Procedure and Privileges Committee
Debate between Lord Reid of Cardowan and Baroness Walmsley
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords who have already spoken. Only a few months ago, it was brought to our attention that the way these things were being handled, as regards contributions by Members of your Lordships’ House, was in clear breach of the Bill of Rights and the conventions on freedom of speech for parliamentarians that had stood for several hundred years. I have no idea whether the new Companion will have addressed that issue or not; the only way to find out is to have the relevant sections and changes produced before this House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, have a full debate on them.
This is not a peripheral issue. It is the central issue of the role of parliamentarians and their right to speak as they see fit, provided that the Chamber itself is content with it. It cannot be right to have some sort of trigger point system—presumably based on artificial intelligence—setting up an alarm when something is said that is deemed not to be right by others outside this House. It is in clear breach of centuries of convention.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a point that we might all be concerned about. I think Back-Benchers would like to know about these trigger points. I had not noticed that they were there. Back-Benchers would need to know what the criteria are, because people would always want to avoid them. There needs to be total agreement about the level of offence that would contravene one of the points. Perhaps the House might decide to accept such a trigger point, or perhaps it might not.
National Health Service (Mandate Requirements) Regulations 2017
Debate between Lord Reid of Cardowan and Baroness Walmsley(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support this Motion.
This debate shines a spotlight on the existential quandary facing CCGs and NHS Providers. I am sure that at the end of the debate the Minister, in his usual courteous and thorough way will, as he always does, give us lots of figures about how much more the Government are spending every year and how many more treatments are being delivered and how well the STPs are doing. With demand rising, naturally the raw numbers are higher, but the Government have chosen an RTT target in percentage terms and they must live with that decision and fund the consequences. Over recent years, the increase in funding for the NHS has not kept up with rising demand. This year we have a lower increase than before, and so now is crunch time. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, nobody is even pretending that providers will be able to deliver the targets while remaining within their budgets. So there is no point in the Government watering down the targets and pretending that no one will notice. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and many others have noticed, and I am grateful to him for giving us the chance to have an honest and open discussion about this.
NHS staff work hard and do their best to meet the targets under difficult circumstances. It is not their fault that the RTT targets have not been met for 16 months. But changing the targets is a political decision, whether it is being done openly or not, and that is only right. It should certainly not be left to local decision-makers, in a postcode lottery, to quietly ignore them or try and fail to live up to them and then take the flack when people criticise. If the Government choose to change the target, they should take the responsibility for the consequences. But the trouble is that patients will live with the consequences, living longer with debilitating and painful conditions. Having those conditions worsen and requiring more complex and expensive treatment, they may even become untreatable, and their quality of life and perhaps their mental health will deteriorate. So although the 2012 Act was intended to pass the blame on to anyone but the Government when things go wrong, everybody knows that the Government’s NHS mandate is the Government’s NHS mandate and nobody else’s. The NHS can spend the money only once, and the Government should not be expecting two treatments for the price of one. The bald facts are that, this year, demand was expected to rise by 5.2% while the funding is only going to rise by 1.3%, which is 2.3% less than last year—which was too little anyway. So this is a deliberate choice on the part of the Government.
Waiting lists are projected to rise to almost 5 million by 2020, and clearing this backlog will require not only funding but appropriately trained staff. With staff who are EU citizens leaving in droves because of Brexit uncertainty, and UK staff leaving because of overwork and stress, NHS Providers is finding it impossible to deliver waiting time targets. At the same time there is spare capacity in the private sector but it charges more than the NHS, so that is a hard choice for managers to make. I therefore ask the Minister a simple question: what assessment did the Government make of the potential impact on patients and waiting lists of deprioritising elective care and taking the decision to relax the 18-week target?
The RTT is not the only target the Government have changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, and this is looking rather like a habit. For example, NHS England and NHS Improvement are reportedly setting new targets for CCGs and providers for bed occupancy levels, to keep them below 92%. This is significantly higher than the recommended safe limit of 85%. The Royal College of Surgeons has warned:
“Anything over this level is regarded as riskier for patients as this leads to bed shortages, periodic bed crises, and a rise in healthcare-acquired infections such as MRSA”.
This is another target that was routinely missed last winter, and the latest figures show that the overnight occupancy rate for general and acute beds hit a record high in the fourth quarter of 2016-17, averaging 91.4%. If the Royal College of Surgeons is right, this high level of bed occupancy is not a measure of efficiency but could lead to greater costs and crises, which put patients in danger.
Is it not time for the Government to stop pretending that all is well and that they have all the right answers, and set up a cross-party commission on the funding of health and social care, as recommended by my right honourable friend Norman Lamb MP? We on these Benches would be enthusiastic about taking part in such discussions. I think that the public are very fed up with health and care being a political football and would like to see us working constructively together. They want some honesty and realism. Of course we do not want to go back to the 1950s: I was waiting for a tonsillectomy and after two or three years, when my mother was fed up of waiting, she discovered that I had been taken off the list on the assumption that I had grown out of it. Actually, I had, but we need to be a great deal more ambitious for the NHS than that.
I know that the Minister makes the best of his brief but I would like to think that he will go back to his department and use his considerable powers of persuasion to stop the Secretary of State from burying his head in the sand.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I join with this regret Motion, not as a matter of formality but because of deep and genuine regret at the position that the Government have now, by hook or by crook, engineered, which is the effective abandonment of the 18-week target.
I will briefly recall to the House where we were before that target was introduced. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we do not have to go back to the 1950s. We can go back less than 15 years, when my predecessor, Alan Milburn, became Secretary of State for Health. The maximum waiting time then was not 18, 24 or 52 weeks for elective operations but three years. Due to his sterling efforts and, I have to say, his adviser, who also advised me—Mr Simon Stevens—we reduced that, but not nearly as much as I thought was necessary in a civilised society.
Therefore I admit a conflict of interest in this debate: I introduced the 18-week target, against some considerable opposition—not in principle but because, I was constantly told, “it couldn’t be done”. But we did it. I remind the House that at that time the number on the waiting list, waiting for as long as three years, was the horrific figure of 1.2 million. It is now 2.7 million and it is estimated that it may rise to 5 million. Therefore there are more and more people, and undoubtedly, once this target has been effectively removed, those pressures will immediately start a process whereby it will go well beyond 18 weeks and we will go back to where we were some 15 years ago.
I will make a couple of points about this situation; the first has already been alluded to. These targets were also to reduce MRSA—hospital-acquired disease —in hospitals by 50% over four years, which we did, despite the fact that we were told that we could not do it. It was also to take hundreds of thousands of people off the waiting list. This was an effective way, not of making a political point but to remove people from pain, distress, discomfort and, above all, the insecurity of not knowing when and if they might have the condition treated. I recall that at the formation of the National Health Service one of Labour’s greatest heroes, Nye Bevan, produced his framework in a pamphlet that was not called “In Place of Pain” but In Place of Fear. The fear that people had for their families, their senior citizens, their children, of the prospect of waiting several years, even with what might appear to others to be relatively small difficulties and medical conditions, is inestimable. Therefore this was, more than anything else, about the relief of human discomfort and insecurity.
Secondly, having been there, I know that this is not easy. It is never easy. I have a great respect for Simon Stevens as a person and an administrator. However, he is caught between all sorts of conflicting demands—an increasing population, people living longer and, I have to say, a relative reduction in resources as well as a shambolic reorganisation which was the worst use of money I can think of in the health service in the past several decades. So I do not blame him, but it is the Government’s job to face up to difficult tasks, and it will take political will.