Cannabis-based Medication
Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for her positive words acknowledging the way forward that I and other Ministers want to find for this little boy. As she said, this little boy has a very rare form of epilepsy. I am very pleased to hear that his seizures have reduced and very much look forward to a positive way forward being found.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the Government successfully licensed heroin-assisted treatment, or diamorphine-assisted treatment, which is prescribed in a synthetic form to people who do not benefit from or cannot tolerate substances such as methadone. We know that the success rates for that group of patients in terms of health, social care, incarceration and money saved show that there is real benefit from heroin-assisted treatment. Why cannot that simply be put in place for cannabis-based treatment as well?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
With respect, I point out to the noble Lord that the Question is specifically about the medicinal use of cannabis for a very specific case. The noble Lord is probably straying on to the legalisation of drugs in a controlled way. I am not going there today because I have not been asked a question about it, but I have had many debates about it and the Government remain of the view that such drugs remain illegal.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“After-care
(1) Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (after-care) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) after “duty of the” insert “clinical commissioning group or”,(b) omit “Primary Care Trust or” in each place it appears,(c) for “such time as the” substitute “such time as (in relation to England) the clinical commissioning group or”.(3) After subsection (2C) insert—
“(2D) Subsection (2) above, in its application to the clinical commissioning group, has effect as if for “to provide” there were substituted “to arrange for the provision of”.
(2E) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the duty imposed on the clinical commissioning group by subsection (2) above is, in the circumstances or to the extent prescribed by the regulations, to be imposed instead on another clinical commissioning group or the National Health Service Commissioning Board.
(2F) Where regulations under subsection (2E) above provide that the duty imposed by subsection (2) above is to be imposed on the National Health Service Commissioning Board, subsections (2D) and (2E) above have effect as if references to the clinical commissioning group were references to the National Health Service Commissioning Board.
(2G) Section 272(7) and (8) of the National Health Service Act 2006 applies to the power to make regulations under subsection (2E) above as it applies to a power to make regulations under that Act.”
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) after “section “the” insert “clinical commissioning group or”, (b) omit “Primary Care Trust or” in each place it appears, and(c) after “means the”, in the first place it appears, insert “clinical commissioning group or”.(5) In consequence of the repeals made by subsections (2)(b) and (4)(b), omit paragraph 47 of the Schedule 2 to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002.”
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I believe that I speak with some authority in proposing this amendment as a former chair of the Mental Health Act Commission and one who has worked for many years as a practitioner, manager and researcher in the field of mental health. Many noble Lords are also familiar with the particular needs of those with mental health problems and we have already debated some of the key issues and omissions in the Bill with respect to mental health. Although the noble Earl has been understanding and generally supportive, we have not yet seen any movement by the Government on issues such as ensuring parity between physical and mental illness. I sincerely hope that we will see some movement with respect to this clause because I am in no doubt that it will have the effect of reducing the quality of service and safety to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, those who have been detained under the Mental Health Act.
On the surface, Clause 37 appears quite reasonable. It seeks to amend Section 117(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 in order to transfer duties that currently sit with the PCT to the newly created clinical commissioning groups. Section 117 concerns the provision of aftercare services. Aftercare services for this extremely vulnerable group of patients are absolutely vital. They consist of a range of services in a single care package. Some examples are visits from a community psychiatric nurse, going to a day centre on a regular basis, befriending and support services and having medication, counselling and supportive accommodation.
Everyone with mental health needs is entitled to a community care assessment to establish what services they might need. However, Section 117 of the Mental Health Act at present goes much further and imposes a duty on both health and local authorities to assess and provide aftercare services to patients who have been detained under a variety of sections from the 1983 Act. That means that these agencies are under a joint duty to provide aftercare services free of charge until both NHS and local authority commissioners agree that the service user is no longer in need of such services.
However, the real problem here—and it is a serious one—is that Clause 37 does more than transfer these duties to the clinical commissioning groups. In effect, it significantly alters these duties so that the protections currently afforded by the Mental Health Act are greatly weakened. Separating the statutory responsibilities between CCGs and local authorities in the manner proposed by Clause 37 will allow one agency to decide to end the provision of services without notice or consultation with the other agency or even the patient. The duty established by Section 117 of the Mental Health Act was applicable to the ongoing care of roughly 18,000 people discharged from detention in hospital last year alone. I should point out that this included over 3,700 people discharged on to a community treatment order, thus making a total CTO population of approximately 6,000 people. People on a CTO can be required by law to accept forms of treatment and care that amount to aftercare, and they equally deserve and need the protections currently afforded to those patients leaving hospital.
There are three things about Clause 37 that concern me most. First, it removes the duty of co-operation on delivering aftercare services between the health service, the local authority and the voluntary sector. Secondly, it turns what is currently a free-standing duty into a gateway provision, which will restrict the scope and effect of aftercare services. Thirdly, as a consequence of this, it provides a back-door route by which aftercare services for detained patients will become chargeable.
I will start with the duty of co-operation. Clause 37 has the following effects. First, with respect to Clause 37(2)(c), (e) and (f), the joint duty to provide aftercare services is split between health and social services authorities. Each can separately decide when to withdraw its own services without requiring the agreement of the other. Secondly, at line 8, page 73 in Clause 37, CCGs will no longer be under a duty to arrange aftercare,
“in co-operation with relevant voluntary agencies”.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Adebowale will say more on that subject. This is not about general health responsibilities or duties. It is about fundamental recognition of the impact of being detained under the Mental Health Act. For example, on leaving hospital after a prolonged period of detention, a person is likely to have lost their accommodation and will be in need of somewhere safe and appropriate to live. They are also most likely to be feeling very vulnerable and low. During their period of acute illness they may have offended or alienated family, friends and neighbours. They may be particularly vulnerable to abuse as a consequence of the stigma of having been detained and, while they may certainly be recovering, they will not be better. They remain in need of treatment whether through medication, counselling or both.
None of the after-care services that they will need will be effective on their own. These services work and thus prevent readmission to hospital or worse because they are joint and co-ordinated, which means that neither authority can unilaterally decide to remove an element of their after-care package without the agreement of the other. Most importantly, they are also required to work collaboratively with the voluntary sector on these arrangements. This means that a local authority cannot decide that it can no longer afford to provide the funding for supported accommodation in the voluntary sector and unilaterally decide to withdraw from the arrangements. In the current economic climate, it seems to me that that scenario would become likely if the clause is passed as part of the Bill in its current form. It is absolutely certain that there will be greater scope for dispute between the various authorities and the voluntary sector, which will be left ultimately responsible at the end of the day. We need think only of the burden of the expenditure cuts in health and social services to realise that that will be the case, as both CCGs and local authorities seek to restrict their services. The patient will be left to play piggy in the middle, and it is often the patients, their carers and their families who will suffer the most.
My amendment would retain the joint duty on CCGs and social services authorities. It would also ensure that CCGs continue to arrange for provision of services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act, in co-operation with relevant voluntary agencies. But it is not just the potential loss of co-operation and shared responsibility for care that is at stake here. My other two concerns are with respect to the fact that the current protection afforded by the duty to provide after-care services is a freestanding duty. Clause 37 fundamentally changes this. First, it states that CCGs’ duty to commission health care services will be limited to services of a kind that must be provided under Section 3 of the NHS Act 2006 or may be provided under Section 3A of the NHS Act. This removes the clear and unambiguous responsibility on PCTs and local authorities to provide appropriate after-care services.
The current wording of the clause has the effect that the duty to provide after-care falls only on CCGs and, as such, will be only for health services, not social care services. By definition, after-care services must go beyond those provided by health alone, as they involve all the things I have already mentioned with respect to picking up your life after being detained—housing, counselling, befriending and advice, alongside the traditional health treatments and support. The wording is insufficient to ensure that these protections continue, and it clearly alters the nature of what was a freestanding duty to make it a gateway provision.
Secondly, Clause 37 states that Section 117 will be treated as a duty under Section 3 of the NHS Act 2006 and will be provided under the same duties as other healthcare. By removing the freestanding duty and making duties to provide after-care for detained patients the “same duties as other healthcare”, Clause 37 opens the way for charging for after-care services. For example, a potential effect of the clause is that it would allow for means-tested charging for such services as care home fees. They are currently exempted on the grounds that having detained a patient the state owes something of a reciprocal duty to provide after-care and that charging for such services would therefore not be acceptable. I spoke of this at Second Reading, when I reminded the House of the judgment made in this very issue in the Stennett case before the Appellate Committee of this House. Let me remind noble Lords of this landmark judgment more fully.
The exact case concerned Manchester City Council and two other councils, which appealed High Court rulings that they could not charge for the residential care of patients who had been discharged into such care from detention in hospital. Mr Stennett was one of those three patients. The judgment was made on 25 July 2002. In essence, the case established that Section 117 established a freestanding duty to provide after-care and that, as it contained no charging provisions, no charge should be made for after-care under that section, including for the provision of residential accommodation.
The argument that this was in fact a gateway provision, whereby other statutory protections would be triggered was completely rejected by the appellate court. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, will forgive me for paraphrasing his judgment in the case, but in essence what he said was that if it had been the intention of Parliament that Section 117(2) of the Mental Health Act would be a gateway provision, by which other statutory provisions were triggered, it would have specified what those provisions were. More importantly, if it were a gateway provision then it would require appropriate wording. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, said in summary that,
“Section 117 is free-standing. It imposes a duty on the authorities to provide the after-care services and to continue to do so ‘until such time as . . . the person concerned is no longer in need of such services’”.
If I am not mistaken, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was part of the panel of judges that agreed with that judgment. The importance of this being a free-standing duty is that the relevant authorities are required to sort out the funding for the package of aftercare between them.
Furthermore, one of the greatest issues in ensuring that aftercare services are effective is securing the agreement and co-operation of the patient. This is known to work best when aftercare services are free and seamless. The current protections afforded by Section 117 represent best practice for vulnerable patients with mental health problems as it ensures that there is a joint support with a package of integrated services. The requirement that, once in place, this joint package of care cannot be broken without everyone's agreement means that patients are more likely to get access to the services that they need for as long as they need them. My amendment seeks to ensure that the arrangement of services by CCGs under Section 117 is not limited to services arranged under Section 3 or Section 3A of the NHS Act, by deleting the proposed new subsection (2E). In addition, the amendment will ensure that the duty on CCGs will not be regarded as a duty under Section 3 of the NHS Act. This means that it remains a freestanding duty under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act.
I am grateful to the Law Society and to Mind, which have helped in preparing briefings on this amendment and the key issues at stake. In addition, the Law Society has obtained independent legal advice on the specific implications of the current wording of Clause 37, which leaves me in no doubt that my concerns about this aspect of the Bill are justified. It is clear to me that the impact of Clause 37 would be to make a very vulnerable group of patients more likely to fall between the gaps created by the confusion and scope for dispute that it will create. Moreover, it strikes me that removing this protection goes against the ethos and promise of this Bill, which is for more, not fewer, integrated services. The joint duty on health authorities and local authorities to provide health and social care, coupled with the fact that Section 117 is a freestanding duty to provide aftercare, effectively prevents either health authorities or local authorities charging for such services. I believe this to be necessary and a vital protection for this vulnerable group of patients.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will see the necessity of this amendment and agree that it seeks to ensure that vital protections for some of these patients remain in place. Most importantly, I hope that he will accept that this House should not allow the possibility of charging as an unintended consequence of this change in statutory wording. Clause 37 reverses that ruling by the House’s Appellate Committee—or has the potential to do so—by taking such matters as domiciliary care, not directly linked to health provision, out of the scope of Section 117 of the 1983 Act. This potential reversal would appear to have been suggested without the matter being debated in Parliament at all. For that reason alone, surely the current clause cannot stand. I beg to move.
Lord Adebowale
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford. I should first declare my interest as the CEO of the social enterprise, Turning Point, which provides mental health, substance misuse and LD services.
When I looked at this clause, I wondered whether there was malice aforethought but I was reassured by the civil servants that that is not the intention. I know full well that the Minister’s intention is always to be helpful. I understand that it was not the intention of this clause to wreck a partnership between health and social care that has been around since 1983 and has ensured that detained patients obtained an appropriate care plan, provided by a joint duty requiring PCTs and local authorities to work together to provide aftercare. I think that this clause was an attempt to tidy things up in some way and to provide clarity.
However, I should warn the House of the consequences of such a tidying-up exercise on the lives of detained patients. The current arrangements effectively hide the wiring about who pays and any debates on their provision of aftercare. There was a statutory curse on both the local authority and the NHS, should they fail to sort it out, which in effect has ensured that people who are detained get the care and support that they need on departure.
More to the point, experience tells me that the removal of this duty creates the very real possibility of one or other of the parties refusing to pay, thus leaving the client in an expensive limbo. The really worrying changes suggested in the clause refer to the fact that CCGs will no longer be under any duty to arrange aftercare in co-operation with relevant voluntary organisations. Furthermore, the clause goes on to state that CCGs, due to commission healthcare services, will be limited to services under Section 3A, effectively meaning—as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel—that health services only may be provided, thus opening up patients to funding disputes about whether they get care, and if so who pays.
There are other worrying suggestions in this clause that give cause for concern and that open up the possibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has pointed out, of charging for the services of aftercare. The question I would put to the House is: who is charging whom? Who pays under these circumstances?
In the excellent briefing provided by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mind, Rethink, the Centre for Mental Health and the Mental Health Foundation, a scenario was set out which I want to put to the House, because it illustrates the reality. We often debate these clauses in the absence of their real impact upon real people.
Mr B had a diagnosis of schizo-affective disorder and was unable to read or write due to also having a learning disability. He had a history of being detained under the Mental Health Act and of being discharged with Section 117 aftercare packages and then withdrawing from services in due course as his situation improved. However, as is often the case, he would then relapse and be returned to hospital. His aftercare package comprised a care worker from his community mental health team, who spent about two hours per week helping Mr B with paperwork—such as housing, rental and other benefits and community appointments—and the community psychiatric nurse, who administered medication. On health grounds, the health authority decided that the community mental health team support was to be withdrawn, but made no provision for further support with paperwork or appointments. Without that support, Mr B could not manage his tenancy, bills or get to his GP for his medication; he would certainly have relapsed quickly and stayed in a relapsed position, costing the state, the health authority and social care far more. There had been no recent reassessments of Mr B’s needs by social services and they had not agreed to the withdrawal of any services.
With the help of an advocate, Mr B was able to argue that Section 117 aftercare was his right and should not have been withdrawn without the agreement of social services. As a result, the support was left in place, he won his argument and social services agreed to review his needs before any further decision was made. That is the result of what we currently have in place. Remove that, and Mr B does not have those rights and is left in limbo.
This clause creates a gap through which not only Mr B will fall, but many others. It also places many services in the not-for-dividend and voluntary sector at risk of sudden withdrawal of funding, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My own services, some of which we have raised finance to fund, will be at immediate risk. I would not be in a position to continue those services; they will not be available for people leaving detained services and therefore the care will not be available. I urge the House and the Minister to do everything necessary to retain the current certainty for Mr B and for many like him.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am happy to cover both those eventualities in the discussions. Moving on to Clause 51 concerning death certification reforms, this amendment to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 places responsibility for the appointment of medical examiners and related activities on local authorities in England instead of the PCTs. The Government are committed to implementing the reforms of the process of death certification set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. These are important and long overdue reforms, which will involve a medical examiner providing an independent and proportionate scrutiny of cause of death in all cases not investigated by a coroner. The reforms will improve the quality of information on cause of death, increase transparency for bereaved families, and strengthen local clinical governance and public health surveillance arrangements. As your Lordships will be aware, these reforms form part of the response to the recommendations of the Shipman inquiry and, of course, the noble Baroness played a key role in taking these changes through.
The clause moves responsibility for the appointment of medical examiners from PCTs to local authorities and makes similar changes to the arrangements for performance managing and funding the medical examiner service. This change is needed because of other provisions in the Bill which will abolish PCTs from April 2013, despite the quote that was made earlier. Establishing the medical examiner service in local authorities should enhance the availability and accessibility of important public health information and intelligence. It will also align the service with other existing local authority responsibilities, including coroner and registration services.
I now turn to the fee payable for death certification, which, clearly, is a very difficult and immensely sensitive issue. Many people, including my noble friend Lady Jolly, have questioned whether there should be a fee at all and whether the state should pay for certification of death. It is the Government’s policy in line with the proposals set out by the previous Government in 2009 that the medical examiner’s independent scrutiny and confirmation of cause of death stated on the certification should not result in an increase in costs. It is also important to remember that the payment of the fee is already the case as regards the 70 per cent of people who are cremated, with this fee forming part of undertakers’ fees.
The current economic situation means hard choices are inevitable and the need to ensure that certification of death is cost neutral is one of those challenges. With regard to how the fee is paid by individuals, I am aware of the problems. Let me make it clear: it is neither the Government’s desire, nor intention, that this fee should be paid upfront. We would like to come to a solution that fully recognises how difficult a time this is for families and we do not want to add to the heavy burden which is felt at such a time.
As such, we have already started discussing with stakeholders and others how to arrive at an appropriate method for payment of fees. We will be consulting fully on this topic and want to hear the full range of views before making a decision. Given the sensitivities, if any Member of the Committee would like to discuss these issues further with me or officials, we would be very happy to take that forward. In due course, I will move that this provision stands part of the Bill.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who have contributed on the amendment standing in my name. We have had the benefit of the huge expertise and experience not only of the voluntary sector but of eminent psychiatrists who understand what happens to patients detained under the Mental Health Act. We should not simply ignore those views or brush them under the carpet. My problem is that we have heard a number of times in this Committee that, “Such-and-such is not an intention of the Bill, and the new arrangements will ensure that quality and outcomes are the prime drivers in decision-making rather than cost or expediency”. No doubt that is what is intended, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This is not a technical issue, or an issue that can be left alone in the hope that matters will resolve themselves and things will work out. This is about a fundamental principle of law that seeks to protect the vulnerable. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, gave a perfect example of what happens to real patients. If we cannot act now in the best interests of those who cannot speak for themselves by virtue of being detained under the Mental Health Act, who are by definition vulnerable and dependent on the state to make the right choices for them, then I do not know what we are doing here today.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, exemplifies why we have to be very careful about decisions that we make for this group of patients—the unintended consequences could be enormous. It is wonderful that the Minister said that the Government will review this next year. That is welcome. However, how many more lives will be ruined in the next 12 months? We have made mistakes in the past and we continue to make them. In terms of this amendment and Section 117, the danger with simply moving forward and saying, “This will be okay—that is not what we intend”, does not sit comfortably at all.
My amendment is very simple: it will ensure that CCGs and social services authorities continue to have a joint duty. I cannot see why we should not insist that CCGs and local authorities should have a joint duty in relation to this very vulnerable group of people. It will ensure that the joint duty includes maintaining co-operation with relevant voluntary agencies. We are asking the voluntary sector, “Please take over services and help us deliver”, and all the rest of it. Why can we not maintain the co-operation that exists?
The amendment will also ensure that the duty remains free-standing, as was the clear intention of the Appellate Committee of this House, so that aftercare services are not limited to other provisions but can actually meet the patient’s needs. By doing so it ensures that patients who have been detained under the Mental Health Act and require aftercare services do not find themselves having to pay for those services.
The noble Baroness said that there is no intention regarding payment. However, I think that I gave enough examples in my speech to show why I think that will be challenged. I am not a lawyer or an expert on these things but I did look at the judgment. What is interesting about the judgment that was given way back in 1999—when we did not have austerity measures and there were plenty of resources—was that, on three occasions, three local councils tried to force four people detained under the Act to pay for aftercare services. They had three different appeals. By the time they got to the fourth appeal in this place, one of the patients had died. That emphasises my point about how long people have to wait. If they were trying to charge then, what is going to happen now when we are desperate for resources in health and social care? People are really going to be pushing this.
I am afraid that that does not hold water for me at all. I tabled this amendment in good faith but I am concerned that clauses in this Bill will clearly have unintended and detrimental consequences. We chose not to reject this Bill out of hand under the rightly justified position that it is the proper place of this House to amend and improve legislation through a robust process of scrutiny. I believe that my amendment is the right and proper way to correct the Bill and to prevent significant harm arising.
Baroness Northover
I did not directly address the Stennett case and I must do so. The Stennett case indeed makes clear that such services have to be provided free of charge and the Bill in no way overturns that. It does not challenge that. What comes under Section 117 remains as it was—what is provided by it is still free of charge. This does not in any way challenge the Stennett conclusion.
Lord Patel of Bradford
The clause actually says—again, I am not a lawyer; I am looking at this in layman’s terms—that you do not need to have this consultation. As the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said, Mr Bloggs could then leave hospital and receive some accommodation, daycare and counselling through the health service, but the local authority could then decide unilaterally to say—as it can—“Right, the daycare and the accommodation have gone. We are not going to pay for them”. It does not even consult the patient or the CCG. It can do that. The legislation states that. The clause says that local authorities can do that now. It is okay.
We are being foolish if we think that local authorities or CCGs are not going to opt out of this where they can. They will opt out of providing bits of services. The voluntary sector will be lumbered with them. It will be told to pick up the tab, but organisations such as Turning Point do not have the resources to pick up the tab.
Baroness Northover
I repeat my invitation. The noble Lord makes a cogent case. I invite him to come into the department and make that case. I am saying that his worries are ill founded, but if he is right and there are things that need to be done to ensure that the case that I am making is indeed watertight, please will he help us to do that?
Lord Patel of Bradford
The noble Baroness is almost as persuasive as the noble Earl. I gratefully accept the invitation, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, will also be very happy to sit with officials. Like I say, I do not think for one second that the department is being malicious. There are some unintended consequences that are worth exploring further to see if we can make this legislation better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.