Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

I have set out why I do not think that a voluntary register is an answer. I am looking for a commitment that the mandatory training for healthcare support workers will have a strong input from the profession in developing and validating the competencies and outcomes required for healthcare support workers. I also want a commitment to review that education and training to establish the benefits that it has had for patient safety. I beg to move.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I wonder if I may be indulged again by the House by speaking from an unusual position. I speak against a background—dare I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench—that I have been suitably chastened on the way into the House by being told that yesterday was the first day on which Tory rebels outnumbered Liberal Democrat rebels. There was only one rebel: it was me. Here I stand trembling, yet again.

The spirit in which I approach this is slightly interrogative. I was not able to hear the earlier debate that the noble Baroness triggered, but I am puzzled about the Government’s position on this. I want to ask a few questions. I have no problem at all with tasks being delegated down to the appropriate level. I became Minister of Health 25 years ago, on the day that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s report into nurse prescribing was published. Ever since, I have thought that there were a lot of things being done on one level that could sensibly be done at another. I have no problem with the general principle of using healthcare support workers for things that might have been done by others in the past.

However, when it comes to things that are clinical, it is important that people should be trained and properly authorised and registered. That is the key point. Anyone who has been in hospital, as I have on a number of occasions in the past two or three years, will recognise that it is not always easy to work out who does what. I have no complaints about any of the people who looked after me, but it is quite clear that they are at different levels and that one would want to be confident that they all knew what they were doing. The noble Baroness referred to the importance of some of the work that healthcare workers do and we all know that one mistake in medication could have fatal consequences, for example. She referred to the various reports, which I will not rehearse, and she made a number of points that we ought at least to listen to with care.

However, as I said to the noble Baroness in a private discussion, I was a bit sceptical about this because the numbers are potentially huge and we do not want another example of a body being asked to take on more than it can do in too short a time. To some extent, I think that she has sought to meet that in her amendment by narrowing the definition of healthcare support workers to those who are in the clinical area, if I might use that shorthand. That is welcome. But I still think that there may be some problem with the scale of the task if it is imposed at one go. The noble Baroness is aware of my worries about that.

I am also less convinced that a voluntary register could not have a significant effect, with some provisos. First, we cannot have competing voluntary registers with people free to choose the one that they think is easiest. If there is to be a voluntary register, it must be officially sanctioned—I would be grateful for comments on that. If you have one, it might have a significant effect. It would be a brave health trust, once the system was established, that took on healthcare workers who were not registered because of the risk that would arise if something went wrong and the criticism that would ensue. So it might have an effect and I think that we should take account of that.

Even if the Government want a voluntary register and think that it could work, there is a parallel in the field of ombudsmen, which I know something about. That would be to have in the Bill a reserve power to take compulsory registration powers if that proves to be necessary. I am not sure whether that is there or not, but a fallback position might be to have the power to act if the Government’s preferred solution does not work and I would personally press that as a possibility to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Newton expressed doubts about whether there would be a system for tracking people when they moved. There was also a question from my noble friend about whether there could be more than one register. Current arrangements for statutory regulation do not enable the regulatory bodies to track the movements of individuals; they rely on the self-reporting of changes of job. A voluntary register would be no less able to do that, and indeed could remove people who failed to notify the regulatory bodies of changes. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and my noble friend Lord Newton that no decision has been made about whether there will be more than one register. As such, I hope I can provide reassurance first that having assured registers means that this is not an easy course of action, in the way that was suggested earlier, and secondly that the professional standards authority could take account of the existence of multiple registers in determining whether to accredit a further register.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Will my noble friend give way just briefly? I was at the other end of the Chamber, but I have shifted ends. Leaving aside the point about tracking, on the point about whether there will be one or more register I am conscious that, in the area of ombudsmen, there is experience of rival ombudsmen. Frankly, especially since it is in the choice of the provider not the customer, the providers go to the one who they think will give them the easiest ride. I do not want to see that situation here. Serious consideration needs to be given by whatever means to making sure that, if there is a voluntary register, it is one register and not a choice between a good one, a bad one and an indifferent one.

[Earl Howe]

The key here lies in the standards and the training. If we have standards laid down that are uniform across the piece, I am not sure that having more than one register is a significant issue. As I said, this is something that the professional standards authority is bound to take account of when deciding whether to accredit another register.

The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, expressed the view that voluntary registration does not work. The Government’s proposals are for assured voluntary registration. We believe that the effective assurance of the standards of healthcare support workers can be delivered by an assured voluntary register that is underpinned by clear standards of conduct and training and supported by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s updated guidance on delegation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked how standards will be monitored. We will expect the professional standards authority to assure that any standards set for a voluntary register are appropriate as part of its initial accreditation process. It will keep the operation of any register under review and we will expect it to set out any concerns that it has about standards. The authority will also have powers to remove the accreditation of registers if any of its concerns are not addressed in a timely fashion.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked what criteria would apply in individual cases. In its council paper, Voluntary Registers—Proposed Model for the Accreditation Scheme, the CHRE has stated that all voluntary registers seeking accreditation will be required to complete a risk assessment tool that will assess the risks inherent in a profession’s practice and the means by which those risks are and could be managed. The authority will also keep under review the management of risks by an accredited register. That will be part of its role.

However, having listened to the concerns raised in this House, the Government have given further consideration to this whole issue. Once a system of assured voluntary registration has been established for this group and has been operational for three years, to enable it to demonstrate its effectiveness the Government will commission a strategic review of the relative benefits of assured voluntary registration compared with statutory regulation. The review will involve all relevant professional bodies and trade unions. Such a review would include consideration of any further measures needed to assure the safety of patients and the public, including consideration of the case for compulsory statutory regulation or—and I say this in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Hunt—making standards of training mandatory for employers through the use of standing rules for the NHS Commissioning Board and standard contracts for providers.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, raised what I thought was a very astute point about the NHS standard contract. I can confirm that, yes, the Secretary of State will have the power to include in the standard contract the fact that relevant workers must be on a particular voluntary register. We see this as a strong lever, and we would want to consider it very carefully before deciding to use it in a particular instance, but wherever there was clear and demonstrable evidence that doing so would ensure quality of care, we would give it very serious consideration.

I can confirm that the question of whether to move to statutory regulation will be viewed openly, with full consideration of the potential benefits that it might be able to bring. I can say to my noble friend Lord Newton once again that the power to introduce statutory regulation already exists, in Section 60 of the Health Act, if a decision were to be made to deploy it. The Law Commission is in fact consulting at the moment on an even broader regulation-making power in the future. In the mean time, we are committed to exploring the evidence base on ratios of qualified to non-qualified staff. I totally agree with the noble Baroness that this is a key point. We will look carefully at the evidence from ongoing work by King’s College.

I have tried to set out what one might term, picking up a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the direction of travel here. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, will understand our commitment to seeing defined standards and improved skills in the healthcare support workforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether it is not time to have better safeguards in place. Yes, it is. I agree with her. Where we part company is on what a set of new safeguards should be. I strongly feel that a combination of voluntary registration and training is the more appropriate and proportionate solution to what I agree is a problem that needs to be addressed. The work that we have commissioned takes us on that road.

I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our commitment to strengthening the assurance processes in place for health and social care support workers, and that, perhaps with reservations but nevertheless more confidently than before, the noble Baroness—

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

I am extremely glad to hear that. I hope that the journalists concerned have noted that important denial, which I am grateful to hear from the noble Lord.

If this issue is delayed, we could be looking at years and years when vulnerable elderly people will be denied that fundamental protection. When I was Human Rights Minister, I was certain that we needed to go further than the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in tackling this problem. We ran out of time. The Government now have the time and the vehicle to do what I wish that the previous Government had been able to do. I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and accept the amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Having listened to the debate, I differ a bit from the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I have heard enough from the two distinguished lawyers who spoke beforehand to come to the view that my noble friend would be very unwise to rush down this path without more time than whatever there is—less than a week—before the intended Third Reading of the Bill to sort out the issue.

As always, my head has been left spinning by the lawyerly contributions from my noble and learned friend here and my noble friend down there. I just want to raise a couple of innocent layman’s questions that may even be a bit naive but which relate to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised: what is the definition of all this?

I observe that the heading of the new clause does not talk about provision at the request of a public body, just provision of certain services, implicitly by anybody, whether or not commissioned by a public body. The first sentence reads:

“A person who is commissioned to provide”,

these services, undefined. Private people commission private services from private bodies in many areas—private hospitals, private residential care homes, private chiropodists, private this, that and the other. As far as I can see, the amendment extends the definition of public body to bodies that are not public by any reasonable definition and are not commissioned by public bodies to provide a service. That seems to me to be the natural construction. This is at least as much a question for the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, as for the Minister, but that is how I read it. If that is its purport, it is not sensible and we should not rush into it.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, these Benches strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, to which I have added my name. It is frustrating that we appear to have moved no further forward from Committee, when the noble Baroness, a plethora of respected organisations representing older people, mental health, disability and human rights organisations, as well as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, were saying that there was a real problem which needed to be addressed by primary legislation. There are powerful arguments for amending the Bill in line with the amendment. They have again been ably made by noble Lords and I do not need to go over them again.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Wills addressed key points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and other noble Lords—as far as I was able to follow as a non-lawyer—and indeed acknowledged that this was unfinished business on the part of the previous Government. We amended the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to address this issue in respect of residential care. What has changed dramatically since then is that well over two-thirds of home care services are now provided by the private and voluntary sectors and this Bill is likely to increase the proportion of contracted-out provision still further.

The Government’s view, expressed in Committee, that any further legislation would cause uncertainty in other areas outside health and social care is a strange one. In this light, the obvious counter-argument is that the 2008 Act has already opened the door and, in my view, that factor only strengthens the case for the loophole to be closed off. Analysis by key human rights lawyers, counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, key charities and civil liberties organisations have all endorsed this approach and stressed that case law does not support the Government’s view. As we have heard only recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on independent living again called for the current Bill to be amended to extend the public function definition to the provision of care at home. For me, that is the key point. All these organisations still argue strongly that there is a loophole that needs to be addressed.

Moreover, the Government’s argument, again in Committee, that the YL v Birmingham City Council judgment has not been challenged to demonstrate that home care services are not covered by the Act or existing legislation is also weak, in my view, and does not inspire confidence in what might happen in the future. My understanding is that the subject of the YL judgment was residential care and the scope of the 2008 Act is therefore limited to that.

I hope that the noble Earl will have good news for us that the Government have rethought this issue and recognise the very real problem and concern that exist for the future. I hope that he will accept this amendment. We all agree about the importance of taking a human rights approach to care provision, with dignity and respect for older people embedded. The current loophole in the provision of personal care in the home by third or voluntary sector providers is of deep concern to thousands of recipients of home care. We need to ensure that this key opportunity to achieve clarity in this matter in the current Bill is not missed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I really enjoyed the noble Baroness’s intervention. Today’s news about the change in attitude of the Royal College of General Practitioners shows that we have reached a genuine watershed. It may not have changed its mind absolutely, although it appears that membership pressure is being applied to the leadership of the royal college, but this is a real watershed whereby the acceptance of the fact that the Bill is going through is changing hearts and minds—not just minds but hearts as well. I am far more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Owen, because I believe that the other royal colleges will follow suit. They are actually looking at the substance of the Bill, not at some of the alarmist propaganda being put out. They are considering how mergers between foundation trusts will be regulated, how Monitor will do its duty and the additional powers that Monitor will have following consideration by Future Forum and Members of this House. They are also considering the impact of EU competition law following the Pepper v Hart statement that was made the other day. They are looking at the substance, which is exactly the way to look at the Bill. I believe that Part 3 is one of the most valuable parts of the Bill. I did not believe that it was acceptable to start with. That is precisely why I put down amendments in Committee and on Report. I am very pleased to say that it is much improved. The Bill should not be held up because of Part 3. In fact, it should be celebrated because of Part 3.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, those who have been here will have realised by now that this is one of my “good boy” days. At the risk of seeming sycophantic, even beyond being a good boy, I support every word that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has just said. I will refer back in a moment to something the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about former Ministers. This chunk of the Bill—Part 3—is largely about Monitor and includes a lot that the House has been pressing for in terms of increasing Monitor’s power to intervene and do sensible things in a sensible way. It also includes all the stuff about pricing and tariffs, which in my view need to be addressed now, not in four years’ time.

My main point concerns what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about former Ministers knowing about the problems caused by upheaval. We do. I became very much aware that the publication of a White Paper was the start of a process, not the end. Too often Ministers think that all they have to do is publish an edict and everybody on the ground will carry it out. These things take time, trouble and involve culture change. However—this is the point here—what is equally or even more damaging is year upon year of uncertainty, which is what this amendment seeks to bring about.

I have referred on a number of occasions to the merger/takeover proceedings in which I was involved last year with the health trust that I then chaired. That occurred partly against the background of Monitor and the competition matters that are being changed in this Bill for the better. The worst thing was the uncertainty for everybody involved—the way it was dragging on and nobody knew what the future was. Good people started to leave or think about whether they had a future with the organisation. It would be insane to go down this path and I strongly recommend that the House should not do so.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I fully understand the fervour and passion with which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke, because he feels very strongly that he, with the help of others, brought about a real change in Part 3. I make no pretence about the fact that I began by being totally opposed to Part 3. I was on public record as saying that I thought it was a very bad thing indeed, but very sweeping changes have been made to it, and on that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree.

However, I do not want to stop at that point. My noble friend said that we were at a watershed and I believe that we are. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for tabling this important amendment, and I shall explain why. In this House, we have a great deal of trust in the Minister. Repeatedly and rightly, huge tribute has been paid to him throughout these debates for his understanding, his patience, his willingness to go a very long way to meet the needs and requirements of other people and, if I may say so, his permanent consciousness and awareness of why the British public love the NHS so much. More than virtually any other politician that I can think of, he has real empathy with what people want and expect from their health service and it is important to recognise that.

The noble Earl has punched—if I may say so politely—well above his weight. His weight is not, of course, that great but his punch is terrific. He has persuaded a great many of us—not, I suspect, only on this side of the House—with the elegant and generous way in which he has put forward compromises and concessions. Many of us have accepted these or, like the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, decided to wait a little longer to see what might come out of what he said. That is an immense personal contribution.

We would be in a world of illusion if we did not recognise that outside this House and the other place, where my honourable friend Mr Burstow is doing his very best on the social care side, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly said, massive distrust and disbelief in what we are trying to do. We have to address that or we can forget altogether about doing what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, rightly said we need to do—to give the National Health Service some stability, some confidence and some sense that it has a future. This is the most labour-intensive public service. Our whole capacity for addressing the Nicholson challenge and the problems of an ageing and often chronically troubled society, and for delivering what most of us want and which is enshrined in the words that we wrote into the Bill at the very beginning of its passage in this House—the responsibility and accountability of the Secretary of State for a comprehensive health service free at the point of need—will go with the wind without the support and morale of the professional services, the staff and the public.

As Members of this House will remember, we owe a great deal to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for the Conservative Party, we owe a great deal to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her team for the Labour Party, and we owe a very great deal to the Cross-Benchers for the steady support they have given to maintaining the stability and future of the National Health Service, which all of us recognise as probably the greatest single social achievement of this country since the Second World War.

What I like very much about the amendment is the second section, where the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, point to the need for consultation before there is a move towards bringing Part 3 into full effect—I would go wider and say before bringing into full effect the Bill itself. It is vital that, when the Bill has completed its passage, the Government and the Department of Health in particular seek to hold a wider consensual discussion, bringing in the main bodies but also the main people who have been involved in the Bill, regardless of whether they stood for or against it, in order to give the National Health Service the foundation it needs to address the huge scale of the problems it faces.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, it would seem convenient, although it alters the groupings, to talk to my Amendments 186, 187 and 188 at this point.

In Committee—and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Patel, for supporting these amendments—we flagged our general concern about the risks of EU competition law being applied across the board in the health service. One risk that we considered to be high was the involvement to such a great extent in the Bill of the Competition Commission and, in particular, its role in Clauses 78, 79 and 80, as well as its role in reviewing competition within the health service and the development of competition by Monitor.

On these Benches, we, along with Future Forum and following legal advice, believe that it is necessary and consistent to delete Clause 78, which provides for a review of the exercise of Monitor’s functions and, as I said, the development of competition in the NHS. Government Amendment 185 would of course change this to a review of the effectiveness of competition in the NHS in promoting the interests of those who use the NHS. Nevertheless, we have considerable concerns about the involvement of the Competition Commission. The commission occasionally has to apply non-commission principles in its investigations. It may need to consider, for example, whether media plurality would be undermined by a media merger. However, the commission members and staff are steeped in competition law principles and it is difficult to get them to attribute equal weight to non-competition objectives. The experience of those involved with the commission is that it tends to focus far more on the competition analysis and is often reluctant to accept that it might be required to endorse an outcome that may be suboptimal from a competition perspective in order better to promote other objectives.

Judgments about whether competition or co-operation best promote certain objectives, including health sector objectives, are not clear-cut. Which side of the line people come down on will depend on their standpoints and assumptions about the extent to which competition is helpful in general, as well as on their experience. Regular commission members tend to have a strong bias in favour of the benefits of competition, and that strengthens our view on the inappropriateness of the reviews by the Competition Commission. It is not necessary for there to be a review of this kind either of the NHS or of the operation of Monitor. Indeed, I would argue that its very presence in reviewing both the NHS and Monitor increases the risk of competition law applying more widely.

Following the Future Forum’s report, the purpose of Monitor is no longer primarily to promote competition. Clearly there is now explicit recognition of the overriding importance of the benefits to patients. This is the key determinant of which instrument—competition or integration—is appropriate in the operation of the health service.

I have not put down amendments to the more technical areas where there is Competition Commission involvement. It seems that in many cases that may well be relevant in terms of the tariff and so on. However, we on these Benches believe that Clauses 78, 79 and 80 are a throwback to pre-Future Forum days, and we therefore propose leaving them all out.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly, if only to avoid withdrawal symptoms from not having spoken on any day this week. I want to support my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on the general proposition without wishing in any way to threaten mayhem if we do not get a satisfactory reply. The House is well aware, as I have referred to it on a number of occasions, that last year I went through what turned out to be the trauma of trying to engage in what was technically a takeover, although we presented it as a merger, with the neighbouring health trust. That involved Suffolk Mental Health and Norfolk Mental Health. We finally achieved it on New Year's Day, so I am, so to speak, out of work.

There was a real problem. One got the feeling that the people on the competition and collaboration panel, or whatever it was called, which overlaps quite heavily with the Competition Commission, saw us in much the same category—how can I put this without upsetting anyone?—as two rival sellers of washing detergents. They did not recognise that health is not like that. There were health issues, patient safety issues and quality of service issues that needed to trump the competition issues. I know that we have been told that that will happen, but it is very important to make sure that the machinery will ensure that it happens and that the health issues trump those narrower competition issues. All I seek from the Minister is an assurance that, one way or another, that will be the case.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I would like some reassurance that the regulation of competition will improve on the current situation in some circumstances. I do not know whether these amendments, or any existing provision in the Bill, will achieve that. I have a couple of examples about which I feel uncomfortable.

First, I am keen to know whether adequate safeguards are in place for the kind of situation that occurred in Surrey, to ensure that the range of providers envisaged by the Government will be able to compete on a level playing field. I remember the wise words of the economist Fritz Schumacher that sometimes “small is beautiful”. Can the Minister tell the House on what basis it was decided that a £10 million bond would be required as surety from bidders for the NHS contract tendered last year for community services in south-west and north-west Surrey? The winning tender was a private company and the loser was Social Enterprise UK, which is currently providing services to central Surrey but which did not have the £10 million in the bank. That organisation is providing high-quality community services which have been acclaimed by the noble Lord's own department. At the end of its three-year contract, will it simply be taken over by the large private company which has more money in the bank?

My second question relates to the culture within the NHS and medical practice. Since the NHS began over 60 years ago, most doctors have worked primarily in the NHS and used their clinical skills first and foremost for NHS patients. There have been special contractual arrangements in place to ensure that NHS specialists with a private practice do not neglect their NHS patients. I think it is fair to say that specialists with a thriving private practice usually put their extra energy into their private practice. They are not the ones who contribute to managing and developing NHS services, and nor do they usually make much contribution to research.

Let me give the House one example of how the culture within medicine is being encouraged to change. The presidents of many if not all of the medical royal colleges have been invited to a champagne reception and dinner at a posh London venue in a couple of weeks’ time. The invitation comes from a firm of solicitors and the Royal Bank of Scotland, and it states:

“Against the backdrop of challenging economic conditions and massive pressure on the public purse, we are keen to explore how other professions might be able to support your membership and the healthcare sector generally”.

This seems to be a new phase in encouraging and supporting doctors to turn their attention to setting up in private practice, in chambers and in other private healthcare organisations. That is a departure from our history. Is this the direction that the Government hope the medical profession will move in? What safeguards does the Bill contain with respect to competition to protect the NHS?

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. For the convenience of the House, I have left it there because it concerns the clinical commissioning group’s function. On 27 February, the Minister rejected the amendment that I had tabled, which provided that the Commissioning Board must ascertain that clinical commissioning groups commission for less common conditions and that they collaborate.

Today is Rare Disease Day and my amendment specifically addresses rare diseases. In responding to me on 27 February, the Minister cited sources of advice that are available to patients, healthcare professionals and carers, specifically NHS Choices and NHS Evidence. I have been to their websites to find out how they inform commissioning for some of these rarer diseases. They are very helpful websites and they are a resource, but they are enormously complex. Trying to read across from one condition to another to put together a cohesive package for commissioning is very difficult. I am concerned that replicating this in lots of small clinical commissioning groups all around the country will be, in effect, a duplication of effort.

For some of these conditions there is no NICE guidance at all as yet. NICE does a fantastic job by producing the guidance that it does but it is not there for everything. The European Union’s recommendation of an action in the field of rare diseases has been published. The Minister informed us that there will shortly be a consultation on the Government’s response to that.

What are these conditions? They range across 5,000 to 8,000 different diseases, which occur at an incidence of less than five cases per 10,000 of the population. However, most of these people suffer from diseases that are so rare that they affect less than one person in 100,000 of the population.

The European Union recommends that member states should have plans and strategies in this field and adequate definition, codification and inventories of these diseases and research into them. It also recommends that member states should establish centres of expertise with a European reference network, gather expertise and empower patient organisations. These objectives are compatible with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The European guidance also states that these services should be sustainable. However, given that the prevalence of these diseases is so low, it would not be cost-effective routinely to commission services in populations of fewer than 250,000.

These amendments are supported by more than 98 patient organisations, 70 of which are members of the Neurological Alliance. There is concern about the application of the appropriateness test to clinical commissioning groups. The biggest area in this context often relates to rehabilitation and aftercare and comprises people with severe anorexia and those who are rehabilitating after a severe head injury or major trauma or stroke and quadriplegia. An increasing number of survivors are coming back from our theatres of war who would previously have died of their injuries. They require complex rehabilitation. Sadly, there are already instances where some of these soldiers are not able to obtain the prosthetic support that they require and are having to raise funds themselves to obtain their prostheses, and some are going to the United States for this provision.

Some people may think that stroke is a common occurrence and therefore does not come into this category. However, some types of stroke are complex and occur infrequently in the population. Stroke comprises a very broad spectrum of diseases. Some of the rehabilitation and services required fall to local authorities to provide. There is concern about the extent to which the appropriateness test will be applied and where discretion will lie as regards these conditions. As I said, the clinical commissioning groups cover relatively small population areas and therefore it is not cost-effective for them to commission services for less common conditions. I am concerned that they will have no duty to collaborate with other clinical commissioning groups in commissioning services. One hopes that they will but there does not seem to be a requirement that they should. If commissioners lack adequate guidance on best practice in commissioning comprehensive and equitable services, they risk commissioning services which do not provide value for money and do not meet the needs of people with these less common conditions. The National Audit Office report on services for people with neurological conditions showed that there is a great need for improvement in service provision for this population, with significant variation in access to services and variation in quality in different areas. Even where there are localised examples of good practice, sometimes leadership is lacking on the outcomes analysis so these bodies are not able to disseminate their good practice for wider implementation.

The Bill certainly provides opportunities for collaboration between clinical commissioning groups, but not encouragement or incentives to do so, and these groups are left to determine when to co-operate. This amendment would provide an important indicator for clinical commissioning groups and would bridge the strategic gap between the commissioning that will be done centrally by the Commissioning Board and that which will be done at a local level. I give a very simple example of a neurology service involving someone with motor neurone disease who requires non-invasive ventilation. That service should be provided in patients’ homes or somewhere nearby. If it is not provided to a high standard, patients have a much higher chance of ending up as emergency admissions—in fact, this is almost inevitable—and the cost of that provision is three times that of providing adequate NIV services. It therefore becomes very cost-effective to ensure that there is appropriate commissioning for this group across the piece. The risk is that the disparity in service provision and outcomes will widen. I stress that the difficulty comes because these patients sit in the spectrum between what will be commissioned centrally by the Commissioning Board, what will fall to the clinical commissioning groups and, when patients get into long-term care and rehabilitation and being sustained at home, what will fall to the local authority—and that has not been made clear.

I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response because this matter is so important that we may need to test the opinion of the House. I am hoping that I will get satisfactory answers from him and that these discrepancies will be clarified. If not, I ask him, if he is unable to provide adequate answers, to consider these issues at Third Reading.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene, although not in any way to differ from my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby; I am much too diffident to dare to do that. In fact, I want to raise a few nitpicking points that occur to someone who has had a bit of ministerial experience over a fairly long period. They occur in relation to several of these amendments. First, it is far from clear, in light of the exchange with my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, just what “resident” means in this context. Someone needs to answer that clearly before we go down the path of the amendment. Secondly, on a related matter, does the proposal mean—whatever “resident” means—that people would be entitled to free NHS services, regardless of their status? Under existing law, a lot of people living in this country are liable to be charged for NHS services. That is not clear in some of these amendments.

In particular, it is not clear whether illegal immigrants are liable to be charged. I do not know the answer to that, and I probably ought to. If, however, they are liable, it is another factor to be taken into account when looking at what all this means. If we really mean that clinical commissioning groups must provide services—and I shall come back in a moment to the term “provide”, which also occurs in another of the amendments—to everyone resident in their area, how are the CCGs to establish that? Illegal immigrants, along with a number of other people, go to great lengths to stay beyond the radar. They will not be on the electoral register. They will not be registered with doctors. They will be trying to make sure that no one knows they are there. Do CCGs have to set up an immigrant police investigation team to find out who is resident in their area? These may sound like nitpicking points but they would be real issues if an amendment along these lines were passed, even though I am sympathetic to the aim. Parliamentary draftsmen would need to do some work.

What does “provided by” mean? Clinical commissioning groups will not provide many services; they are essentially commissioning groups. Do we mean “any services commissioned by” commissioning groups, many of which will involve secondary services—certainly—tertiary hospitals, and a whole range of other people? The amendment and several others in the group, however worthy their purpose, require a lot of careful drafting before we can accept them as amendments to an actual piece of legislation. My noble friend may care to comment on that.

Lastly, this rather curious group also includes the amendments of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege relating to HealthWatch England. I cannot see any problem with them. I support her entirely. It seems to be a no-brainer that if we are to set up a healthwatch system, people should have to take account of what their local healthwatches have to say.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I correct him on the question of illegal immigrants? There is no question of illegal immigrants having access to the health service. Certain vulnerable categories, such as mothers and children and so forth, are given access, but it is quite wrong to suggest that that is what is generally happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, this is a disparate group of amendments. I shall speak in particular to Amendment 96, which has been so ably proposed by my noble friend Lady Finlay. I do not propose to redeploy the arguments that I expressed when a similar amendment was discussed recently. One thing that is beginning to emerge as the Bill continues its progress through your Lordships’ House is that the size and, perhaps, quality of the clinical commissioning groups will be extraordinarily variable. Some will be large and contain a large number of GPs, and so on; therefore, with the secondary care individuals who will become members of the group, and others, some will deploy a wide range of expertise.

However, it is perfectly clear that in some parts of the country the clinical commissioning groups are going to be very much smaller. The range of issues in highly specialised services will be very limited and the smaller clinical commissioning groups will lack the knowledge and expertise to handle those areas well. For that reason, it is crucial that the national Commissioning Board should have the major responsibility for commissioning highly specialised services, in which I include not only the neurological services, about which I spoke in some detail last week, but cardiological services, cardiothoracic services and many other specialties.

On Rare Disease Day, the point that my noble friend Lady Finlay made about rare diseases is very important. There are thousands of rare diseases affecting a very small number of patients throughout the UK. The Rare Disease UK consortium, chaired by Dr Alastair Kent, the former chairman of the Genetic Interest Group, is deeply concerned, as is the Neurological Alliance, about the mechanism by which these diseases will be given attention in this legislation and proper understanding, control and attention by the national Commissioning Board. As my noble friend said, there are several thousand rare diseases, some affecting very small numbers and some larger numbers.

I spoke in detail last week about muscular dystrophy. As an example, last week I was asked by a former medical colleague in Newcastle to see, with him, a patient—not as a consultation but to look at the problem posed by a condition called haemolytic uraemic syndrome. This is due to a genetically determined disorder of the complement system. It is a disease that affects the kidneys, is steadily progressive and is ultimately fatal. However, recent research has identified and produced a licensed medicine which is effective and which in the patient whom I met, with her husband, has proved to be virtually life-saving. The problem is that there are only 200 patients in the UK with this disease and the cost of the medicine for that patient is £250,000 a year. At the moment, it is paid for by the drug company, which is carrying out trials.

That is one example but there is a huge number of genetically determined rare diseases for which new drugs are coming on stream. There are many cases where the causal, abnormal or missing gene product has been identified and where, slowly but surely, drugs which are beginning to have a beneficial effect on these progressive, disabling or ultimately fatal diseases are beginning to emerge. These are called orphan or ultra-orphan drugs. Whatever happens in the future with the National Health Service, the possibility—the probability—of having a special mechanism to deal with the needs of people with these rare diseases, as well as the needs relating to the orphan and ultra-orphan drugs, is going to be a massive problem. It is crucial that there is a very clear indication in the Bill that rare diseases deserve special consideration. For that reason, I warmly support Amendment 96, which has been proposed so ably by my noble friend Lady Finlay.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Perhaps the noble Lord could comment on one specific point. In my experience, the biggest problem in respect of these rare diseases is not providing the services—although that can be a problem—but the fact that they are not identified in the first place because no doctor has ever seen one before. Identification is at least as big a problem as treatment but that is not addressed in this amendment.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, I quake to disagree with my noble friends Lord Walton and Lady Finlay about Amendment 96 but I do so as someone who has been the chief executive of a very large health commissioning organisation. It is utterly crucial that rare conditions are considered individually and that the level at which they are commissioned is decided by the national Commissioning Board coming together with the clinical senates and the clinicians involved in the area. They are best placed to decide on the best level of commissioning based on epidemiology and public health expertise. In fact, this amendment would achieve the very opposite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, wanted: to highlight some of these very important rare conditions which we do not want to forget. It is not helpful, however, to have rare conditions identified in this form in the Bill. We must leave it to the clinicians to make a judgment about how they are commissioned in groups. That will protect patients better, in my view, than any statutory guidance of this kind. I hope she will reconsider and not press this amendment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, we have heard that integrated care means different things to different people. As far these amendments are concerned—including the one to which my name is attached—the focus is on the integration of hospital care, NHS care and social care. Almost since its inception, the biggest problem for the NHS has been the division between health and social services; the division between funding—which of course drives everything—and management.

Acute services have always been the focus of most NHS funding. One might expect me to say, as a former acute care physician, that that is entirely appropriate. However, it has always been clear that this division, with different funding streams, has led to dreadful miscommunication between two sets of staff working under quite different systems, who fail to talk to each other in anything like a timely manner.

The end result is well rehearsed. Patients who would have been much better cared for at home—or in a nursing home if one were available and if someone could have made a proper assessment—finish up in an acute hospital which is poorly designed to provide the sort of care that they really need. On the other side, patients—usually elderly—are admitted to hospital for entirely appropriate reasons, but linger there well after their acute need has been sorted out. Clearly, if we had common funding of health and social services, we could see people employed across this divide. That is what we need: people with a foot in both camps. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that it takes two to tango—it takes both the heath service and local authorities, and they do not tango terribly well. While we do not have common funding, however, at least we can work towards it. Here we have an opportunity to emphasise the duty that should be placed on the NHS, for one, to ensure integration at this level. This is of such importance for patients that we should emphasise it at the least in this relatively minor way here.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I support—with some trepidation—what my noble friend Lord Mawhinney has said, and I pick up the point about it taking two to tango. I yield to nobody in my support for integrated services. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Young—a person with whom I go back a long way—said about diabetes, and I do not disagree with it. I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—with whom I go back even further I think—said, presumably arising from her experience as part of Age Concern. The question is whether this amendment does it, or whether in fact it contains things which will make it more difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, it takes two to tango. As I read it, every responsibility here is laid on health service bodies, not local authority or social service bodies. If we are to go down this sort of path, we need to lay equal obligations on both.

However, the issue goes beyond that. It should be recognised that one of the most difficult or most needy areas in this field is mental health, which I know something about even though I no longer have a direct interest. With mental health there is a need for co-operation not just between the various statutory authorities—indeed, many mental health trusts are partnership trusts with the local social services department and have made significant progress, as was true of the one with which I was involved until January—but with voluntary organisations. Where are they covered in all this? I had a difficult case in a mental health trust that I chaired 10 or 15 years ago. Nobody in any statutory service, whether local authority or health, had known that the patient in question was undergoing anger management courses paid for privately, and that caused problems. Last weekend, I was talking to someone in Braintree who is interested in the Rethink Mental Illness charity and is trying to build up the local Rethink art therapy classes, for which he thinks he has acquired a building. That, too, ought to be integrated with the services provided by the mainstream.

I do not believe that this amendment, however valuable it is and however worthy its objective, will achieve that objective without a great deal more sophistication. Personally I would rather leave it to the Minister and his department to issue guidance and apply pressure in rather different ways to produce the integration that we all want. At any rate, I look forward to what the Minister has to say. He may draw more encouragement than usual from some of my remarks and I might even vote with him if it comes to that.

[Lord Warner]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him and his noble friend behind him whether they have seen Amendment 161A, which would introduce a new clause on standards of adult social care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord from a sedentary position. I was aware of that but, to be honest, I think that we need a coherent single approach.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, this debate has been very interesting. I agree with the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton: we need an integrated approach. I support the amendment but I do so with deep frustration. The truth is that the Bill is inadequate and contradictory, and it starts from the wrong place. What everybody wants from the Bill is an answer to the question, “How do we reform the National Health Service now to deal with the starkest view that is facing us in terms of increased numbers of people with long-term conditions?”. The past success of the health service is now keeping many more people alive and many of them will have long-term conditions for much longer. That is the single thing with which the National Health Service is going to have to deal with much more skill and integration than ever before, but the Bill makes it very difficult to do that. The noble Lords, Lord Mawhinney and Lord Newton, have made that point for us, so I shall not go on with it. We need a Bill which understands where the National Health Service needs to go and what we need to do to reform our services so that patients get the very best outcome in the most cost-effective way, given what is and will be going on in our economy for a long time to come. However, this chaotic Bill will not do that.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Monday 13th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, speaks with his extensive legal experience, which I certainly could not match, but I have very extensive experience of working with patients and their families. It is in that respect that I support this amendment. I particularly support what noble Lords have said about seeking culture change in the NHS.

One thing that gets in the way of that culture change is the anxiety about why patients want candour and the truth. My experience is not that they seek redress or even want to pursue legal action—time and again any consultation with patients will show you that that is not their aim. Their aim, almost always, is to achieve closure after a distressing incident. What a patient said to me a year or so ago is typical: “I just wanted them to admit that something had gone wrong and say sorry. I knew it could not bring my brother back but it would have helped us come to terms with it”. That is what patients are seeking and that is what this amendment will help to achieve. We can all agree that if we are to achieve more culture change, we must move towards a greater degree of openness throughout the NHS.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I am tempted to chip in—rather unwisely, no doubt, as usual—by the last two speeches. If it does not seem paradoxical, I must say that I agree with almost every word of both of them.

I certainly share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and have some experience in having chaired three NHS health trusts since 1997, that there are too many cases in which an apology, together with an assurance that action will be taken to make sure it does not happen to anyone else, as well as achieving closure in the individual case would have made a material difference. I would add that ingredient to what she said. Indeed, I could give examples of where I spent hours of doing exactly that in one of my capacities with some parents who had experienced a tragic loss. I endorse that and I think that she is right. I also endorse her comments about not quite recognising this as a common feature in health trusts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, I cannot resist putting my oar in on this Bill. I do so because, many years ago, I was in middle management in the health service. I had to take part in the many reorganisations that happened. I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, must have been one of the culprits who added to my misery at work. I tried to concentrate on clinical work but people pestered me about filing cabinets, which office they should work in, who would be their line manager and what exactly would they be managing. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right to point out that as soon as you start on any sort of reorganisation, the people themselves enlarge it. They need PAs, they need offices and so on. Suddenly, they find they have no one to do the bean counting, so they need a bean counter. The Government give the impression that this is all a delightfully simple, wonderful, altruistic idea that GPs, in consultation with their patients, will commission the care for their patients. I have been a GP as well, and I can tell the House that GPs are not going to go home instead of going to the golf club, take out their laptops and do a bit of commissioning in the evening. It will not work like that. There will have to be an office block full of commissioners—just like PCTs—to do the job for them. What is worse, I understand that private medical companies are anxious to do the commissioning for the clinical commissioning groups. That will mean that taxpayers’ money will go directly to private medical companies that will advise GPs on how to commission. I find that absolutely iniquitous and will fight it to the end.

We will see a mushrooming commissioning group with its advisers, whoever they are, in an office block. It will not stop there. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned the number of different organisations that had been set up. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned the connections between them. It was deliciously simple for him to give us the image of tentacles reaching down from the National Commissioning Board to all parts of the health service. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I helped send round some information many weeks ago. There was a wonderful diagram of the interconnections between all the new bodies in the health service. It was like Spaghetti Junction. I am a midlander so I know what that junction is like. There is no way that one can navigate the maze of who provides what, and whether it is done nationally, locally, by local authorities or by clinical commissioning groups. It is overly and unnecessarily complicated. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we could have adapted the existing system to work much more efficiently, which would have been much cheaper and better. No wonder Professor McKee recently wrote an article in the BMJ asking who understood the Health and Social Care Bill, in which he explained that he did not understand it at all.

I will finish with an image that will delight noble Lords who are fed up with me. I went to the dentist this morning. Just as he got me in the reclining position, with the torture instruments looming, he said: “By the way, I know what I have to ask you: can you explain the Health and Social Care Bill?”. About 10 minutes or so later I noticed that his eyes had glazed over and he was reaching for the drill, so I shut up and gave in.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who moved the amendment will accept my apologies. I needed to recuperate after the previous debate so I was not present for the earlier part of this debate. Therefore, it is probably unwise for me to speak. However, I have checked that I will not cross the path of my noble friend Lord Fowler in what I intend to say, so I will risk it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will also recall—if I dare advert to it—that we had a somewhat jocular conversation in a cafeteria last week. He sought my support for the amendment and I said that I thought he was joking. There is a serious point here. First, we really should not include in primary legislation things such as minimum tiers of management. Secondly—I say this with an eye on my own Front Bench as well—one of the most irritating features of the discussions for any practitioner is the naked populism of assuming that anybody who is not a doctor or clinician contributes nothing to the service. I have been chair of three health trusts, as well as Health Minister many years ago. What do we mean by “bureaucrats”? Do we mean the people who pay the nurses and doctors, and who make sure that the drugs are ordered on time and organised in neat rows? Do we mean the people whose duty is to pay small businesses in time so that they do not go bankrupt? We are all against having a system in which it takes 25 men to change a light bulb and costs about £20 when the rest of us could go out and buy one and put it in the socket. I am not talking about that kind of thing but about the fact that these resources—nurses, doctors, pharmacists and a lot of other people—are precious, and if they are not well organised by people setting up sensible systems, we will not get the best out of them. The constant knocking of management under the heading of “bureaucracy” is deeply counterproductive and I will not go along with it in the course of these debates.

I will make two further points. First, why do so many GPs’ practices have practice managers? It is because they recognise that somebody needs to manage the resource to get the best out of it. The managers perform a very valuable role. My second and even more important point, born of my experience in the three health trusts, and perhaps particularly at the Royal Brompton and Harefield, is that it is critical to involve doctors in that management. Therefore, in some ways the problem is much more complicated than has been registered. Trusts where managers sit in one silo and fire bullets or bombs at doctors sitting in another do not work. We need to engage doctors and, where they have an interest in performing a managerial role, train and involve them as managers. That is what we did at the Brompton—which was no great credit to me—and it transformed things.

This is a grossly oversimplified amendment. It does not belong in primary legislation. It rests on a crude, populist misunderstanding of what we mean by bureaucracy and management in the NHS.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, briefly, from a lay perspective, I urge the Minister to take this amendment very seriously. I will not rehearse what I said at Second Reading from my experience on the board of the Tavistock and Portman clinic or from other walks of life about how widely damaging and destructive it is not to have parity, and how it needs to be explicit parity to change culture and to erode the stigma and the neglect associated with mental ill health. If the Government are rash enough not to accept the amendment—and I am quite sure that the noble Earl is not like that—I hope that there will be a Division. If the debate lasts until five o’clock, when I am committed to chairing a meeting, I hope that the House will accept my apology but I will return to vote.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I have two excuses for speaking. First, I have chaired two mental health trusts and, although I no longer do so, I have a continuing interest of a non-financial kind. Secondly, before my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay left for what was described as his well earned rest and recuperation, I was the nearest thing to anybody he anointed to take care of his interests while he was away, which includes this amendment.

I do not need to speak for long because I think that this is a no-brainer. Everybody agrees on the importance of mental health and endorsed the Government’s No Health Without Mental Health strategy. We are all keen on that—even the Government. Yet the little birds tell me that the amendment will be resisted on the grounds that it is not necessary and does nothing to add to the 2006 Act. I spent a lot of years as Leader of the House of Commons and I got fed up with Ministers who came to me on Private Member’s Bills and other things and said, “It’s not necessary—we are going to do this anyway”. They then proceeded to immolate themselves on a bonfire for an amendment that would have cost nothing and done no harm—it certainly would not have added anything—but would have pleased a lot of people. That is idiotic. It would not cost the Government anything to do this and, as my noble friend said, it would please a lot of people, so we should simply get on with it. If my noble friend has been told to resist it I will sympathise with him, but frankly if the noble Lord, Lord Patel, feels that he should push it, I will push it with him.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly and shall speak extremely briefly. Others have spoken most eloquently and very much made the case. My fear, too, is that the Minister will regard it as unnecessary. I have absolutely no doubt at all about the Minister’s commitment to mental health, but I believe that this is necessary because of the context in which the amendment is being posed—in other words, the Bill itself. What I mean is that the Bill is designed more than anything else to introduce privatisation of the NHS—slowly, slowly. It will not be done overnight, but in 10 years’ time we can be sure that a substantial proportion of our NHS will in fact be in private hands. If we look across the world to the US, Germany and other countries, we find that privatised health services do not support mental health to the degree that we in the NHS have supported it in the past. That is the most fundamental argument in my view. We have to protect our mental health services, albeit that they have been a Cinderella relative to the acute sector, but not to the degree that mental health services are Cinderellas in other countries where private health dominates.

That is my most important point. The only other part of the context is that the Bill will do nothing to make the changes that we need in the NHS, such as closures of redundant acute hospitals and redundant acute departments. I hope that this Government, unlike many previous Governments of whatever hue, will take the leadership role and show that they support mental health. I appeal to the Minister not to say that this is unnecessary. I appeal to him to agree that it is necessary and to give and show the Government’s commitment to equality of parity of mental health and physical health in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, I would like to invite the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and possibly other noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, if he is available, to have further conversations with me and with my ministerial colleague Paul Burstow to consider if there is anything further we could do, whether in the Bill or outside it, to promote parity of esteem between mental and physical health. I realise that I have not been able to meet the noble Lord on precisely the same territory as he has proposed, but I hope nevertheless that with the reassurances I have given, he will on balance be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may say that if it was me who my noble friend was referring to as being on his left, I am thrilled to bits by his rather more constructive response. I congratulate him.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I wish that I did not need to speak at this point because I am really quite torn. I know how sincerely all those who have spoken feel about this amendment, and about emphasising the need to promote mental illness as having the same parity as physical illness. At the same time, I know how sincere the noble Earl is, and therefore it is difficult not to accept what he has said and the promises he has made. None the less, the comment made by my noble friend Lord Walton is the one that has affected me most: what is the key objection to putting these two words at the front of the Bill to signify that mental illness is as important in its management as physical illness?

In my professional life I have dealt with physical illness, but I was always deeply affected whenever I had a patient suffering from postpartum depression or antenatal anxieties and sometimes psychosis; they were the most difficult to deal with. I would then have to seek the assistance of my psychiatrist colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

As we all know and as my noble friend Lady Thornton has rightly drawn attention to again today, this is an extremely controversial Bill with an unhappy history and possibly an unhappy future. However, on the fundamental issue of maintaining ministerial responsibility to Parliament for our biggest public service, Amendment 5 has achieved that. To put it in shorthand terms, it has at least made it less likely that the NHS will become simply a giant quango. I will not be surprised if my noble friend Lady Thornton on the Front Bench says again that nothing can be done to make the Bill acceptable, but in the spirit of improvement I commend Amendment 5 to the House.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I assure the House that I rise only briefly. On this occasion, unlike two amendments ago, I have three excuses for doing so, not just two. The first is that I do not always want to be a troublemaker. The second is that I and my noble friend Lord Mawhinney expressed the view at an earlier stage that resistance to an amendment of this kind would be absurd because the amendment reflects the reality of the world. The third I have already referred to: that in the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, I feel that I need to say a word not quite on his behalf—that would be lèse-majesté—but at least in his interests, as he has been referred to a lot. I congratulate the noble Baroness and her committee on what has been a remarkably productive role since the endless debates on these matters that we had at the beginning of Committee. It is a great tribute to her. She will not have been able to do this on the whole of the Bill, as she implicitly acknowledged just now, but to have produced this degree of sweetness and light on this issue is a near-miraculous achievement for which she deserves our thanks; she certainly has mine.

Along with that go thanks to others, including my noble and learned friend and many others who have taken part in those meetings, not least—as the noble Baroness has said and as I want to say—the Minister, who has successfully shifted people, who seemed two or three months ago to be dug in a trench in which they were going to die, to accept the terms and the realism of the amendment. That is a great credit to him and ultimately to the colleagues at the other end of the corridor who allowed him to persuade them.

As the noble Baroness said, we can regard this as a real success for the collective wisdom of this House. I just hope that that will be sustained during the rest of the discussions on the Bill.

[Lord Owen]

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships, but the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has asked me to speak on his behalf. I find no reason to disagree with anything that has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.

The Minister and I are going to disagree on substantial parts of the Bill—and a profound disagreement it is—but right from the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and I negotiated with him, he always accepted that this was an important constitutional and parliamentary point. He expressed readiness to enter into a novel arrangement, which we very nearly reached, but instead it has come around by another mechanism. At all stages, he has treated all of us, Peers and the House itself, with the greatest respect, courtesy and diligence. For that, I thank him on behalf of everyone.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I cannot give that undertaking, for the reasons that I will set out in the letter. The position—which I shall elaborate on when I write—is that the Information Commissioner has requested more time, and in light of that we have made representations to expedite the process as far as possible. However, the advice I have at the moment is that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the judgment will be delivered before we are due to go into the Report stage of the Bill. This is something that we are dealing with at present, and if I can update my noble friend, as well as other noble Lords, when I write, I shall be happy to do that. I do not wish this to be a closed process. All noble Lords in this Committee who have taken part in these debates are very welcome to be copied in.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I intervene briefly and in a way that my noble friend may find somewhat unexpected. Can I just express some concern—although I have a lot of sympathy with many of the things that they say—about the number of ex-Ministers who seek to throw overboard, in a very short space of time and in a particularly short-term context, the policies that have been maintained by successive Governments throughout the whole of my political lifetime? That needs careful thought. On the risk register, for example, it seems entirely possible that the Government collectively may take the view that this is so important that they should appeal onwards, up to the Supreme Court. If so, that would be the proper thing to do if it is thought to be in the best interests of public policy. We need to take care.

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I cannot predict what the collective view of the Government would be in a situation in which the decision on appeal went against my department. We have not reached that stage yet but it is potentially the case that the Government as a whole would wish to pursue the matter further in that eventuality.

Perhaps I should now revert to the amendments before us, beginning with Amendment 346. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is absolutely correct: information standards are important. However, we need to remember, too, that standards have to be appropriate. There can be burdens associated with them as well as benefits. There are a number of different types of information standard that could help to support the health and social care system—for example, standards to ensure the comparability of data or information governance standards to protect patient information. We intend to consider the detail of which standards we would require following the publication of the information strategy. As a result, we think that it is better to create an enabling provision that does not tie the Secretary of State or the Commissioning Board to an obligation to prepare a standard, and gives us an opportunity to consider where we can adopt standards that already exist.

The amendment also seeks to remove the authority for the Secretary of State or the Commissioning Board to prepare an information standard. This means that the Secretary of State or Commissioning Board would have the power to adopt only an information standard designed or prepared by another body. However, in some cases they may need to design a new information standard themselves, rather than rely on one prepared by another organisation. We believe that the Secretary of State and the NHS Commissioning Board would be best placed to develop or commission an information standard if, for example, it became apparent that one had not been prepared by another body or needed to be modified to be appropriate.

Turning to Amendment 347, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that, under the current drafting of the Bill, the collection and dissemination of information would also be subject to information standards. This is because the “processing” of information, as the term is used in this clause, has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 1998, which includes collecting and disseminating information. Therefore, the additional wording is unnecessary.

I am sympathetic to the sentiment in Amendment 347A. There are many intended benefits to using information standards, which include those highlighted in the amendment. However, prescribing the anticipated benefits or beneficiaries of the policy in the Bill is not necessary. In fact, it could prevent the development of information standards that do not fit into those categories. I hope that those comments will reassure the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked me why we put so much about information standards in this part of the Bill, compared to what we put in the Bill about accounting standards. Our view is that it is essential that information standards are set at a national level to allow different systems to talk to each other. That is an approach that the noble Lord shares. With accounting standards, the arguments are slightly different. I do not agree that it is appropriate to put accounting standards on the face of the Bill. We need to ensure that the management information collected by local organisations is of use to those organisations; that is, the organisations have the flexibility to determine their management information needs. However, I will write to the noble Lord on this matter before Christmas, and no doubt he and I can have a further conversation about it. I look forward to that.

On Amendment 347B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, we agree that it is vital that people receive information in an appropriate format. This point was clearly made in the responses to our consultation on an information revolution. For example, the RNIB, of which the noble Lord is vice-president, highlighted the importance for health professionals to be made aware of, and respond to, people’s need for information in alternative formats.

We fully recognise the need for people’s communication and information requirements to be recorded—for example, in their care records—and for that information to be shared with professionals along care pathways. I reassure the noble Lord that the department is currently working with stakeholders on the best way to achieve this, which could be through an information standard or through other mechanisms. Further detail will be included in the information strategy, which we plan to publish in April next year.

I realise that I have not covered Amendment 348 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. This amendment would require the information centre to arrange for and publish an independent audit of its processes every three years. I completely accept that effective oversight and scrutiny of our arm’s-length bodies is important so that the department and the public can be assured that they are performing their functions effectively and are providing value for money. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I shall briefly explain why. First, as a department, we plan to undertake formal performance and capability reviews of each of our arm’s-length bodies at least every three years, including the re-established information centre. This would consist of reviewing its performance, financial controls and internal governance, and what one might term its “organisational health”, including the centre’s relationships with its key partners in the system.

In addition, the information centre, as a non-departmental public body, would be required to establish an audit committee that would provide independent and objective oversight and assurance of the centre’s systems of internal control, including risk and financial processes. The Bill also requires the information centre to prepare annual accounts each financial year. These would be examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament.

Finally, the Bill makes provision for the re-established information centre to be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. This means that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman would be able to investigate complaints that the information centre had not acted properly or fairly or had provided a poor service in the exercise of its functions. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I shall be brief because most of what I would hope to say has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, by my noble friend Lady Meacher, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. This Bill, in Clause 209, will abolish the General Social Care Council and place social worker and social care assistant regulation in the Health Professions Council, which is to be renamed the Health and Care Professions Council. This is highly undesirable for a profession that faces enormous challenges and which has only had its own regulator for just over two years. Is it possible for the Government to turn back from the brink? To take the regulation, education and performance standards of social workers and social care assistants—100,000 of them—into a body such as the Health Professions Council is likely to overload considerably the administrative procedures and activities of that council.

If this change is inevitable, the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others are worthy of very serious consideration. They would give social care and social workers a very special and identifiable voice in the Health Professions Council. Is it really appropriate that this mass of social workers should be regulated by a body that already regulates art therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists, clinical scientists, dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and many others—people who all work primarily in the health field? I quoted many of the bodies regulated by the Health Professions Council earlier today. It seems that putting the social care profession under this council is going to make it a very uncomfortable bedfellow.

I wholly appreciate the Government’s wish to have a bonfire of the quangos, and I understand why they wish to reduce the number of regulatory authorities, but there is no doubt that their last mechanism for doing this, when they brought together three major bodies and cumulated them into the Care Quality Commission, has been struggling to fulfil its responsibilities. It is functioning very effectively, but it has had a massive task in taking on all the additional responsibilities that have fallen to the Care Quality Commission since that merger. I fear that the same problems might well emerge in relation to this proposed merger, about which I therefore feel very uncertain and somewhat uncomfortable. I only wish that the Government felt able to think again.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, prompted only by the debate, I ask one simple question of my noble friend on the Front Bench. What assurance can she give me, in the light of the concerns that have been expressed, that this move will not end up with the same problems that we have had with the CQC, which was asked to take on too much, too fast, and proved incapable of doing it effectively?

[Baroness Northover]

These amendments on whether the clauses should stand part relate to the transfer of the regulation of social workers in England from the General Social Care Council to the Health Professions Council, and I thank noble Lords for them. The regulation of social workers in England is a very important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, having played a key role in the establishment of various of these bodies, argues his usual very strong case. We are committed to the development of the social work profession and the transfer of the regulation of social workers in England to the Health Professions Council as part of the ongoing work to reform the profession and to ensure that such regulation is effective and sustainable. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I, too, pay tribute to those who have been involved in these changes. I have met a number of them and find impressive their commitment to the profession and to making sure that, whether they supported the changes in the first place or do now, they are doing their very best to make sure that this works as effectively as possible. The noble Baroness’s tribute to them is well deserved.

The purpose of compulsory statutory regulation is to assure the quality and safety of the regulated professions. That, of course, is separate from the development of the profession itself. We are clear that if we separate professional regulation from professional representation, action needs to be taken to ensure that social work has a strong professional voice, and that is why we are supporting the development of the College of Social Work and the appointment of a chief social worker. The proposed transfer of functions to the Health and Care Professions Council will bring a number of further benefits in the form of standards of proficiency, many of which will have been developed by and tailored for the profession, and a fitness to practise process that will look at conduct and competence in the round.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised some issues about the General Social Care Council and the costs and so on. The council has made progress in developing the organisation since the discovery of a backlog of contact cases in June 2009. However, while the council is improving, there is still a lot of work to be done to bring it into line with the other professional regulators, such as the Health Professions Council. In addition, the council estimated that its costs would significantly rise as a result of these changes, and it would have been challenging for individual social workers to meet those costs.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mawhinney]

I have been thinking about something that my noble friend the Minister said a moment ago. The amendment would require the Secretary of State’s approval, in addition to that of more than half of the members of the council of governors, for an application made under this section. He did not welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the grounds that the approval of the Secretary of State amounted to an added layer of bureaucracy. It would be helpful to the Committee if we were to know whether the Secretary of State is always considered to be an added layer of bureaucracy and, if not, can he give us a couple of examples of when the Secretary of State is a net plus?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, since my question to the Minister, before he rises, is in similar territory, I might as well leave him sitting down for the moment and get my question in. As I indicated the other day, I have been involved in what is legalistically an acquisition, although we have always talked of it as a merger, of a foundation trust by its neighbour, due to come to fruition at the turn of the year. The last hurdle that we had to overcome, though it was not much of hurdle, was the need for the Secretary of State to sign off dissolution orders for the existing trust, and at least one other order, to allow this to happen. Is my noble friend saying that, under this Bill, such things could proceed untouched by the Secretary of State? I do not have a strong view one way or the other, but it is quite an important change if that kind of reconfiguration can occur without the Secretary of State even having to agree.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I would not dream of putting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s nose out of joint by calling him “an added layer of bureaucracy” in all circumstances. If I did so, I retract it immediately before it catches up with me. The answer to my noble friend is that the Secretary of State is not that of course; he has a major role in the structure of accountability and decision-making in the architecture of the Bill.

The issue to which my noble friends Lord Mawhinney and Lord Newton have referred is, however, complicated. I have asked for briefing on the way in which the merger process will work. It is quite extensive. To cut to the chase, an application from an NHS trust to merge with a foundation trust must be supported by the Secretary of State. That reflects current rules. However, the Bill removes the requirement for a foundation trust to consult the local authority on a merger. Section 244 of the Act, as amended by the Bill, would provide powers for regulations to make provision as to matters on which NHS bodies, including foundation trusts, must consult local authorities. We intend that foundation trusts will continue to be required to consult local authorities on particular matters set out in regulations and we will consult on those. That is the local authority bit of it. There will also be a duty of public involvement on foundation trusts in relation to such matters as the planning of service provision, proposals for changes in the way in which services are provided and decisions affecting the operation of services. I would be happy to write to both my noble friends—it would probably be better if I did so—to set out exactly what we envisage in the circumstances that they have raised.

I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, but perhaps I could refer to the PAC report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred. We welcome the report, which says that the NHS is in need of major overhaul. What is interesting about the report is what it shows about the state of the provider sector when the Government took office last year. It had problems such as hidden bail-outs, inadequate leadership and toxic PFI deals. These matters had not been addressed and we have made the firm decision that we cannot continue on that basis. That is why we are proposing independent assessments of trust boards as part of the foundation trust authorisation process.

As regards that process, trust boards will be independently assessed. The point of that is to ensure that they are up to scratch and able to lead their hospitals to foundation status. The underlying issue here is that we want all trusts to be clinically and financially sustainable in the future. The Public Accounts Committee has, very properly, drawn to our attention various issues around the capacity and capability of leadership, among other things, and my noble friend Lord Mawhinney mentioned PFI as another issue. All NHS trust boards will have to identify their strengths and weaknesses before being independently assessed. That is a robust discipline.

As my right honourable friend made clear in October, if, even after receiving support, management teams fail to improve their performance, then action will be taken. This could include their possible removal as a last resort. The Government will provide help to a small number of challenged hospitals to turn themselves around where necessary, but only after they have met the four tough tests that we have laid down. The problems they face must be exceptional and beyond those faced by other organisations; they must be historic; they must have a plan to deal with them in the future; they must demonstrate that they are improving their productivity; and they must deliver high-quality, sustainable services.

Before I conclude, I should like to speak to a number of minor and technical government amendments—for that is indeed what they are—in this group. These make consequential amendments in line with the revised provisions of the Bill; they correct drafting errors to correct references and numbering, or they remove redundant references to repealed legislation. Their purpose is to make the Bill work properly and to ensure that the legislation is up to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 299A and 299AA.

Before I do so, let me say just a word or two about two other amendments in this group, that is, Amendments 299ZA and 299AZA. I warmly thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Howe, for having listened with such care to those of us who spoke to him about the issue of foundation trusts, in particular the issue of the private income paid into foundation trusts and the question of how that private income should be used ultimately for the benefit of the health service. He has been very patient, very willing to listen and extremely helpful. On behalf of these Benches and my own party I would like to thank him, and I am sure that others in the House will share that gratitude for the way in which he has responded.

I do not want to go into detail, because the amendments are very clear and have been laid, beyond saying that the first of those amendments, Amendment 299ZA, clearly states the situation with regard to income that comes into a foundation hospital—that is, that that income must be ultimately devoted to the health service. It sets beyond question or ambiguity the Government’s position on this critical issue. I am therefore extremely grateful to the Minister for that.

I also strongly support the proposals about the annual report. I take to heart the Minister’s distinction between the way in which the annual report deals with the funding of National Health Service patients in foundation trusts and with the separate funding of private patients in foundation trusts. On both those issues, it is extremely helpful that the annual report should be clear and open, so that we can all discuss not only the very serious issues that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but also, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the very disturbing report from the Public Accounts Committee, which reiterates over and over again the need for leadership and for a clear statement of where the trusts stand, and the real concerns it has about the difficulties that some of them now confront. It is a dramatic report, and we should commend it to this House as far as we possibly can. Perhaps a separate debate on that issue in the Public Accounts Committee report would be appropriate on some future occasion.

Having said that, I will add only one other thing with regard to the first two amendments I mentioned, which are familiar enough to the noble Earl. In my view, it would be very helpful if there were “belt and braces”, by which I mean a government amendment which would indicate that, in the case of foundation trusts, the majority of patients should be NHS patients. That is, there should be an unquestionable commitment to having a majority of NHS patients. There are two reasons for that. One is simply that, good as the amendment unquestionably is, it is difficult for the general public—I certainly include myself in this—to understand the precise thrust of Amendment 299ZA, which I have quoted. It is helpful in this complicated Bill to have some islands of clarity that those who are not experts in the field—again, I include myself—can understand. People could understand the simple concept that a majority of patients should be from the NHS, not the private sector.

The other reason why I beg him to look at this carefully is that it is also important from the point of view of the complex debate that we have already had in this Committee on the issue of competition policy and EU competition policy. If there is a clear statement that the majority of patients must come from the NHS, that should be immensely helpful in ensuring that we are not then subjected to the rigours of the extreme competition policies defended at present in the EU and, indeed, by our own Competition Commission. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who knows a great deal about the legalisms of competition policy, may have something to add on this point.

I turn briefly—well, fairly briefly; I am now conscious of the disapproval of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, so I shall be a little more detailed—to the three more minor amendments in the group that my name is associated with. The first of those is Amendment 297, where we would like to add the words,

“for the purposes of the National Health Service”.

In order to persuade noble Lords of the importance of this, I will read out the text that the Bill currently inserts:

“The general duty of the board of directors, and of each director individually, is to act with a view to promoting the success of the corporation so as to maximise the benefits for the members of the corporation as a whole and for the public”.

In that wording, the public trail far behind the interests of the members of the corporate body. That is unfortunate and unwise. We are therefore proposing the simple amendment that the words “for the purposes of the NHS”, which, as noble Lords will appreciate, recur in other parts of the Bill on many occasions, should be added to this section about the directors of foundation trusts. It is important to reiterate that foundation trusts work for the interests of the NHS, which is why we have suggested this simple amendment.

On Amendment 299AA, on which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will speak in slightly more detail, the point here is quite straightforward. Clause 162(1)(a), which we are suggesting should be left out, removes the existing subsection in the National Health Service Act 2006 that limits the provision of private services. In particular, the 2006 Act permits not the abolition but the restriction of private health services within foundation trusts. Section 44(1) of the 2006 Act provides that,

“An authorisation may restrict the provision, for purposes other than those of the health service in England, of goods and services by an NHS foundation trust”.

In other words, that subsection again sustains the argument that there is a role for the private sector but that there must be restrictions on it if the NHS trusts and foundation trusts are to sustain their fundamental legal obligation to the NHS. It is important that these restrictions should be upheld. Indeed, the authorisations that I have referred to are critical to the concept of maintaining the foundation trusts within the health service system and therefore making it less vulnerable to competition legislation.

The final amendment that I want to refer to is Amendment 299A, where we are simply bearing out what I have already said. I therefore hope the House will now hear additional arguments from my noble friend to show why this group of amendments is very important in order to retain the current status of foundation trusts, which is very welcome, and which will assist in meeting some of the trenchant criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee about this whole sector of the health service. I beg to move.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I will come in very briefly. I declare a past interest as former chairman of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, which probably has as large a private patient income as any in the country. Frankly, that income considerably benefits the two hospitals and their NHS patients.

I welcome the amendments of my noble friend, and hope that the Minister will give them careful consideration. All of us in this House, not least those of us who are former Ministers of health, have been united in our wish to see a successful and flourishing NHS, and in being really dedicated to it. It would be an oddity if a hospital designated as an NHS trust—whether foundation or otherwise—were treating a majority of patients who were not NHS patients. That is quite a simple proposition, and it is the one advocated by my noble friend Baroness Williams.

The amendments already tabled by my noble friend on the cap on income are extremely welcome and sensible. However, I hope that he might think of—dare I say it—embracing the thoughts of my noble friend Lady Williams as well in some further modification of those amendments so that they refer both to income and to numbers. The numbers thing will be more readily understood by many members of the public. Clearly we do not want NHS trust hospitals to gain most of their income from doing non-NHS work or from treating non-NHS patients. That just does not make sense. It would helpful if we could make that clear.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Williams very clearly set out the approach of these Benches to a number of amendments in this group. I simply want to return to EU competition law for a moment. The noble Earl’s amendment regarding limits on the cap goes quite some way to mitigating one of the elements of risk associated with the greater application of EU competition law. As I outlined on Tuesday, there are some really significant issues in the Bill which will introduce EU competition law to a much greater extent if we are not careful. One of those, clearly, is the uncapping of private patient income of foundation trusts. I am very pleased that the noble Earl has gone some way to dealing with some of those concerns. However, I of course very much share the view of my noble friend Lady Williams that we are not quite there yet, and that it would be belt and braces to have the additional safeguard of a limit on the numbers as well as on the revenue.

Generally, four key issues arise from the changes to Sections 43 and 44 of the 2006 Act, quite apart from that of EU competition law. First, there is the question of limits on the cap—what kind of limit is appropriate? Secondly, there is the question of being absolutely certain that any income from private patients is exclusively devoted to the National Health Service. Thirdly, there is the question of prospective transparency—of being well aware of what the plans of foundation trusts will be. Fourthly, there is the question of transparency after the event, in terms of reporting in an annual report.

As far as the limits on the cap are concerned, as I have mentioned, the noble Earl’s Amendment 299ZA is welcome, but it would be useful if he could consider whether any further qualification of that cap was appropriate. There is also the question of being absolutely certain that we are talking about this income going exclusively to the NHS, which is what my Amendment 299A goes towards—that is why I seek to add the word “exclusive” to the changes to Section 43 of the Act.

On the question of prospective transparency, I very much welcome the Minister’s Amendment 299AZA, but that simply provides for reporting after the fact. It is important to share prospectively with the general public and people in the locality the governors’ process for determining the right balance between private income and the NHS activities in a trust. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve by requiring the situation to be set out in an annual plan.

There are four elements. We are some way down the track towards achieving a number of them. At that point, I think that on at least one of the limbs that I and many others are concerned about—the further introduction of competition law to the NHS—we will be satisfied. We will at least have knocked over one of the green bottles, so to speak, with several more to come.