Mental Health: Young People

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goudie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to reduce mental illness among young people.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Goudie, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, through our action plan Closing the Gap we are supporting schools to ensure that mental health problems are identified early, improving outcomes. Children’s mental health is a priority, and we have invested £54 million over the four-year period 2011-15 in the children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies programme, known as CYP IAPT, to transform child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—improving young people’s access to the best evidence-based care.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that the Royal Society for Public Health, together with the Prince’s Trust, published a report in this year’s annual Youth Index that showed an extremely high correlation between unemployment and mental illness among young people? In fact, a startling 40% of young people who were unemployed had signs of mental illness and were developing self-harm issues and even suicidal thoughts. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing about that report? Following on from the earlier Question, I suppose that the simple answer would be more jobs for unemployed people, but can the Minister say more about what the Department for Education is doing? Schools have a responsibility to introduce mental health and well-being classes formally within education but they are very reluctant to work with health services, particularly mental health services, to deliver that. Can the Minister say what is being done at a national level between the Department of Health and the Department for Education, as well as in encouraging local mental health services to work with schools?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am aware of the study to which the noble Lord refers. It ties in quite closely with the findings of the Marmot report of a few years ago, which correlated quite closely the link between socioeconomic deprivation and children and young persons’ mental ill-health. Helping people, especially young people, get back into employment is a key priority for the Government. We know that young adults with mental health issues are underrepresented in the labour market. We aim to enable more young people with mental health needs to find and keep a job. There is an ongoing government programme to drive whole-system and cultural change, led by the Department for Work and Pensions. We are working with health and social care services to support young people to become economically active, not least through the CYP IAPT programme.

As regards schools, very briefly, schools can raise awareness of mental health through PSHE. Mental health is not a compulsory part of the curriculum. However, I note that the new national curriculum will see children aged five to 16 taught about internet safety in a sensible, age-appropriate way, which is a really important step to help children and young people understand some of the issues facing them.

Mental Health: Funding

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my honourable friend Norman Lamb has expressed his concern that the cuts to the mental health tariff have taken the form that they have. I can tell my noble friend that the department will be scrutinising the commissioning plans of clinical commissioning groups and the draft budgets of mental health trusts to make sure that they reflect the central importance, as set out in the Government’s mandate to the NHS, of making measurable progress towards parity of esteem. We know that there are regional differences in access and we are setting up a new national mental health intelligence network to provide comprehensive and up-to-date information about mental health and well-being.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, despite having very clear guidance and legislation in place, we still have an unacceptable number of 16 and 17 year-olds being admitted to psychiatric wards and that, worryingly, many children under the age of 16 are being placed on adult wards many miles from their families and homes? I am sure the Minister will agree that this is totally unacceptable and extremely harmful to the children concerned and their families. What plans do the Government have to put a complete stop to this harmful practice and provide the resources that are clearly needed for appropriate places for young children in mental health services? Does he have an approximation of the number of children we are talking about?

[Earl Howe]

I do not have a figure to quote to the noble Lord, but our aim, as he says, must be to support children and young people with mental health problems wherever possible in the community in which they live. Admission to hospital should be a last resort for a young person. We have done a great deal to improve mental health services for young people in the community. We also recognise the difficulties for young people and their families if they are treated in hospitals some way from home, but the decision about where they are treated is bound to depend on what is available and what facilities are needed to meet their particular clinical needs.

Health: Talking Therapy

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I can assure my noble friend that Health Education England has it in its sights to make sure that sufficient numbers of professionals are trained in the talking therapies, and that work is ongoing.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said about having staff who can provide appropriate talking therapies, and what the Minister himself said about someone who needs a service receiving it, we have a long history in the mental health field of mental health practitioners not referring certain minority-ethnic groups such as the south Asian and black African communities for talking therapies. I believe that that is still the case with referrals to the CBT programme. What are the Government doing to address this imbalance?

[Earl Howe]

I can tell the noble Lord that IAPT is working with a number of BME groups to promote wider access to the service from all sections of the community. A grant scheme will shortly be launched to encourage community-based interventions to increase uptake of talking therapies, including from BME groups.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

7: Clause 75, page 68, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) Within one year of the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the discharge by probation trusts of their responsibilities for safeguarding adults residing in approved premises.”

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, I once again thank the Minister for taking time to speak to me last week about my continued concerns in respect of ensuring that adults detained in prison or residing in approved premises have the same protection and care as all other vulnerable adults when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities.

Clause 75(7) expressly excludes adults detained in prison and those residing in approved premises from the Section 42 duty on local authorities to carry out safeguarding inquiries. I spoke about this on Report believing that it is a serious gap in the Bill in providing safeguards and protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and prisons. On Report, I sought clarification about who would be responsible for carrying out safeguarding inquiries in prisons and approved premises, such as bail hostels. The response I received from the Minister was:

“Prison governors and directors, and the probation trust in the case of approved premises, are responsible for safeguarding prisoners … Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Prison and Probation Ombudsman require assurance that safeguarding procedures are in place and their implementation provides equivalent protection to that available in the community”.—[Official Report, 16/10/2013; cols. 623-4.]

In response to my specific question about approved premises, the Minister said that probation trusts have responsibility for carrying out safeguarding inquiries. I was a bit concerned by that response, but I accepted it. I decided to seek further clarification about how it would work in practice in local areas. What I found raised more issues and questions, which I shall briefly outline. I should say that I am very grateful to Jenny Talbot and her team at the Prison Reform Trust for their continued support and expert guidance on this matter.

I fully support the concept that all prisons and approved premises should have their own arrangements for safeguarding that include a comprehensive policy understood by all staff and should ensure that vulnerable adults are identified and given appropriate support within the local authority safeguarding process. I remain uncertain about what the Minister said about probation trusts having the responsibility for carrying out safeguarding inquiries in respect of adults residing in approved premises, so I sought further expert legal advice from people in the field. I was categorically assured that local authority safeguarding duties and, indeed, other community care duties extend to approved premises within the local authority area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Ministry of Justice will want to ensure that the guidance is adhered to and the department will have oversight of the way that this works in practice, as the noble Baroness might expect. As I say, there is best practice already out there; we want to build on what we know works, with joint working across the prison and probation services and local authorities.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for taking time to talk to me about these concerns and providing a comprehensive response. I am really pleased about the guidance that is going to be produced and shared. The noble Earl said that comprehensive policies and procedures are in place, and I should say for clarity that I have no argument with that. A number of institutions do not have them in place and that is where the guidance will come in handy.

However, I have no desire to see the local authority relieving the prison or probation trust of any duty of care. What I was saying—although it is probably a play on words—was that the No Secrets guidance seems to suggest that a local authority is probably the only agency that would investigate or inquire into a safeguarding issue. I am not saying that probation trusts will not do so but the feeling is that that duty falls on the local authority at the moment. My big anxiety is that Clause 75(7) expressly states that Section 42 should not apply. The Bill therefore actually states that local authorities should not carry out a safeguarding inquiry for people in prison or approved premises. The fact that it says in the Bill that they should not do it, but at the same time we are giving guidance to say that if everybody works together it should be okay, leads me to ask the Minister how we square that circle. It gives an awkward flavour to the debate. I hope that the noble Earl is willing to go back and have a look at both the guidance and the clause, as I believe that that is where the problem lies.

As regards safeguarding adults boards, I am very pleased that the noble Earl has said that prisons and probation trusts should join the safeguarding boards. Initially the Bill said that they should not be forced to do so. Then it was drafted to say that they “may” do so. I suggest that they should. This is crucial, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, as otherwise their skill base is missing.

Those two areas are crucial. I do not know what will happen if and when the probation trusts are abolished, and what problems that will cause, but at least the amendment requiring that there is a report within a year will give us that information.

[Earl Howe]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. For clarification, the provision that he has cited says that the duty to conduct an inquiry does not apply. It does not say that local authorities should not conduct an inquiry. I think that that is an important distinction.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

The fact that we each have looked at that provision in a different light suggests that it may be useful to look at that again when the guidance is produced so that we are very clear and we give local authorities the confidence to play the lead in co-ordinating this.

I again thank the Minister for taking away all the issues and re-examining them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

128A: Clause 71, page 59, leave out lines 35 to 42 and insert—
“(5) In this section, “after-care services” means services that reduce the risk of a deterioration of the person’s mental condition (and, accordingly, to reduce the risk of the person requiring admission to a hospital again for treatment for mental disorder).”

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 128A which affects Clause 71(5) that aims to provide a definition of “after-care services” as they relate to the Mental Health Act 1983.

We had an extensive debate on this clause in Committee and as a result the Government have tabled their own amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for Care and Support, Norman Lamb, and his officials for taking time to meet me and discuss my concerns about this clause. During the debate in Committee, I highlighted the importance of Section 117 in providing a comprehensive care package of health and social care services to a very specific and extremely vulnerable group of patients when they are discharged after detention in a psychiatric hospital. Without appropriate community health and social care support they may relapse, come to harm or even present a risk to others.

In recognition of the inherent vulnerability of these patients and the risks involved, and to encourage take-up by them, after-care services under Section 117 have required local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to provide after-care services free of charge and are deliberately not defined in statue, as there is a wide range of services that a detained patient might need in order to leave hospital and live in the community. Mental health professionals need to have the widest flexibility possible to devise creative care packages to keep patients who have been detained well and prevent them relapsing. The concept appears well understood by both health and local authorities and has been for over 30 years.

There is also a clear public health policy purpose behind Section 117, which is to help get vulnerable people out of hospitals and back into the community. No one should remain in hospital any longer than they need and after-care services should be provided to enable a safe discharge and to avoid all the emotional harm and exposure of a deterioration. This is vital to prevent our hospitals being bedblocked—I am sure that all noble Lords saw the news headlines this morning about the severe lack of in-patient psychiatric beds. So what does this clause do and why?

Clause 71(5) proposes to provide the first ever statutory definition of after-care services, but it is a narrow definition which I and many others believe will be detrimental to patients’ welfare. For example, an after-care package may include daytime activities, welfare benefits and financial advice, residential accommodation and medication. However, if the proposed definition is introduced, after-care providers may argue—I think they will argue—that it is only the provision of psychiatric medicine that meets,

“a need arising from … the mental disorder”,

of the person.

I accept that the Government have made some concessions on this issue. For example, concerns were raised that the definition in the Bill refers to, “the mental disorder”, which might refer only to the medical treatment of a single diagnosis, rather than looking at a person holistically. In response to these concerns, amendments have been tabled by the Government to make it clearer that Section 117 after-care services are to meet needs,

“arising from or related to the person’s mental disorder”.

That can mean one or more mental disorders, and not necessarily the mental disorder for which the person was detained in hospital for treatment. While this concession is, of course, welcome, and the current proposed definition is wider than that set out in the draft Bill, I still remain extremely concerned about the risk of confusion, litigation and delays, which is why I have tabled my amendments.

Noble Lords will be very relieved to hear that I will not repeat the many reasons I have for tabling Amendment 128A; I simply want to give two very clear reasons why this amendment should be accepted. First, I want to challenge the basis on which the Government have introduced this definition and say why it is wrong. Secondly, I think that the definition, even with the Government’s amendment, remains problematic and harmful to patients.

The Government have clearly stated that they have put this definition into the Bill following the recommendation from the Law Commission’s report Adult Social Care, a recommendation that is based on the Law Commission’s concerns around one case, Mwanza v the London Borough of Greenwich in 2010. I am not a lawyer, but I had a nasty feeling about this case, so I contacted the counsel, Nicholas Armstrong from Matrix Chambers, who actually represented Mr Mwanza in this case, to get his views. I am extremely grateful for his time and the explanation he gave me. Suffice to say he was very concerned to hear that the case is being used in this way. He informed me that there were a number of issues that make this case unique and unrepresentative, explaining that,

“this is a very unstable basis on which to disturb a provision of primary legislation that has benefited many and operated largely without difficulty for 30 years (rather a long time in these areas of law and, some might feel, a testament to its success)”.

I have shared the full contents of the communication from Nicholas Armstrong with the Department of Health so that it can clearly see the issues and concerns that Mr Armstrong has raised about his own case. Most importantly, he states:

“Mwanza was highly unusual and complex. First, it is critical to recognise that it was a migrant case. The family had no immigration status and so were cut out of mainstream benefits and sources of support, including housing. Their possible routes to support and, in particular, accommodation were therefore very limited. Normally, accommodation is not an issue because people get it from any number of other routes. Not so here . . . Second, the Section 117 issue had to be addressed here, despite how difficult it was, because of the way the other possible route to accommodation (Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948), works. That provision cannot provide accommodation if there is an alternative. Hence, to resolve where a Section 21 duty was owed, the court had first to decide whether Section 117 applied . . . We were, in other words, only in Section 117 at all because of the way the migrant exceptions work.”

The situation was then complicated by the detention under Section 3 many years earlier—about eight to nine years prior to this case—and it looked like the duty had not been discharged properly by the local council. Nicholas Armstrong continued:

“It is critical to recognise that it was a disabled migrant case where another local authority wanted to avoid liability under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, and we had to resolve the Section 117 question because we could not get to Section 21 unless Section 117 was definitely not in play . . . That was a pretty rare set of circumstances. So far as Section 117 is concerned, Mwanza is a permission decision only. It was fully argued but it is not binding, even on courts below the High Court”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, it is vital that people with mental illness have adequate aftercare. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, if his Amendment 128A would cover such cases as the tragic case of the schoolgirl who was travelling by bus to school and was killed by a person who was mentally ill. There should be more protection for the public, who are at risk from mentally ill people who are let loose in the community without adequate aftercare and supervision. It is vital that people have aftercare, otherwise we will have more and more disasters.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I would not like to associate mental health patients leaving hospital with the case that she has outlined, but clearly it is true that if we do not provide good quality aftercare services and encourage people to take them up but rather leave people in hospital anxious about whether they will have to pay for some of these services, then that is a potential result that we will have to live with, in circumstances where people do not have accommodation, health and social services provided or someone coming in and saying to them, “Deal with your accommodation and social care issues as well as your medication”. This is a real anxiety.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford. I shall not say much more than that other than that he commented on the risk that the current situation could lead to more likelihood of a more medical approach to aftercare. Noble Lords might think that as a retired psychiatrist I would support that, but I do not; it is incredibly important that people who have a history of mental illness and need aftercare services receive the broadest possible support so that admission to hospital is not simply because there is inadequate support for them in the community. I commend his proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the protection of the public is of great importance, as I need hardly say; but we are dealing here with quite a narrow point of definition about who should be entitled to free mental health aftercare. To expand the scope of that definition to include others would not be fair on many people, which is why I have argued that I believe we have positioned the definition in the right way. The noble Baroness’s question is a very relevant one in the broader context of how we look after those with mental illness, but I would like to think that this amendment should not affect her concern one way or another.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I am clearly disappointed at the response. I was expecting at least a halfway point at which we could meet and perhaps change the definition once again. I will not detain the House for very long. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, very clearly and succinctly put the benefits of Section 117 and the joint working that takes place. That is probably the only piece of legislation that has encouraged joint working really well and has worked.

The noble Earl talked about the Government’s definition, and that is what it is: a Department of Health definition. However, it does not ride with everybody else out there. Everybody that I have spoken to clearly says that this is the wrong way. I fear that the department has got itself in a corner because it has accepted the Law Commission’s recommendation on this point. It did not accept the other three recommendations, which clearly shows, to me, that the Law Commission does not understand Section 117 services properly. Although the department has accepted this recommendation, I think it has realised that the basis on which it has done so is not appropriate; the case is unique and unrepresentative.

We have talked about inequity. These people have their liberty taken away: they are locked up against their will. They have been in and out of mental health services; they have had a raw deal. That is why they are there. This is a reciprocal duty on behalf of society to make sure that we give them free aftercare services. Yes, other patients may not get that, but this group of patients is extremely vulnerable. There is also the issue of public safety. We should give them the services they require.

I could go on, but I will not. I am really disappointed. This matter deserves that the House makes its views known, so I want to test the opinion of the House.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

136A: Clause 72, page 61, line 18, leave out from beginning to “not” in line 19 and insert “Section 42 and 47 does”

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 136A and 136B seek to ensure that people in prison and those residing in approved premises have equivalence of care when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities. Noble Lords may remember that I raised this issue in Committee but I was a little concerned by the response I received from the Minister on that occasion. I am grateful to Jenny Talbot and her team at the Prison Reform Trust for all the support and guidance they have provided throughout.

I welcome the Government’s commitment in this Bill to place responsibility for the social care of adult prisoners with the local authority in whose area the prison is located. The Bill outlines the responsibilities of local authorities towards people in prison who have care and support needs and would ensure that people in prisons are able to access care and support on a similar basis to those in the community. However, having made such a significant and welcome commitment to the social care of prisoners, there is an anomaly in the Bill, which states that people in prison and people residing in approved premises are not to receive equivalence of care when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities. Surely denying people in prison and people residing in approved premises the benefit of an inquiry by the local authority when safeguarding concerns are raised places an already vulnerable group of individuals at even greater risk.

Of course, I understand that prisons have a whole range of safeguarding measures in place. However, when there is a real problem that a prison has not resolved, why can a local authority not have an inquiry for a person who is vulnerable and at risk? Moreover, I cannot understand why people in approved premises—in other words, people who have been released from prison and are living in the community; for example, in a probation hostel—should be excluded from local authority safeguarding inquiries. If the local authority is not responsible for safeguarding vulnerable adults in approved premises in the community, who is?

When I raised this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stated,

“if local authorities must also conduct inquiries in prisons and approved premises, we run the risk of duplicating inquiries. Prison governors and directors have the primary responsibility for preventing abuse or neglect of prisoners with care and support needs. Prison governors already have a duty to care for and safeguard prisoners. If we duplicate this responsibility, we run the risk that the lack of clarity will mean that safeguarding concerns fall between agencies”.—[Official Report, 29/7/13; col. 1585.]

I have a number of concerns about this response, two in particular. First, with regard to people in prison, the noble Baroness talked about the duplication of effort and lack of clarity. I suggest that this is simply not the case. My amendment would not limit the responsibility that prisons already have. On the contrary, their involvement on safeguarding adults boards would help to ensure shared learning and expertise, including, where necessary, the option for a safeguarding inquiry should safeguarding concerns not be resolved by the individual prison.

In fact, inquiries by local authorities should be viewed as another tool to help ensure our prisons are safe for both vulnerable prisoners and the staff who work with them. I am not suggesting that local authorities need to be directly involved in all interventions in prisons or that local safeguarding teams would need to be called upon to intervene in every safeguarding concern raised. However, directors of adult services need to be confident that their standards are consistent with those set out in the report No Secrets and any exceptions are explicit and jointly agreed. Therefore, I believe that an inquiry by a local authority will not duplicate the excellent work undertaken by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, or by the prison itself. It will complement and enhance it, and could potentially help save lives.

Secondly, the noble Baroness did not provide an answer as to who would be responsible for the safeguarding of people in approved premises, if it is not the local authority. For the sake of clarity, I will ask the question again. As I understand it, approved premises are the responsibility of the probation service and not of the prison service. Any responsibilities that prison governors have for safeguarding adult offenders end once that person is released and physically leaves the premises. As the Bill currently stands, people living in approved premises will not be the responsibility of local authorities as is everybody else who lives in the community. So if someone is living in approved premises, such as a probation hostel, and is part of the community, as is anybody else, and that person has been abused or neglected or is at serious risk, who will have the obligation to carry out a safeguarding inquiry?

In terms of safeguarding inquiries by the local authority, not providing people in prison or who reside in approved premises with the same equivalence of care as for other people in the community makes little sense. The Bill establishes that equivalence of care applies to prisoners, and this should extend to safeguarding and to how safeguarding concerns are dealt with. Local authority adult safeguarding procedures are well established within local communities and the safeguarding of people in prisons and of those residing in approved premises should not be excluded from this body of expertise.

Of course, prisons and approved premises, such as hospitals and care homes, should have their own internal safeguarding arrangements and responses to safeguarding concerns. However, by excluding prisons and approved premises from safeguarding inquiries by the local authority, prisoners and people residing in approved premises will be denied the equivalent protections afforded to other vulnerable adults. Further, the opportunity for constructive dialogue and shared learning, which some prisons and local authorities currently enjoy, may also be lost. As the Bill stands, this is a serious gap which places a very vulnerable group at risk. Therefore, I hope the Minister can provide some clarification, reassurance or, better still, accept my amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will take note of the very serious points which the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, has made to your Lordships tonight.

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

My Lords, these two amendments deal with changes to Clause 72 to impose a duty on local authorities to make safeguarding inquiries in prisons and approved premises. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling these amendments. We strongly agree that a person with care and support needs should be protected against abuse or neglect wherever they live.

Prison governors and directors, and the probation trust in the case of approved premises, are responsible for safeguarding prisoners and for protecting them from abuse and neglect. They have in place procedures to follow in response to allegations of abuse or neglect, and they must provide assurance on this to the National Offender Management Service. The UK operates a comprehensive level of monitoring and scrutiny within prisons to ensure that prisoners are kept safe and secure and that governors and directors are accountable for taking steps to improve matters if necessary.

We have in place a fully independent prison inspectorate that carries out a rigorous programme of scrutiny; more than 1,700 volunteers on prison independent monitoring boards who monitor the treatment of adult prisoners; and a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman who investigates both the complaints of those in prison and all deaths that occur among prisoners. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Prison and Probation Ombudsman require assurance that safeguarding procedures are in place and their implementation provides equivalent protection to that available in the community. Investigations by the Ombudsman will provide learning to improve effectiveness. The important thing is not to impose a duty on another body to conduct inquiries in prisons and approved premises, but to ensure that the procedures within the prisons and approved premises are informed by best practice and local expertise.

The Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service have acknowledged that there is a need for improved directions on safeguarding to the Prison Service and probation trusts. They will be working with officials from my department and stakeholders to develop instructions and guidance that will give improved clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the Prison Service and probation trusts in safeguarding adults in their care. The Ministry of Justice encourages prison staff to be involved with local safeguarding adults boards, but the nature of that involvement is best determined at local level.

The Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service will be producing guidance for prison staff on safeguarding in conjunction with their partners. This will be consistent with the broader advice and guidance on safeguarding adults in the community and will ensure that the importance of active engagements with SABs is routinely reiterated to prison staff. Any particular safeguarding considerations for older prisoners and those with dementia will be part of this operational policy. The guidance will set out clear instructions on the need for structured relationships with local safeguarding boards; for example, the model being employed by Surrey, where a memorandum of understanding sets out how prison staff will benefit from the expertise of social services and local authority safeguarding teams. It will also set out how and in what instances referrals to SABs will be made.

I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, that the existing position makes clear the responsibility and accountability for the safeguarding and protection of prisoners, and that further guidance to prisons and approved premises will bring about the improvement and joint working that we all want to see. The proposed amendments to Clause 72 are therefore not necessary and I would respectfully ask him to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative response and I take on board completely the fact that prisons and the MoJ have developed some good safeguarding measures. I am pleased that further guidance is to be issued to encourage governors and directors to attend local authority safeguarding adults board meetings. I am fairly happy about prisons, prisoner safeguarding and liaison with local authorities. However, for clarification, if someone is living in approved premises, my understanding is that that has nothing to do with the prison governor or the prison because they are in the community living in, say, a bail hostel. Who has responsibility for any serious issue of neglect? I do not think that the probation service undertakes safeguarding inquiries. It would be the local authority, but this clause seems to suggest that it would not be; rather, that it would be the prison governor. That does not make sense to me, although perhaps I do not understand it completely. Of course, one assumes that the local authority would have responsibility for someone in the community, but this provision clearly states that it does not.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the advice I have received is that the probation trust would have that responsibility.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

For the record, because no one on the outside seems to have been able to give me an answer, someone would have to report to the probation trust that a person is being neglected or abused and it would carry out a safeguarding inquiry. It would not be the local authority or the prison.

[Earl Howe]

That indeed is my understanding.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

If that is the case and it is correct, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 136A withdrawn.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

105: Clause 68, page 56, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert—
““(5) In this section, “after-care services” means services to reduce the likelihood of the person requiring admission to a hospital again for treatment for mental disorder.””

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, my amendment affects Clause 68(5), which aims to provide a definition of aftercare services as they relate to Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. It was only just over 12 months ago, while debating amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, that I was concerned about elements of that legislation affecting Section 117, which could have had a detrimental effect on the recovery of mental health patients. So it is a little disappointing that we have to rehearse some of those earlier arguments again today.

I must make it clear from the outset that this is not a probing amendment, nor does it seek assurance or clarification. It is an amendment that I believe is essential, and unless the noble Earl or the noble Baroness can persuade me of a better form of words, they should look to accept it. I will also tell the Minister from the outset that we are on the same side on this issue. We both want the same outcome, which is that this extremely vulnerable group of people covered by Section 117 gets access to all the help and services that it needs.

As the Minister outlined in his speech at Second Reading, the Government have already redrafted the original wording of the clause in response to the many concerns of mental health organisations in the country. However, it is clear to me and to them that we still need to do more to protect and safeguard this essential statutory provision. I apologise if I speak at length on this amendment, but it is essential that I make my case. I will try to be as logical in my arguments as possible; therefore, I will first outline why Section 117 is a unique statutory provision and needs the protection that Parliament intended it to have.

Secondly, I will highlight what the current drafting in the Bill does and why it will result in a detrimental effect. I shall conclude by explaining what I am proposing and why. I have taken time to explore many of the arguments and must thank the Care and Support Alliance, a consortium of more than 70 organisations, including Mind, the national mental health charity, which has been leading the charge on this issue. I also place on record my sincere thanks to members of the Law Society, especially Sophy Miles, the chair of the mental health and disability committee and counsel from the Mental Health Lawyers Association. It is also important that the Minister knows that I have received advice from Nicola Mackintosh, a principal solicitor, who is widely recognised as a national expert in community care, health and mental health law. I have taken seriously all their views on this issue.

First, what is Section 117 of the Mental Health Act all about and why is it unique? As noble Lords will be aware, that section concerns the provision of aftercare services for people who are discharged from hospital treatment after a period of compulsory detention in hospital. Parliament placed a joint duty on health services and local authorities to provide that aftercare. The group of people to whom Section 117 applies are the most vulnerable in the mental health system. They have been detained in hospital for psychiatric treatment following an established diagnosis. There are two groups, one of which is made up of those detained under Section 3 of the Act, and the other of those detained by the criminal justice system for in-patient treatment. It is likely that those in both groups will have had extensive previous contact with psychiatric services and support, which have failed them and been unsuccessful, hence they require longer-term detention for treatment.

These are therefore groups at the highest level of vulnerability because of risks to themselves, including their own health, or others. They are in a special group that has been recognised by Parliament as such. Among the statutory provisions in community care and healthcare law, Section 117 is unique in several respects. First, it relates to the duty owed to a particular individual. Secondly, it arises only in limited circumstances and for a very specific group of people, and is not a target duty. Thirdly, it is a joint duty placed on the relevant health authority and the social services body to work together to provide appropriate aftercare services, free of charge and for as long as necessary, and to sort out the funding between them. The aim has been to ensure that the group of people to whom the duty is owed receives the services at the time that they are needed, thereby avoiding extensive disputes about whether health or social care agencies are responsible.

Exactly which services are provided will depend on the individual’s needs and can vary greatly. The mental health code of practice stipulates for patients:

“As well as meeting their immediate needs for health and social care, after-care should aim to support them in regaining or enhancing their skills, or learning new skills, in order to cope with life outside hospital”.

The code goes on to provide a fairly comprehensive list of factors for professionals to consider when creating an aftercare package. These include patients’ psychological and mental health needs, physical healthcare, daytime activities, appropriate accommodation, assistance in welfare rights and managing financing, social and cultural needs and specific needs arising from drinking alcohol. The services cannot be withdrawn until both the health body and the local authority are satisfied that the patient no longer needs them.

Let me give a real case example. A man was sectioned in 1996 when he was very unwell. Since that time, he has been stable and in receipt of joint supervision and support by the then primary care trust and social services. He lives in a London borough and qualifies for Section 117 aftercare because he was previously detained under the Mental Health Act. He is in a supported placement funded by social services. His social services care co-ordinator decided that he could be discharged from the care home and that there should be a review of the duty under Section 117 to provide aftercare. However, the patient’s psychiatrist strongly opposed this move, stating that his condition was only partially controlled by medication and that he continued to have challenging behaviour as a result of his condition. The psychiatrist strongly believed that the joint duty was still required, as was funding under Section 117, because the patient needed the supervision and safe environment that was provided in the care home. As a result, that duty to the patient has remained and he continues to reside in the care home. This example shows that the effective healthcare being provided to keep the patient stable and safe was directly dependent on the social care. However, social services saw only that he was managing in the supported setting, which led to the suggestion that he should move on, which could have resulted in a deterioration in his health and well-being, and eventually to his being readmitted to hospital. Without the joint duty, a decision could be taken regardless of the views of a patient’s medical team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, we understand and respect the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, to achieve the best that he possibly can for people with severe mental disorders and pay tribute to his many achievements in the mental health field over many years. We are indeed, as he said, on the same side. We recognise the special vulnerability of this group, and I listened very carefully to what he said.

The Government’s view is that our proposed definition of aftercare services meets the objective of providing clarity on the duty to ensure such provision. That will give greater certainty to those needing or providing aftercare so that it can be provided when it is needed. The inclusion of a definition of aftercare services followed a recommendation by the Law Commission that aftercare services should be defined in accordance with a two-limbed definition from the Mwanza case. This case law defined the services to mean services necessary to meet a need arising from the person’s mental disorder and aimed at reducing the likelihood of the person’s readmission to hospital for further treatment of the disorder.

The Government’s definition of aftercare services builds on the definition recommended by the Law Commission. That was the starting point for the definition. We accepted the recommendation of the Law Commission as a sensible starting point, but we have gone further. The clause now clarifies that the Section 117 duty requires services to be provided to meet needs arising from or related to the person's mental disorder, as well as reducing the risk that the person’s mental condition could deteriorate, requiring their readmission to hospital.

Following public consultation, the Government expanded the proposed definition to put it in the Bill in what we feel is a much improved form. The noble Lord’s amendment omits the first limb of the Government’s definition while making changes to the second. In particular, his amendment weakens the connection between the services required to be provided under Section 117—I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that we are fully committed to continuing those—and the specific needs linked to a mental disorder, meaning that the scope of the definition would be unclear.

The Government are concerned that this amendment may confuse rather than clarify the circumstances in which aftercare services should be provided. That would run counter to the purpose of introducing a new definition. If there are disputes over the aftercare services to be provided, the wait that some people would have to endure before the aftercare services would be in place to enable them to leave hospital could be prolonged, something which the noble Lord wants to avoid. In our view, given that it omits the criterion that services must have the purpose of,

“meeting a need arising from or related to the mental disorder of the person concerned”—

I can assure the noble Lord that the definite article does not simply mean something singular but encompasses the plural as well, something to which he briefly referred—the amendment is likely to give rise to more disputes and administrative uncertainty than would be the case with the clause as it stands. Examples of disputes arising under the current Section 117, with no definition, highlight why a statutory definition will add clarity. As highlighted by the Law Commission, having no definition means that the interpretation is left to case law, which has provided varying interpretations.

Nothing in Clause 68 will change the guidance in chapter 27 of the code of practice. It covers housing, employment counselling, and cultural and spiritual needs. The professionals involved include mental health professionals, GPs, employment experts, independent advocates and others. The proposed definition sets out the essential elements and requirements for services to fall within Section 117. The Government do not wish to be more prescriptive as aftercare services should be agreed by health and social care professionals as guided by the code. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. This has to be done, of course, in the light of each patient’s particular needs.

Finally, the current clause introduces a purpose for Section 117 services to reduce the risk of deterioration in a person’s mental condition, which the noble Lord’s amendment leaves out. I found myself looking at his examples as he went through them. I could not see that they would be excluded by the definition in the Bill, so we see no compelling reason to alter the definition of aftercare from what has been proposed, which is based on research and consultation by the Law Commission and the Government. Perhaps I should propose to the noble Lord that we meet between now and the Report stage to discuss his concerns and make sure that they are not well founded. I am very happy to take this forward and see whether we can involve my honourable friend Norman Lamb in those discussions. I hope that, on the basis of this response, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I suppose the only bit of that I was pleased about was the proposal that we should meet. Unfortunately, I disagree with everything the Minister has said. The Law Society, the Mental Health Lawyers Association, Mind, and the Care and Support Alliance—an alliance of over 70 organisations—agree with me that the Mwanza case is completely unique and off the wall. It concerned someone who was sectioned nine years ago and had nothing to do with Section 117 services, but his lawyers were trying to use that as a basis to get free accommodation.

[Baroness Northover]

Does the noble Lord accept what I have just said: that it was doubt over cases like that which led the Law Commission to come up with a recommendation that there should be a definition as a starting point for where the Government would then take this?

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I still have a problem because the definition is very clear, as the noble Baroness has said. It is about being related to “the mental disorder”. I know that the Minister said that this is standard legislative language and that it is not intended to be a singular disorder, but I disagree. First, the definition does not give us a sense that aftercare should be holistic and thus in line with the underlying well-being principle. Secondly, the use of the definitive article in “the mental disorder” is completely out of keeping with the Mental Health Act. I can give a couple of examples from some of the trigger sections of the 1983 Act. Section 1 of that Act defines mental disorder but Sections 2 and 3, which refer to mental disorder, have no definite article. The wording is completely separate from that of the Mental Health Act, so officials should go back to the drawing board and look at it a bit more carefully. It is very unclear and it poses huge legal arguments, as people will say that this is about “a mental disorder”.

[Baroness Northover]

Under the Interpretation Act 1978, words in the singular may include the plural.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I completely agree that legally that is what it means, but the 1983 Act does not use the word “the” in front of “mental disorder” in any of its important trigger sections. What is important is that it is not in keeping with the 1983 Act at all. Moreover, we have already seen local authorities trying to use this case. We should be dictating what happens. I am not sure whether the judge in that case—I do not know if I should be saying this—was by any stretch a mental health expert. I think he was a family court judge, so it was completely different. The Stennett case, which was appealed to the House of Lords, clearly stated a definition that was very different from this. We should not be dictated to by that; Parliament should dictate. The Bill will dictate what aftercare services are.

I am prepared to look at the definition I have crafted and without doubt there might be something that we can improve on. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that this is crucial because it is the only piece of statutory provision we have to make sure that statutory health services, the voluntary sector and social services work together. Time after time over the past 30 years local authorities have used any opportunity they can not to provide Section 117 aftercare services. It goes to legal action and then they back off. Why do it when we can resolve this? We do not need the first bit that says “the mental disorder”. Why introduce that level of doubt? We are on the same side and we can move forward on this, and we do not need to introduce any doubt. I am pleased that we have something to think about and to work together on and I am sure that between us, as we did last time, we will come to an amicable conclusion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 105Q in my name and in the name of someone I am proud to call a noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who spoke to this amendment so well and eloquently. As law makers, we can be proud of the Autism Act 2009. It was a significant piece of legislation and it is well embedded. I look forward to the review of the autism strategy that the Government are now undertaking. This amendment will ensure that the duties set out in the statutory guidance continue to apply to local authorities and NHS bodies to ensure the ongoing implementation of the Act. There is much wisdom and common sense in this and I hope that the Government will support it.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I shall speak to my amendments 105AA and 105CA, which affect subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 69. Amendment 105AA ensures that people in prison and those residing in approved premises have the same equivalence of care when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities under Clause 69(6). Amendment 105CA requires a senior member of the Prison Service to be a member of the safeguarding adults board in the area.

We just have to look at the figures in terms of the vulnerability of people in prison: prison suicide rates are 14 times greater than in the general population; over a third of offenders have self-harmed; many have a huge number of delusional disorders and personality disorders and a great many have drug and alcohol problems. This is all compounded by prisoners struggling to get access to services for a range of reasons, and they are impeded by waiting times and transfers within the prison system. Prisoners with complex needs may have too many different agencies to work with when they are released. Prisoners with such problems are particularly vulnerable, and the characteristics I have outlined are the norm rather than the exception. Providing appropriate care and support can have a significant impact on reoffending and greatly enhance people’s ability to rebuild their lives on release.

However, a huge lack of clarity around the provision of adult social care for prisoners has led to care needs not being addressed or identified, and this in turn has increased the risk of reoffending upon release. I welcome the clarity provided by the Government through this Bill, which places the responsibility for the adult social care of prisoners on the local authority where the prison is located. Clause 69 outlines the responsibilities of local authorities towards people in prison with care and support needs and ensures that they are able to access care and support on a similar basis to those in the community. The Bill confirms local authorities’ responsibilities towards this group by applying core duties to assess and meet needs on the same basis as for other groups.

However, I am concerned that, having made such a significant and welcome commitment to the social care of prisoners, people in prison and people residing in approved premises, which means people living in the community, they are not to receive the same equivalence of care when it comes to safeguarding inquiries by local authorities under Clause 69(6). I am pleased that government Amendment 105A allows safeguarding adults boards to provide advice and assistance to protect all adults in its area, including those in prison and residing in approved premises. This is a significant and positive step forward in helping to protect vulnerable individuals wherever they might be, and aids the support staff who work with them.

However, denying prisoners and people residing in approved premises the benefit of “enquiry by local authority” when safeguarding concerns are raised surely places an already vulnerable group of individuals at even greater risk. The offer of advice or assistance is no substitute for statutory inquiry when safeguarding concerns are raised. “Enquiry by local authority” not only protects the individual, it also helps to shine a light on some of the most hidden corners in our society. It is another tool to help ensure that our prisons are safe both for vulnerable prisoners and for the staff who work with them. An inquiry by the local authority does not duplicate the excellent work undertaken by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons or by the prison itself. It complements and enhances them and, most importantly, it could help to save lives. While the Minister’s amendment is helpful, I feel that it does not go far enough. I would be grateful if she could give us a clear reason why such changes have not been included.

I am also pleased that the Minister has moved forward in enabling governors or prison officers to be members of safeguarding adults boards. I would say that they should be told to be on a board because we know how busy prison officers and staff are. If it happens on a voluntary basis, unfortunately we will get regular lack of attendance; people will not turn up to the meetings. It is important that we get some joint working between prisons and local authorities. Prison staff can learn from safeguarding boards, as they have done in Surrey, which is a fantastic example of prisons working with local authorities. Prison staff benefit from the expertise of social services and local authority safeguarding teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling the other amendments in this group on these very important issues. On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, we agree that a person with care and support needs should be protected against abuse or neglect wherever they are. As I have already set out, prison governors and directors have in place procedures to follow in response to allegations of abuse or neglect. Governors and directors will provide assurance to the National Offender Management Service and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, through their inspection regimes, that those procedures and their implementation provide similar protection to that available in the community. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will investigate individual complaints and incidents. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that the Ministry of Justice and the NOMS have acknowledged that there is a need for improved directions to the Prison Service and probation trusts in this area. They will be working with officials from the Department of Health and stakeholders to develop instructions and guidance that will give clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the Prison Service and probation trusts in safeguarding adults in their care. In addition, prison governors and other prison staff will be able to approach their local Safeguarding Adults Board for advice and assistance in improving their arrangements. The MoJ was, of course, fully consulted on the provisions relating to prisons in the Bill and will be working with the Department of Health and NOMS to develop detailed guidance so that people who are concerned about the safeguarding issue will know exactly how to raise it and get advice on how to approach it. The MoJ is fully involved in the development of all parts of this clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also raised the issue of a statutory obligation on the senior management of prisons to take responsibility for the care and support needs of prisoners. The governor or, in the case of contracted prisons, the director, has the primary duty of care for prisoners and is the appropriate first point for reporting concerns. There is an investigations procedure in place for cases in which prisoners suffer significant harm. Prisons are monitored by a range of inspectorates, including the CQC.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I just want to get this point on record and then perhaps we can come back to it. I understand that prisons have a whole range of safeguarding measures in place. When there is a real problem that a prison has not resolved, why can a local authority not have an inquiry for a person who is vulnerable and at risk? That is my first question. If somebody is in approved premises, such as a bail hostel, and living in the community like anybody else, and they have been abused or are neglected or at serious risk, why should a local authority not have an obligation to have a safeguarding inquiry? I just cannot fathom why such a person would be excluded.

[Baroness Northover]

The point is that if local authorities must also conduct inquiries in prisons and approved premises, we run the risk of duplicating inquiries. Prison governors and directors have the primary responsibility for preventing abuse or neglect of prisoners with care and support needs. Prison governors already have a duty to care for and safeguard prisoners. If we duplicate this responsibility, we run the risk that the lack of clarity will mean that safeguarding concerns fall between agencies. Noble Lords will be extremely familiar with how this has happened in the past in other sectors. Therefore, a decision has to be made as to where the expertise is and where the primary responsibility is. The decision made in discussions with the MoJ and NOMS is that the primary responsibility is with the prisons. We have to make sure that they carry forward that responsibility. Obviously, they will draw on advice in the way that I described, but we need to make sure that there is one body with ultimate responsibility.

We agree that prison staff should have access to local safeguarding expertise if, in their particular circumstances, it would be useful, so we agree that the second half of the subsection, from the second “officer” onwards, should be removed. However, because prisons have their own safeguarding procedures, we believe that it should be left to local discretion to determine whether it is appropriate for a governor or other prison staff to become members of safeguarding boards rather than a statutory duty. That is the intention of the first part of subsection (7).

I now turn to Amendment 105Q, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. It raises important issues about how future statutory guidance will be issued under the Bill and how it may interact with existing guidance. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, also asked about this. We intend to develop a single, consolidated bank of guidance for local authorities covering all their care and support functions under this part of the Bill. We will replace all existing guidance that covers this territory to remove the potential for future misunderstanding. Current statutory guidance for local authorities is issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Future guidance on adult care and support will be issued under Clause 71 of the Bill. The amendment also proposes to require a consistent application of the definition of an “NHS body”. We agree, of course, that definitions must be clear and consistent in guidance and regulations and we will keep this in mind in drafting regulations and guidance to ensure that key terminology and definitions are consistent. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that guidance remains in place until it is superseded by new guidance.

My noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, referred to guidance for people with autism. As they said, unlike other statutory guidance related to care and support, this is issued under a specific requirement included in the Autism Act 2009. I can assure noble Lords that it is not our intention to repeal these provisions by this Bill. The duty to issue guidance on autism will continue. I hope noble Lords are reassured by that.

I now turn to Amendment 105R, to which the noble Lord, Lord Low, spoke. The Government believe it is right to allow local authorities the flexibility to delegate their care and support functions to third parties. However, when a local authority chooses to delegate any of its care and support functions, this must not be a way of relieving itself of its responsibilities for how those functions are carried out. This clause does not absolve the local authority of its legal obligations with respect to care and support functions. However, we believe it is necessary that, when a local authority arranges with a third party to carry out a public function, the local authority should have contractual recourse against that third party for breach of contract. Subsection (7)(a) ensures that this is the case. It is not a limitation of the local authority’s ultimate responsibility for the performance of its functions.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked to be reassured about the application of the Human Rights Act. I can assure him that the Human Rights Act applies to the discharge of public functions, so even when a local authority delegates its public function to a third party, that function must still be carried out in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act. Local authorities retain legal responsibility for anything done or not done by the third party when carrying out the function. It follows that any failure to carry out the function in a way that is compliant with the Human Rights Act will be considered a failure by the local authority. We do not think that this needs to be specified in law as it is covered. The function must be carried out in a way that is compliant with the Act. By specifically referencing the Human Rights Act in legislation there is a risk that this could imply that the Human Rights Act does not apply in relation to various other pieces of legislation where it is not specifically referenced. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on these amendments, but they present something of a dichotomy in one of the areas in the Bill, particularly Amendment 92ZFC from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on the powers of access. Last year I was invited by the manager of the local Bradford safeguarding social work team, a Mr Robert Strachan, who had already thought about this issue and had had extensive consultation with some of his colleagues, social work professionals and strategic managers in Bradford. He told me that opinions varied. At that time, no one had had a problem pulling together a protection plan for a vulnerable adult within the existing legislation, although people felt, when they were pushed to the limit, that such a power could be quite useful. I was gently persuaded by that.

However, when talking to Mind, the mental health charity, which has recently done an extensive consultation with its network, I found that it believes that this power is disproportionate and unnecessary. Its members have been clear that they would consider it intrusive and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that this would undermine the trust between social workers and service users. Mind has sought the views of its network of people with experience of mental health problems, and was clearly told that there is a mistaken but prevalent belief that people with mental health problems do not have the capacity to make decisions about their own safety. Because of that, many have had negative experiences of intervention, compulsion and detention, all of which reduce choice and control and can undermine trust in statutory authorities. Mind argues that introducing powers of access for social workers is likely to further undermine trust in statutory authorities and lead to extremely difficult working relationships between social workers and service providers. I am of course sympathetic to these views. However, I am also extremely sympathetic to the views expressed in the arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, so I am a little torn.

The only way in which I can look at this is by case example. Let us assume that an elderly lady is being cared for by her son, who has some behavioural problems, like the case that we recently had in Bradford where the grandson actually killed his grandmother. Neighbours report their concerns to social services, who dutifully go around and visit. However, they never get further than clacking the front door; the son tells them that everything is fine and he is looking after his mother. Further reports of shouting and banging reach the authorities via the neighbours, but still they are refused permission to enter and see the older lady. What do you do? The police have no powers of entry but clearly there are some major concerns. How, therefore, to proceed and establish even that the lady is dead or alive? Powers of entry, in such extreme circumstances, would allow professionals to access the house and see the person, as in cases involving domestic violence or children. I would therefore be broadly inclined to support the powers, which would add something that is not currently in place.

However, the trick would be in the execution of those powers. For example, it would not be sufficient merely to gain entry. What would you do next—convey the lady to a place of safety or take the son away? If you did not, you would be exposing the victim to further and sustained abuse. This would need thinking through carefully. The question of how the powers would be controlled and executed would be difficult but not insurmountable. I look forward to the Minister’s arguments to persuade me either way on this one.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. They go straight to a gap that exists for older people who have capacity but are physically dependent upon people who may be abusing them. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Patel—whose arguments I listened to very carefully because they were very thoughtful, and I would not want to disregard what Mind has found in its consultation with its members—I point out to him that members of Mind are likely to have protection under either the Mental Health Act or the Mental Capacity Act. The people to whom the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is addressed do not have that protection. For me, that swings the argument.

Elder abuse has a rather odd standing in the general consciousness. It does not have the same profile as the abuse of children. It goes up and down the public agenda depending upon whether there has been some scandal or an awful case in the papers. People’s reactions to it vary enormously. When people are polled on their views about this, the phrasing of the questions in any consultation can have a profound impact. Were we faced with a question that said: “Would you like social workers to have the power to intrude into your house?”, most of us would say no, but if we were asked, “Do you think that somebody ought to be able to look out for people who are extremely vulnerable and may not be able to get out and tell anybody?”, we would say yes. That goes straight to the consultation that the Government have already held, and the reason for some of its findings. Professionals who have had experience of dealing with people and operating under the law have said that they think there needs to be a greater degree of protection, albeit with brakes and conditions, such as the necessity of getting the agreement of a JP—not just social workers barging in because they feel like it.

Taken together, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, get the right balance. They are not about empowering bossy professionals to wade in regardless of what people want but they are quite important, not least because of something the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, which was of tremendous importance: the largest percentage of people who abuse vulnerable elderly adults are family members. The consequence of that is that very often people who are being abused are highly reluctant to do anything about it because they fear that there will be repercussions against their family members. That is why it is necessary to have a bit more legal force behind some of this than we would otherwise think we should, and I think that, on balance, the noble Baroness’s amendments are right and proportionate.

Finally, there is a very good case for the Government to accept the amendments or something like them within this legislation. They should do it now when we are not making decisions in the shadow of a scandal and when we can talk about best practice in neutral terms.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

92AY: Clause 52, page 41, line 40, leave out “the Care Quality Commission” and insert “Monitor”

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 92AZ. I welcome the aspects of the Bill that are aimed at securing the sustainability of the social care sector and social care provision. It is particularly important to put measures in place setting out the action to be taken to protect people from the negative impacts of business failure in adult social care. However, I have some concerns about the key clauses that relate to provider failure and market oversight. I refer specifically to Clauses 47 to 54, which specify the criteria for the application of market oversight, determine whether criteria apply to a care provider and cover the assessment of financial sustainability of care providers.

Amendment 92AY focuses on the financial regulation of providers. The Bill currently allocates to the Care Quality Commission responsibility for maintaining quality care services, mitigating risk to business sustainability and ensuring continuity of care for any person who receives care services. These steps will include obtaining regular financial and relevant performance information, working with the provider to develop a sustainability plan to manage any risk to the organisation’s ongoing sustainability, using powers to commission an independent business review to help the provider to return to financial stability and requiring information from the provider to enable the CQC to support local authorities to manage provider failure.

I concur with the view that all providers of care and support services should be subject to thorough financial checks which may indicate that a care organisation might be unable to fulfil its obligations as a provider of services in the future. However, plans to allocate responsibility for financial regulation to the CQC appear to be poorly thought through and Monitor, as the current financial regulator for health services, should assume this role. The pressures facing the CQC as part of its expanded remit for regulating quality across the health and social care sectors have already been eloquently highlighted in previous debates on this Bill by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Campbell-Savours.

We are all aware that the CQC is undergoing significant structural change and it does not have the capacity and organisational expertise to take on responsibility for assessing the financial stability of care providers. This is being proposed because of the belief that service users would benefit from having a single regulator, specifically the CQC, to oversee care and support services and provide an overall assessment of performance, combining quality and financial data. I am also aware that the Francis report highlighted the importance of simplifying the quality and financial regulation regime for health providers to eradicate overlap and minimise the gaps between the functions of the different organisations and regulators. This included changes to the current division of regulatory responsibilities between Monitor and the Care Quality Commission.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in a previous debate, specifically highlighted the key concerns—which I share—about giving the CQC additional responsibilities for financial assessment. He stated, and I agree, that the CQC is not prepared for these additional responsibilities. I would question whether it has the specialist staff, skills, experience and, most importantly, expertise required to decide whether care providers have financial sustainability.

Alongside all the other demands it faces, the CQC will also be pressured into developing a rushed financial accountability system, without proper consultation and checks and balances. These additional responsibilities for financial regulation place added pressure on an organisation that is already undergoing significant change and faces a greatly increased workload as part of its expanded duties for quality assurance. The development of a poor-quality financial accountability system will only affect its credibility further and I therefore question the rationale for designating the CQC as a financial regulator for the care and support sector.

In fact, under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, Monitor became the economic regulator to promote effective and efficient providers of health and care, promote competition, regulate prices and safeguard the continuity of services. Monitor can license providers, work with NHS England to set prices for NHS-funded services, prevent anti-competitive behaviour and work with commissioners to ensure continuity of services when providers get into financial difficulty. I would therefore argue that Monitor already has its own robust financial oversight regime for healthcare providers that can be adapted and applied to the social care sector; and the Government should use these existing powers as a means to effectively regulate the sector in the future. My amendment to Clause 52, on the assessment of financial sustainability of care providers, simply replaces the CQC with Monitor. I hope that the noble Earl will agree that this is a sensible and helpful amendment.

I now turn to Amendment 92AZ on the accountability of commissioners. As many noble Lords have commented throughout the Committee stage, the focus in the Bill on greater integration between health and social care services is to be welcomed. As services between health and social care become more integrated, it is essential that the plans of local authorities face the same levels of scrutiny as clinical commissioning groups and have clear lines of local and national accountability.

However, there is at present no effective regime in place to oversee and monitor the standard of local authorities’ commissioning of care and support services. The annual performance assessments previously undertaken by the Care Quality Commission to evaluate the quality of councils’ commissioning of adult social care services were scrapped in 2010. Of course, the Minister may argue that the scrutiny of commissioning plans is now covered under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and that additional oversight is not therefore required.

I know that that Act contains a number of duties that focus on aligning the plans of clinical commissioning groups and health and well-being boards to ensure that clinical commissioning groups take into account the joint strategic needs assessments when preparing their commissioning plans. Equally, I am also aware that health and well-being boards are expected to have a key role in bringing together local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and local Healthwatch to assess the health and care needs of local populations through joint strategic needs assessments and joint health and well-being strategies.

However, recent cases such as those at Winterbourne View and Southern Cross have demonstrated the devastating impact on vulnerable people when commissioners, commissioning systems and processes are found wanting. Winterbourne View was set up as an assessment, treatment and rehabilitation centre for people with learning disabilities and autism, but the review into Winterbourne View found that it had “strayed far” from this purpose and stated that the commissioners, as well as the owners, Castlebeck, were to blame for this. The primary care trust commissioners who placed people at Winterbourne View did not set performance targets for the company or effectively check the progress of patients, despite being charged an average of £3,500 a week for places. Their reviews were clearly flawed, completely ineffective and did not bring to light either concerns about the quality of assessment and treatment or the detail of abusive practices. Strategic health authorities also did not effectively performance-manage primary care trusts in their commissioning of placements for this client group. The review concluded that closed establishments such as Winterbourne View would benefit from a more prescriptive approach. This includes far more effective planning processes, and performance management and monitoring systems by commissioners.

That is why I am proposing a new clause that focuses on the accountability of commissioning organisations that would give NHS England a duty to scrutinise the commissioning plans of local authorities for adult social care services to ensure that they are upholding the safety and care of vulnerable people, and the efficient and effective operation of a market. Equally, notwithstanding my previous comments, I would be content if the noble Earl thought that the CQC rather than NHS England would be able to provide that scrutiny. I beg to move.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to make a couple of observations and put a question to the Minister on this set of amendments. I must confess that I am not thrilled by the idea of NHS England being asked to supervise the commissioning of local authorities. I think that it may struggle to supervise the commissioning of 211 clinical commissioning groups, or however many we have this week, without our turning it loose on 152 local authorities as well. There must be some doubts about whether it is the right body to supervise local authority commissioning.

My noble friend Lord Patel of Bradford makes a very fair point in asking where we will get some sort of overview of the quality of local authority commissioning. It may not be NHS England, but we could perhaps have some idea of the Government’s thinking on how they will be satisfied that the commissioning is of a reasonable standard across 152 local authorities. If the Minister could tell us this evening which quality assurance mechanism the Government have in mind, that would be a useful insight.

The other point was about whether it should be Monitor rather than the CQC. This is an area where I have struggled quite a lot, because I think that there is a problem with what is going on with the financing of adult social care. Who actually bankrolls the providers in this sector? I question whether, without a lot more expertise, either Monitor or CQC are well placed to penetrate some of the private equity models of financing adult social care provision. These models are being brought in almost as we speak.

The financial complexities of this sector are very considerable. The providers of residential and nursing home care within the adult social care sector have moved on a long way since my days in local government as a director of social services. People are assembling packages of money to buy groups of homes, and they put groups of homes together in what is often basically a hedge fund or private equity-type process, essentially consolidating providers in this sector. The days of mom and pop homes seem to be passing quite quickly, as the sector tries to secure greater financial capability to respond to the buffets of a market system.

In this extraordinarily complicated market, it is not clear to me how the Government will equip any regulator—or help it equip itself—to secure the expertise to actually raise the money to buy and merge groups of residential and nursing home providers. It is not a very transparent system. Either CQC or Monitor will require a lot of expertise. It will have to go into territory into which few of us are equipped to go, and find out what is actually going on, if we are not to have another Southern Cross experience.

I suggest that the risks of that happening again are becoming greater as the funding systems for these organisations become less transparent. They are not publicly quoted companies, and in many cases they are hidden behind a rather mysterious cloak of financial allocations. Without making adverse comments, I suggest we look at what happened with Four Seasons, which was taken over by Terra Firma. Where are the loyalties? Are the loyalties of that organisation to the people receiving care, or are they to the people who are creating the funds for the purchase of that organisation? I would like some reassurance that CQC or Monitor—I do not feel strongly doctrinal, one way or the other—will have the expertise to penetrate some of these rather opaque organisations that are now involved in funding providers in this sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We are entirely open to looking at the lessons to be drawn from other sectors and the regulators of other sectors. I am sure that important messages will come from such sectors of the kind the noble Lord describes—no doubt not just the energy and water sectors but others, too.

I will move on to the question of whether there should be central oversight of local authority commissioning practices. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the arguments that have been expressed this evening. Commissioning practices which risk undermining personal dignity and lowering quality are simply not acceptable. That is why Clause 5 of the Bill introduces a duty on local authorities to shape high-quality, diverse and sustainable markets in care and support services. Clause 5(4) requires local authorities to have regard to this duty when commissioning services. As I said when the Committee discussed Clause 5, we are aware that there are examples of poor commissioning practice across the country. We need to move away from overly prescriptive commissioning that focuses only on price or time slots, to consider how it can do things differently and deliver better outcomes in quality care.

In relation to the option of central oversight of local authority commissioning that the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, suggested, the Bill leaves open the possibility of the CQC conducting reviews of local authority commissioning. However, by enabling the CQC to review local authority commissioning, if it is prescribed in regulations, the Bill gives us the opportunity to discuss this option further. In particular, we are considering whether the new chief inspector, who will work with local authorities that commission care and support, should have a formal role in assuring the performance of those authorities, building on the strength of the current programme of improvement activity and peer assurance led by councils.

I emphasise at this stage that if there is to be central oversight of commissioning, the CQC, as a consequence of its links with the chief inspector and its existing relationships with, and expertise in, the social care sector, will be the most appropriate body to undertake this function. Although we have not closed our minds to the option of central oversight of local authority commissioning, the fundamental problems underlying poor commissioning practices are cultural and structural. Central oversight on its own will not necessarily tackle these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked how we could be satisfied that local authorities’ commissioning will be of a suitable quality. It goes without saying that it is for local authorities to decide the most appropriate way for them to fulfil their duty of commissioning and of shaping local markets, responding to local needs and circumstances. They will be accountable locally for those decisions. However, we are working with local authorities to support them to develop their capacity to shape local markets. We launched a programme of support last year and intend to continue working with local authorities to improve commissioning practices. We are committed to working with the sector to support local authorities to shape diverse and high-quality markets, including through improving commissioning practices, through the recently announced homecare challenge and through a programme to support the authorities in their market-shaping capacity.

In conclusion, I fully understand and sympathise with the issues raised by the two amendments. However, I hope that I have been able to shed some light on why the Government have come to their view on the issues. In so doing, I hope that I have provided a measure of reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. On the first amendment, which deals with financial regulations, he singled out three issues that were relevant to why the CQC was chosen: having a single regulator, better relationships with local authorities and better relationships with commissioners. That goes some way towards reassuring me, but I still feel, coming back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Warner, that this is not necessarily about relationships and capacity but about the expertise and skills required in a very complex financial arena. That is the key.

If I were naive, we lived in an ideal world and I was providing care homes, and either my accountant was not very good and I did not know that I was going bankrupt or I wanted to carry on and would do everything possible to keep the company running, regardless of my relationship with the CQC, that is where somebody with the real financial expertise required in this day and age could come in and spot what was happening. I am not 100% reassured that the CQC will have that capacity or expertise. I suppose that I recognise that Monitor does not understand the social care sector as well but it has the financial expertise that I think is invaluable. I may want to return to this issue again and to have a further discussion about it.

However, I am far more reassured by the response that the noble Earl has given me on central commissioning. I suppose that I stipulated NHS England in the amendment because I could not think of another body. Having said that the CQC does not have the capacity to do this, I could not say that the CQC should be doing it. However, I am reassured that the potential is there for central oversight through regulations and other areas. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 92AY withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I do not think that I can add to the detailed and clear exposition that the noble Lord has provided. I know that the amendment is slightly lengthy, but it is also very logical and clear—I understood it very clearly, so that is a bonus. I welcome the intention behind Clauses 55 to 63, which enable parents and young people to request a child’s needs assessment. Clause 56, on requirement’s for a child’s need assessment, states:

“A child’s needs assessment must include an assessment of … (a) the outcomes that the child wishes to achieve in day-to-day life”.

What is the intention behind “outcomes”? What outcomes are we looking at?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it was remiss of me not to declare an interest during our debate today as president-elect of GS1, chair of a foundation trust and consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections.

Perhaps I, too, may raise the connection of this Bill with the Children and Families Bill. As my noble friend Lord Warner said, with the Care Bill applying to adults from the age of 18 and the Children and Families Bill setting the framework for children and young people up to the age of 25, there is a clear overlap in their jurisdiction in the context of social care provision. Education, health and care plans under the Children and Families Bill also include an assessment of a child or young person’s social care needs, which means that young people between the ages of 18 and 25 may be eligible both for an EHC plan and an adult care and support plan. That seems to reinforce my noble friend Lord Warner’s comments.

My understanding—perhaps the Minister could confirm this—is that the Government are considering bringing forward amendments to the Children and Families Bill to make sure that the two link together. If that is so, the problem that we have is that the Children and Families Bill will not go into Grand Committee until we come back in October, whereas this Bill should have cleared the House by about the fourth week in October. It would be very disappointing if we, in debating this Bill, were not able to see the changes that the Government were going to make to the Children and Families Bill so that we could make sure from our perspective that the two hung together. Can the Minister assure us that, if the Government are contemplating some amendments, we could see them so that we could debate them within the context of this Bill?

Care Quality Commission: Morecambe Bay Hospitals

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement made by the noble Earl, particularly in respect to the CQC’s new focus on being a champion for patients, putting safety and care at the heart of the system and having more specialist teams. I am particularly pleased that David Behan has been appointed as the new chief executive. However, I am extremely concerned that another scandal is looming round the corner. There are very strong warnings. I am extremely concerned that mental health patients detained under the Mental Health Act are very poorly served at the moment. To put this in context, the CQC was formed from three organisations: the Healthcare Commission, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and the Mental Health Act Commission. The Mental Health Act Commission was not an inspectorate—it was a visitorial body, and looked after the care and treatment of detained patients. It did so by employing a number of commissioners with specialist expertise, not only in understanding the issues faced by mental health patients but also in mental health law, which is so important.

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

I am coming to the question.

As the former chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission, I was assured when those organisations merged that the CQC would keep the focus of those commissioners, those skills and that methodology, and that specialist focus and attention would be given. That is legally required under the Mental Health Act, but it has not happened. Over the last few years the expertise of Mental Health Act commissioners has been eroded. Can the Minister assure me that this focus will be renewed, and the focus of Mental Health Act commissioners returned? Will the Government consider having a chief inspector of mental health? That was one of the original ideas when it was formed.

[Baroness Northover]

I remind noble Lords that brief questions are allowed. As the Companion states, this is not the occasion for an immediate debate. I note that many noble Lords want to speak, so the briefer the better, please.