, they will not be able to do so.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Emerton

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Emerton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having heard the first part of the speech made by my noble friend Lady Meacher; I can only say how much I agree with her. In the past nine weeks, while the carer was away, I had the personal experience of doing two weeks’ full-time caring. I timed waking up, giving the medication, getting breakfast, rushing up to do my post while she was having her breakfast, and then attending to her personal care and getting her dressed. It took an hour and a half, every day, and that was just the morning.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the minimum quality standards in the noble Earl’s amendment set a good standard. However, that needs to be supported by an assessment and care programme. There needs to be a proper assessment of what is required in terms of the total care, not just the minimum. We have a system for some of our residents in the retirement development where I live, where prevention to admission to hospital is done by an assessment of how much time care is required. Two people come from the unit—a nurse and a physiotherapist—and fully assess the patient. If there is a proper care programme, that gives the time element. Amendment 25 says “excluding travel time” and that a visit should not take less than 30 minutes. It is difficult to be so prescriptive, but if that was according to the care plan, it might go a long way.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 151 is in my name. This is a very important group that goes right to the heart of our debates about the quality of care that is being given to many vulnerable people. You cannot distinguish the quality of care from the way in which care workers themselves are treated. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on that.

In Committee I quoted from a Unison survey called Time to Care, and I will quote one or two statistics from it. In this survey, 79.1% of the staff surveyed said that they had to rush work or leave one care visit early to go to another. Some 56% earned between £6.08 and £8 per hour. The majority do not get set wages. Their turnover is very high: 57.8% of those surveyed were not paid for travelling time between visits. That is not the foundation for providing good-quality, comprehensive and continuous care.

We know that many people on these so-called zero-hour contracts have had to sacrifice time with their children in order to be available when their employer requires them to be—even if there is no work. Others are required to work exclusively for one employer with no guarantee that they work enough hours to pay the bills. The Opposition believe that employers ought to be banned from insisting that zero-hour workers be available even when there is no guarantee of any work. We should stop zero-hour contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business, and we should end the misuse of those contracts where employees in practice work regular hours over a sustained period.

The issue of how care workers are treated and employed is directly linked to the arguments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Greengross, about 15-minute care visits. There is no doubt that there is widespread concern about the impact of local authorities setting what can seem to many to be arbitrary limits in the time allowed for care. I do not necessarily go along with the amendment sponsored by the Leonard Cheshire organisation, but the argument that it raises about care workers being asked to provide personal care, including supporting service users to dress, bathe, eat and go to the bathroom in a timeframe that simply does not allow dignity or respect, seems powerful.

Equally, I have noted the comments of the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, who cautions against taking a broad-brush approach in terms of the time that should be given to each client. The association agrees with Leonard Cheshire Disability that 15 minutes is not long enough to allow some homecare tasks to be done, but it says that there is a need for some flexible and truly personal approach, so that each person can be assessed and provided with the appropriate care. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made a powerful point that if one seeks to place in legislation a minimum number of minutes, the risk is that it would not meet some people’s needs. However, the problem is that if one starts to define it in legislation, it might become the maximum. That seems to be one of the great dangers.

That is why we need to look carefully at the noble Earl’s two amendments. I appreciate the fact that he has come back to your Lordships’ House with some amendments which seek to deal with the substance of the issues that we are talking about. In essence, they say that local authorities, in promoting the effective operation of a market, must first have regard to,

“the importance of fostering a workforce whose members are able to ensure the delivery of high quality services”,

which is in Amendment 24; and in Amendment 27 they must have regard to,

“the importance of promoting the well-being of adults … with needs for care and support and the well-being of carers in its area”.

The question for us is whether that is enough. I rather doubt it. That a local authority “must have regard to” does not seem a particularly strong message to local authorities. Where is the beef in that? Where is the leverage to make local authorities do the right thing in a context, which we must recognise, where they are extremely pressurised in relation to resources?

The reason why I tabled Amendment 151 is that, given that it is difficult in legislation to prescribe the kind of behaviour that we want from local authorities—for the reasons that we have already debated and which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, illustrated effectively —one way to deal with this issue is through the regulatory system, as I said in Committee. Noble Lords will know that later in the Bill we will discuss the Care Quality Commission and already in the current Bill it states:

“The Commission must, in respect of such English local authorities as may be prescribed … conduct reviews of the provision of such adult social services provided or commissioned by the authorities as may be prescribed”.

There is an opportunity for the Government to say that the CQC will take this on as a major responsibility, to review, monitor and, in some cases, take effective regulatory action, if they believe that the action of those people providing care, either in terms of how they have been commissioned by local authorities or by self-funders, is inadequate. However, the problem with the clause is that there is no guarantee that that is going to happen, because all we are doing is essentially giving the Government regulation-making powers. There is no certainty that this approach will be prescribed.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Emerton

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 86PA.

Clause 5 emphasises quality, which is to be welcomed, and places promoting diversity and quality in the provision of services in the Bill. However, on behalf of nurses, the Royal College of Nursing thinks that it is not enough merely to quote “quality”. Local authorities are responsible for commissioning services from providers and have a duty to ensure that these providers and services are effective to meet the needs of the individual. It does not believe that at the moment local authorities are fulfilling these duties and responsibilities if they commission providers who fail to deliver high-quality care and, worse, provide care that detrimentally impacts on the health and well-being of individuals, as has been demonstrated in some recent high-profile cases.

As commissioners, local authorities must be part of a system-wide approach to safeguarding vulnerable groups. They are therefore falling negligent in their role if they commission providers and services that are not sustainable and fail both financially and clinically.

The potential impact of this was demonstrated recently with Southern Cross, where the health and well-being—and, indeed, lives—of care home residents were put at risk following the failure of its business model. For this reason, I believe that local authorities have a responsibility for ensuring that services that are commissioned by them are of high quality and sustainable. The two amendments are to that effect. Amendment 86HA seeks to insert the word “sustainable” and Amendment 86PA seeks to insert the words,

“the importance of ensuring the sustainability and high quality of the providers it commissions”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, as this is my first intervention, I refer noble Lords to my interests as president elect of GSI, chair of an NHS foundation trust and a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 86J seeks to delete “high quality services” and instead insert,

““services appropriate to their needs as identified in the needs assessment and carer’s assessment”.

The problem with the draft as it currently stands is that it is very vague and entirely subjective depending on who is defining “high quality services”. Perhaps the noble Earl can clarify how the Government think it ought to be defined. Otherwise, there is a risk of uncertainty and inconsistency which, certainly when it comes to eligibility criteria, the Bill is designed to eradicate.

My second Amendment 86K would ensure that those in receipt of care and those involved in providing care are involved in shaping the market, as required under Clause 5. I have received a number of submissions about the market-making role of local authorities, and I was concerned to receive a submission from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which said that while the intention of Clause 5 in promoting quality and diversity within the market is laudable, ADASS was of the view that the proposed duty placed on local authorities is wholly unrealistic. It points to a large number of providers that have no relationship or contact with local authorities, and says that combined with increased personalisation and limited leverage through the regulation framework, the ability of local authorities alone to influence diversity and quality of service is restricted.

I was very disappointed with that response, and rather taken aback by it. I hope that the noble Earl will share my view that in fact local authorities ought to be able to influence not only the market but the quality of care provided by private providers to a very great extent. Would the Minister accept that, to be effective, local authorities need to have a strong engagement both with users of services and carers, and with those who are providing services, too? That is why I tabled the amendment.

I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and I very much agree with her about the need to ensure quality in provision of service. That brings me to my own substantive Amendment 86P, which is very much concerned with the conditions under which care workers are employed in the main by the private sector. This is a hugely important issue. Clearly, we have a growing number of disabled and older people who need care and support. The people working in the care sector are vital. We need quality people who are highly trained and who can give the right commitment to the vulnerable people they are asked to care for. Clause 5 is important because what we see is a very fragmented industry delivering care that in many cases is of questionable quality and employing insecure, low paid, unregulated staff. Amendment 86P is concerned with the importance of fostering a sustainable workforce to encourage the acquisition of skills and decent working conditions that support the continuity and quality of care.

I was shocked to see a parliamentary Answer from the Minister’s honourable friend Mr Lamb recently, showing that more than 300,000 people working in the care sector are employed on zero-hours contracts. The point that I wish to make is this: how can people who do not have the security of knowing what they will earn pass on a sense of security to the people whom they care for? The rise in zero-hours contracts is bad for service users, many of whom are, of course, extremely vulnerable. There is another issue. People who are being cared for want to see the same person to have a continuity of care relationship. We know that that is severely hindered by those wretched zero-hours contracts. I believe that secure employment would allow staff to concentrate on caring rather than worrying about whether they are earning enough money for themselves and their families to live on.

I ought to declare an interest as a member of UNISON, which produced an excellent report, Time to Care, which undertook a survey in 2012 of care home workers. It showed that 80% of those who responded had to rush work or leave a client early to go to another call on what is called call cramming— in other words, too many calls for a care worker to undertake—and 56% received between the national minimum wage and £8 an hour. The majority did not receive set wages. Not surprisingly, turnover is high, while wages and conditions are poor.

Here is a shocking statistic. Nearly 57.8% are not paid for travelling time between visits. This morning I met a carer in Southwark who works roughly 20 hours on a zero-hours contract. She reckons that, because of the travelling time, she actually works for 27 hours, but is paid for only 20. The problem is that there is a race to the bottom because local authorities are, in my view, neglecting their responsibilities for ensuring that, when they place contracts, they are with good quality organisations. The companies who are exploiting their workers in this way are winning contracts at the expense of companies who treat their employees wisely. No wonder, therefore, that 36.7% of respondents are often allocated different clients on a daily basis, so that there is no chance of any relationship being developed.

There are many other statistics. The scandal of the 15-minute visit is well known. Indeed, the UK Homecare Association survey shows that three-quarters of all trips to old people have to be completed in less than half an hour and one in 10 is limited to no more than 15 minutes.

In Committee last week, I discussed with the Minister whether the CQC could be persuaded—or indeed, I hope, instructed—by your Lordships, to prioritise the regulation and inspection of local authorities in their commissioning duties. We have heard a lot about the CQC’s past failures and future hopes. It is clear that the focus is going to be on the NHS. I do not disagree with that, but when you think of the thousands of vulnerable people dependent on care workers, I wonder if the priority is right. If I were in the CQC’s shoes, I would focus on the care sector and particularly on local authorities and their own responsibilities. That is probably the best way to get into this issue.

We could have a debate about the regulation of social care workers. We could debate mandatory training and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has tabled an amendment which would very much focus on that. I hope the Minister will recognise that we have a problem here. If we are to see this legislation enacted in the way that we all hope it will be, I am convinced that we have to look at the way that workers in the care sector are employed and do everything we can to prevent the abuse that we are seeing with these zero-hours contracts.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Emerton

Monday 13th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, from the point of view of other healthcare professionals—our debate has focused mainly on medical professionals to date. The noble Lord was careful to relate his Amendment 16 to all healthcare professionals. We need to make sure that Health Education England is multiprofessional in its focus. However, the amendment makes no mention of any links with social care. I am aware that we will debate social care in the spring, but it is important that healthcare professionals have included in their programmes and curriculum information on social care.

Amendment 16 mentions workforce planning, which must be a joint exercise between healthcare education and commissioning. The professions will be reassured if they know that workforce planning will be shared between the two rather than it being the concern of health education or commissioning alone. I support wholeheartedly Amendment 13, which encompasses all our discussions and brings to the fore the need for wholeness in healthcare professional education.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 16. This debate follows on from our useful discussions on education and training last week. Once again, we see a tension between the need for a national strategy on education and training and the need for local ownership. Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, gives us that, and I hope that the noble Earl will be sympathetic to it.

We all know about the problems that have arisen in the past where there has not been sufficient national leadership. Decisions about training places have been left to local bodies and the budget has been squeezed, the result being that a few years later there have not been enough people coming into the National Health Service, which has had a very damaging impact. I think there is unanimity in your Lordships' House that there has to be a very strong national strategy.

I very much take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that there must be co-ordination in workforce planning between Health Education England, as the national strategic body, and commissioners, but I would add providers because it is they who will employ the staff who have been trained. It is essential to get our workforce planning and our commissioning at a national level into sync. It is more an art than a science, and I suppose that it has never been achieved to 100 per cent satisfaction. None the less, that is what we should strive to do. Speaking as a foundation trust chair, I say to noble Lords who have discussed the national element of this that it is vital that NHS trusts and foundation trusts play a full part in the discussions. At the local level, the local education boards have a crucial role to play.

I very much support the argument of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, on independent chairs and transparency. That is important, but it is also important that the education providers feel sufficient challenge from local NHS bodies when it comes to the quality of their education and training. I am sure that we will come later to the issue of nurse education and training. There are some real issues about the quality of nurse education and training in our universities. It is important that the local education bodies and employers provide sufficient challenge to the work of the universities. I hope that in accepting the need for an independent chair, noble Lords will agree that there should be no cosy relationship between commissioners, who ultimately have no real responsibility for the employment of staff, and universities. Unfortunately, the current system has led to too cosy a relationship. I look to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for recognition that NHS trusts and foundations have to be very much around the table.

It would be useful if the noble Earl replied to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and gave some sense about where postgraduate deans are to be placed within the new structure. I also hope that postgraduate deans will be able to recognise that in the new circumstances they can have a huge impact on NHS trusts and foundation trusts when it comes to their visitations. I also hope that clinical commissioning groups will recognise that if they are going to start shifting resources away from NHS bodies, that might have an impact on their capacity to provide education and training in the future.

That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about whether private providers will have contractual obligations with regard to education and training. It is important that there is a level playing field. If the Government insist on more contracts being placed with private sector providers in the future, there will have to be obligations on the part of providers. It would be grossly unfair and in the end it would not lead to the establishment of a national coherent system if private sector providers did not pay their fair share.

On governance, again, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, made some substantive points about local education and training boards. It would also be helpful if the noble Earl responded to the point raised about academic science networks. We all agree that we must make the most of the fantastic basic education and science capacity in this country, and the links with the provision of patient care and the pharmaceutical industry. They have great potential. It would be useful to know how the noble Earl thinks they will fit into the new structure and particularly how they will link to the postgraduate deans and the academic science network. Overall, I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to come forward with a constructive response and I certainly hope that he is prepared to accept Amendments 13 and 16.