Care Bill [HL]
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. If there is to be a commissioner for the old in England, I second her nomination at this point.
I also congratulate the Government on bringing together these timely reforms to our social care system. When the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was talking about the problems for local government, I was reminded that it is 20 years since I was elected to North Yorkshire County Council for the first time and put in charge of looking after the budget for adult social services. It was an impossible task 20 years ago. It is an impossible task today. Her remarks are very timely in concentrating our efforts on getting that right.
Parts 1 and 2 begin to address key questions of affordability and access addressed by the Dilnot commission and the issues of quality and safeguarding highlighted by the Francis report. Although modernising the legal framework, as proposed by the Law Commission, and clarifying the rights of individuals and their carers, is an important step, no one should suggest that the Bill will rectify decades of neglect in our social care system. Here, I agree very strongly with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay that not until we have completely aligned our health and social care systems can many of the issues recognised by Dilnot be fully addressed. Nor would anybody suggest that the proposed new funding arrangements will be a panacea, but they provide at least a more equitable solution than exists at present and afford the nation a breathing space until a more radical solution can be found. I say “more radical” because the reality is that at the current rate of increased demand our health and social care system is not sustainable.
About 30% of the UK population currently suffers from a chronic disease, many with co-morbidities, and the rates of increase are frightening, as are the costs. Seven and a half million of us are being treated for hypertension—many I suspect in this Chamber at the moment—which is up 11% since 2006-07; 2.5 million are treated for diabetes, which is up 25%; 1.8 million have chronic kidney disease, which is up 45% since 2007; 800,000 have long-term cancers, which is up 79% since 2007; and 270,000 have long-term dementia, which is a rise of 25% over that six-year period.
Unless we seek better ways of preventing the onset of chronic conditions and managing them more effectively in the community, or even better finding cures, many of the worthy reforms in this Bill will merely provide respite care. This is why I am so supportive of Part 3, the setting up of Health Education England and the Health Research Authority as arm’s-length bodies. The way we will transform the health and care landscapes radically is by improving the education and training of the workforce, and by giving it the tools to transform patient care by using our outstanding research base.
Health Education England has already made a hugely positive start under the excellent leadership of Sir Keith Pearson, but the need to move swiftly to NDPB status to make sure that we align workforce planning with education and training is essential. What is missing from the legislation is a duty to future proof workforce supply into the NHS and social care system. There should not be a three-year plan for LETBs but a 10-year rolling target so that we avoid the feast and famine often associated with kneejerk reactions from government Ministers as problems of nurse, doctor and consultant shortages appear.
We cannot allow a return to local, short-term self-interest that is the real danger for the LETBs; nor must we exclude the private and voluntary sectors, the key role that they must play in workforce planning, and—crucially—the contribution that they must make to training and education. When he replies I hope the Minister will say how the private and voluntary sectors will be brought in. Incidentally, I am delighted that in Clause 82 there is now a duty for Health Education England to promote research. I congratulate the draft Bill committee for getting that into the Bill, but why does this duty not extend to the LETBs? Improvements will come about only if all the workforce recognises the value of research and puts it at the heart of its daily routines. LETBs are crucial to this agenda. Perhaps the Minister can explain why they have been excluded from that duty.
There are many other issues that need to be raised over Health Education England, but one requires an urgent response. The damning criticism in the Francis report about the role of healthcare workers is largely ignored in this legislation, as are crucial elements concerning nurse education. Francis was clear about the need to train, regulate and register HCAs. These recommendations were also strongly made by the recent commission that I chaired, but in the Bill there is no regulation and no registration, and only a minimalist training programme that is not mandatory.
Can I suggest to the Minister that at the earliest possible date Skills for Health is quietly retired, that new standards are set by the NMC and that Health Education England is mandated to ensure high-quality training with appropriate certification for all healthcare support workers? I understand the challenges of adopting a fully fledged registration scheme, but ensuring that any healthcare support worker who cares directly for patients is trained to a mandatory standard, and that training is certificated and registered for inspection with employers, is surely achievable. Making employers legally responsible for registering the competency of their staff and regularly updating that competency safeguards patients, staff and the reputation of the provider.
Finally, I am delighted with the progress made on the HRA so far. The HRA has demonstrated that it is more than an enhanced national ethics service, which I feared it might become, and I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on ensuring that it was given that freedom. The crucial next step of creating an NDPB with scope to make the NHS and our social care system the most research-intensive in the world is hugely exciting. However, there remains timidity about the legislation in this Bill. In 2011, the Academy of Medical Sciences highlighted the need for better and more streamlined regulation, and we are not there yet. Clause 93 gives the HRA the duty to promote the co-ordination and standardisation of practice in the UK with regard to health and social care research, but will this extend to the removal of unnecessary levels of regulation?
At a recent Science and Technology Select Committee hearing, part of its inquiry into regenerative medicine, one regulator said to the members, who included the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that because the science was complicated, so must the regulation be. That is what bedevils the regulatory framework for research. The power of different regulators to gold-plate their regulation continues to worry me. Does the HFEA really have a role in embryonic stem cell research, or could its regulatory functions be subsumed by the HRA or indeed be merged with the Human Tissue Authority? Will the HRA have the powers to abolish, or at least to recommend to Parliament the abolition of, unnecessary regulators, or will those regulators, with their independence, still have the upper hand?
As we move to more stratified medicines, regenerative medicine and greater emphasis on genomics and bioinformatics, the key will be to move fast with often small groups or lone patients. The current system of regulation is too burdensome and cumbersome for us to be able to act. The system is simply not fit for purpose. Surely we should be seeking to strengthen the powers of the HRA so that it can decide appropriate regulatory pathways, rather than the existing regulators.
A similar issue arises with National Health Service research and development permissions. The HRA has done brilliantly in streamlining local ethics approvals, but there are still difficulties with individual trusts over site approvals. Not only does each site have to give approval, but if there are variations to a clinical trial, the whole process has to be repeated. This is nonsense if we are aiming for more trials involving more patients at more sites. Simply publishing good guidance, as expected in Clause 98, is insufficient. I hope the Minister will go further and say how the HRA will ensure that trusts have regard to its guidance. Of course, the success of research and the HRA will depend significantly on public buy-in, an issue which the Joint Committee took very seriously. Transparency is key, and the open publication of data should be a statutory requirement for the HRA. The Association of Medical Research Charities, which I chair, has just published Our Vision for Research in the NHS, which includes, from all members of the charity, a call to publish research results and make them accessible.
This is an excellent Bill. It has huge potential. It is not a panacea. It is a great start, but it needs a little bit of courage, and I urge the Minister to have that courage.
NHS: Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing this debate and for the measured way in which he did so. It behoves us not to begin a blame game but rather to pick up the recommendations of this superb report and act upon them. It is far more profitable. A few of us who were sat in another place during the time that this was going on raised the sorts of concerns that are now being raised with hindsight.
In the time available, I should like to concentrate on recommendations 185 to 213, which affect nursing and healthcare support workers. What concerns me about this report—and indeed these recommendations—is how we can prioritise and implement them, because trying to prioritise and implement 290 at the same time is, quite frankly, an impossible task. As was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, time has not stood still since Mid Staffs. The Nursing and Midwifery Council has produced new standards for pre-registration nursing training, which are widely welcomed by patient groups, by the higher education institutions, by professionals and by providers.
As we move to a fully graduate nursing profession, I trust we will not waste time re-opening the issue of a graduate nurse workforce, as indicated by Ann Clwyd in another place. Francis quite rightly recommends a greater emphasis on recruiting caring as well as intelligent students, but believing these two qualities to be mutually exclusive is disingenuous. With less than 25% of current nurses being graduates, it was not graduate training that caused a lack of care at Mid Staffs. The quality of the placements where nurses receive their practical training requires urgent attention, as does the quality of mentorship they receive.
The 50% practical placement is fundamental to the development of a well trained workforce, yet far too often students are dissatisfied with the quality of the experience they receive on their placements. Fewer placements are now in hospital settings, particularly acute hospital settings, and staff are often too busy to give of their time. Learning is not seen as a corporate activity and, more worryingly, core competencies are sometimes neither practised or observed before being signed off. At the core of this problem is the outdated view that all registered nurses can be good mentors, and that somehow mentorship can be added to very busy schedules with little training or additional time. That must change. If we want our nurses to be inspired to be more patient-centred, then the practical learning settings must be of the highest possible standard. Mentors must care for their students, and be valued by their employers.
Francis also recognised that throughout our health and care system more and more care is delivered by untrained and unregulated healthcare assistants. Regulation 209 is perhaps the most powerful statement made by Francis, stating that,
“no unregistered person should be permitted to provide for reward direct physical care to patients currently under the care and treatment of a registered nurse or a registered doctor”.
We do not in fact allow anyone to work on a gas fire without proper training, yet we allow people to work on those who are in the greatest need.
The first step—I hope the Minister would agree—is to have mandatory training by the end of this Parliament, with standards for all healthcare support workers who provide direct physical care approved by the NMC, or another body which the Secretary of State approves. Without mandatory training, it will be unlawful for employers to engage these workers. To the Minister, who is worried about registration, I suggest that an immediate step toward independent registration would be that by the end of this Parliament every employer who provides direct physical care will be required to keep a register of all their employees who deliver care. Their training records should be available for inspection by the CQC, Monitor and Healthwatch England, or its regional equivalents. Surely patients and their families have the right to know at least that those who care for them are at least appropriately trained, and that their employers will be held responsible for their deployment.
Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) Regulations 2012
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I rise in this packed Chamber at this late hour to discuss these regulations. I say that light-heartedly, but the raft of regulations going through the House as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is incredibly important. The fact that the regulations are being very effectively scrutinised by this House demonstrates the commitment to getting the implementation of the 2012 Act right, so my comments this afternoon on behalf of the Liberal Democrats are meant to be helpful to the Minister. I will do my best.
There is significant support for these regulations, not least because there is significant agreement among the political parties that the direction of travel for local authorities to be at the heart of a renewed emphasis on public health is absolutely right. It always struck me, as a former council leader, as bizarre that I had responsibility for the efficient collection and disposal of refuse but that protecting and promoting the health of the people whom we represented was a peripheral activity. Indeed, when the Government introduced the scrutiny committees, supported by the Labour Party, they emphasised the importance of local politicians taking an interest in health. That engagement—certainly for my local area—was incredibly helpful and supportive. I regard this as the next step. Local authorities should be involved in the scrutiny of health, and most activities from economic generation to housing and education are all part and parcel of improving public health; they are not separate silos.
Before I deal with some of the specific regulations within this SI, I raise an issue which is not in the regulations but which requires a response from the Minister. I refer to public health research, and he will not be surprised that I raise it. In some ways, public health research has gone under the radar—I confess a lack of emphasis myself—yet if we are to improve public health, and local authorities are going to be at the heart of that agenda, it is crucial that research is part of it. Traditionally, local authorities have not funded, nor have they been responsible for research in public health. That resource has come from the primary care trusts and SHAs.
Currently, 187 public health clinical academics with honorary contracts, and 26 academic dentists with honorary NHS contracts are working in England. Of those, 56 clinical academics and four dentist academics are part or wholly funded by PCTs and SHAs. However, that funding—some £15 million—has now been swept up by being transferred to the Commissioning Board, which, as the Minister knows, does not have a mandate to honour the honorary contracts determined by the Follett principles. In fact, public health research is not in the Commissioning Board’s mandate. That responsibility, rightly, lies with Public Health England. Fifteen million pounds is of course a relatively small sum—loose change to the Commissioning Board—but it is the main source of funding for vital public health research which can be commissioned by public health directors in local authorities. If we are serious about local authorities commissioning research—and I think that these regulations are serious about that interface—they must have access to research capacity.
This is an urgent issue, which is why I raise it at the beginning of my remarks. The existing honorary contracts legally run out on 31 March, and continuity over existing research programmes is absolutely crucial unless we are to see the abandonment of key strands of public health research. Will the Minister say what plans he has to resolve this very small but important issue? In particular, will he instruct the Commissioning Board to transfer the £14.7 million of public health funding that it has obtained from PCTs and SHAs to Public Health England as an interim measure until a more secure funding stream can be found for public health research?
Continuing the theme of research, perhaps I may seek clarification on two other matters in the current regulations. This SI gives local authorities powers as directed by the Secretary of State which are in effect transfers of existing powers. They are largely welcomed and give much needed continuity. Therefore, I do not think that there is any argument about the transfer of those powers. However, a person who has one or more of the declared morbidities will be checked on a more regular basis—that is, if you have hypertension, you will be checked annually. However, will the broader health check given to eligible persons be carried out on non-eligible persons on a five-yearly basis or will it be in the sequence of their morbidity? In other words, if you have hypertension and are checked annually, will you have all the other health checks at the same time, will you have to wait for five years to have them, or will you not get those other checks? The regulations do not make that clear. This is important because the health check data obtained via Regulation 5(3) is valuable not only for individual patients but for research groups.
Indeed, with regard to the information obtained under Regulation 5(3), will the data automatically be made available in an anonymised format, with open access for research groups, but allowing for patient opt-out? If so, will it be the responsibility of the Department of Health, the NIHR, the Commissioning Board or Public Health England to prescribe a format for data collection and storage? I make that point because, if the information is collected in different formats, it becomes less valuable in terms of interrogating it for effective research.
Let me move on to Regulation 6, which I am somewhat confused by the thinking behind. While I fully understand why services such as abortion, sterilisation and vasectomy should be moved into the NHS, given their “clinical and surgical nature”, surely the same could be said about specialist STD management and specialist contraception services, which carry significant clinical risks—not to mention a minefield of legal and ethical dimensions. For instance, IUD insertion management can be an incredibly invasive and difficult issue. The decision to ask local authorities to exclude HIV patients from other sexual health services and treatment for other STDs appears to be at odds with offering patients a comprehensive sexual health service. Why are we separating those out? There is confusion over the implication for people who move out of an area to be tested for HIV, for instance—a more likely scenario in places such as London, Manchester and Birmingham, where specialist clinics with the latest technology quite rightly are emerging. Yet there is confusion over where people will be treated if they are tested elsewhere and how that will be cross-charged.
Who will have responsibility for treating an HIV person with another STD? Will patients continue to have the right to access sexual health services, including related treatment and care, wherever they choose in England, regardless of their place of residence? Will there be no loss either in expertise or in the infrastructure needed to commission complex sexual health services, and will those services and pathways of care be fully integrated? I ask that because small authorities may not have the capacity to be able to have that range of services. Will they therefore be able to commission those services elsewhere and send people from one local authority to another? Will the pressures on local authority budgets not simply result in a diminished quality or availability of care?
How do we guarantee that what we are promising in the regulations can be delivered, given the pressure on budgets? For instance, 25% of the budget for public health is likely to be spent on promoting and supporting the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual health. That represents a huge amount of the budget, and for some authorities, particularly in large, deprived urban areas, the proportion could be even greater. Will there be a seamless integrated pathway of care for people living with HIV? We cannot ask such people to be treated differently to any other group in the population, and that is what these regulations appear to be saying. Perhaps the Minister can give me some comfort on that.
As regards Regulation 8, health protection is at the core of the new arrangements and, as I said earlier, none of us, of any political persuasion, do not very strongly support the direction of travel of the Government. Local authorities are enthusiastic about this role of being responsible for health protection. However, an effective response to an early outbreak or emergency requires clear roles and responsibilities, strong leadership and timely intervention. This regulation does not appear to do any of those things. Indeed, rather than building on the DoH guidance of September 2012 on health protection in local government, in which the Government clearly stated that local authorities would be expected to ensure that partners have effective plans in place and that the director of public health would have a leadership function, these regulations give local authorities no more responsibility than requiring other bodies to draw up plans and requiring the local authorities themselves to issue guidance. There is nothing here to say whether plans will be mandatory or optional. That is hardly encouraging if a major crisis develops with potential or actual loss of life. Would the director of public health have a recourse in law to say, “Not me, guv, I asked them all to issue guidance and they did so and therefore my responsibility is over.”?
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Will the Minister state categorically that, in the event of a major public health incident within a local authority area, it will be the director of public health who has the lead responsibility in co-ordinating a response to that event?
Earl Howe
We expect that that will be the case but it will depend on the nature of the incident and how big a public health emergency we are dealing with. We might find, for example, that if it is an emergency that covers more than one local authority area, a particular director of public health will take responsibility on behalf of all the local authorities. We would expect Public Health England to be on the scene for any major incident and to advise, but the central point is that there has to be somebody with ultimate responsibility for what goes on on the ground. Clearly, who that person is will depend on how major or minor the incident is and the nature of that incident. It would be open to the director of public health to delegate certain functions but, again, we would expect the director of public health to retain an oversight role to make sure that functions were appropriately performed.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the important area of prevention. He expressed concern about local authorities investing in prevention work. I was grateful to him for what he told me about the work currently being done in London on HIV prevention. The mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board does not specifically cover prevention, but local authorities will want to undertake prevention activity because this will improve the health and well-being of their population and reduce costs. Sexual health services are also a preventive activity in their own right—for example, the provision of contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy and the testing and treatment for STIs to prevent onward transmission.
On HIV, one of the public health outcome indicators is to reduce late HIV diagnosis, and prevention activity can clearly play a crucial role in that. We are aware that in London, in particular, councils will be working together to review arrangements for pan-London HIV prevention work. The noble Lord may well be aware of the work going on to underpin the current pan-London HIV programme. The current programme comes to an end at the end of March and this has been known by all the providers and voluntary sector organisations for some time. Therefore, a needs assessment of pan-London HIV prevention was undertaken in 2011. London Councils and the mayor’s office are absolutely sighted on the need for effective HIV prevention in the capital and urgent discussions are under way about taking this forward from April.
HIV services will continue to be commissioned by the NHS. More generally, local authorities will be able to enter into cross-charging arrangements if they wish. In London, we introduced secondary legislation last year to allow the Greater London Authority to undertake public health activity in partnership with the boroughs, and that was obviously designed to facilitate co-operation across boundaries.
The noble Lord asked how we would ensure that HIV treatment was standardised across the country and whether we were intending to publicise HIV prevention. Local authorities will certainly be able to run awareness and information campaigns, and they will be funded to do so. HIV treatment will, as now, be commissioned by the NHS and be informed by the existing standards and guidance.
My noble friend mentioned the letter from my honourable friend Anna Soubry, which stated that there are no plans to do anything on the regulation of public health specialists at present. He sought reassurance on the regulation of public health specialists being in place by the end of next year. During the debate on the Health and Social Care Bill we made the commitment to regulate non-medical public health consultants after conducting a consultation. That remains the case. However, the process will take 12 to 18 months to complete and so, at this point, I am reluctant to commit to a particular date for implementation. I should be happy to follow up that comment in a letter to my noble friend.
He also raised the issue of the interface between Healthwatch England and services providers. Part 4 refers to the duty on services providers to allow entry to local Healthwatch rather than Healthwatch England. If local Healthwatch representatives observe anything that might be unsafe or poor care of any kind, they can report those matters directly to the Care Quality Commission to investigate. I hope that that addresses an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, because it is clearly very important for local Healthwatch not only to have a hotline to the CQC where necessary but to co-ordinate its work, where relevant, with that of the CQC—exactly as LINks do at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me about local Healthwatch in the context of the Francis report, published yesterday. All I can say at this point is that, as the Leader of the House said yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be considering all the recommendations in Robert Francis’s report in detail over the coming weeks. Clearly, we will need to reflect very carefully on the implications of his recommendations and we will be providing an initial response next month.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of local Healthwatch being able to enter and view premises and, in doing so, access all areas in those premises—for example, areas being renovated, kitchens and so on. Local Healthwatch representatives will be able to access communal areas but there are restrictions based on the privacy of residents or patients and the need to respect that, and on intruding on the provision of care while it is being delivered. The enter-and-view powers are activities for the purposes of Section 221 and relate to service improvements. These regulations support local Healthwatch’s role in that respect.
On the issue of the reasonableness of local Healthwatch’s enter-and-view activities, the service provider’s view has to be one that is held reasonably; otherwise the provider would be acting unlawfully. Regulation 13 requires local Healthwatch, when on any premises, not to act in a way that would compromise “effective provision of care” or the,
“privacy and dignity of any person”.
These terms bear their ordinary meaning and, in our view, they are clear. They have worked well on the ground so far. They are, of course, based on the 2008 regulations and we are confident that they will serve the new system well.
I am aware that there are several matters of detail that I have not covered but I shall, as promised, look carefully once again in Hansard at all the questions posed by both noble Lords and write accordingly.
Health: Medical Innovation
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I begin my remarks by echoing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have been a parliamentarian in both Houses for some 16 years now and I do not think I have ever heard a more moving, considerate or emotive speech than that of my noble friend Lord Saatchi. I thank him for it. In so doing, I have to say that some of the issues that he and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, have raised—and that others will raise—are ones that the Minister, with his responsibilities, can begin to address. Last night, I was responsible for hosting a reception for Children with Cancer UK, an organisation that has been running for 25 years and which began because, 25 years ago, childhood leukaemia killed eight out of 10 children who suffered from it. Now, 80% of children survive it. That happened through innovation—through the very things that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned and which others will mention—so there is hope. I would want to give my noble friend that element of hope.
My frustration is with many of our scientists’ inclinations. The means to deliver novel or experimental treatments to patients earlier exists. It is not something that does not exist and, quite frankly, it does not require further legislation. With the support of government and an excellent UK life sciences strategy, we have the means to do exactly what my noble friend wants to see. We do not need more legislation; we need action. We need regulators and funders to recognise that, while their approaches are fine for established research pathways and large populations of patients, they are hopelessly inadequate for new and experimental treatments on small, stratified populations.
There is progress. Both the conditional approval scheme and the named patient scheme are important in the toolbox of clinicians who want to try novel and untried treatments but, frankly, they are rarely used. Indeed, perhaps the Minister, when summing up, can say how often they are used and for what purpose. Perhaps, too, he could tell us what progress is being made on the early access scheme, championed in the UK Life Sciences Strategy, which would allow access to drugs earlier than the current regime permits, especially where the compounds under consideration represent possible therapies where few alternatives are available. Currently, the Government’s ambition for this scheme is two to five drugs per year. Does the Minister really feel that that should be the height of this strategy’s ambition?
Perhaps offering more promise, as the Science and Technology Select Committee heard in relation to its regenerative medicine inquiry, is the issue of adaptive licensing, an initiative that also appeared in the UK life sciences strategy. Adaptive licensing offers a flexible approach whereby regulators, clinicians, patients, the research community and industry are jointly involved in assessing the risks of a given experimental treatment so that a proportionate level of regulation can be determined for the release of novel drugs to patient groups. This proportionate approach recognises, as we move to more targeted therapies for smaller populations where traditional clinical trials will be of limited use, that this approach offers an alternative, more appropriate assessment of patient risk and benefits; but, again, where is the urgency or ambition? The expert group that was set up by the MHRA to look at adaptive licences has met only once, in October 2012. Frankly, if that is the rate of progress, it will be years before we see this opportunity realised.
Finally, I come to regulation and regulators, a topic to which I know many noble Lords will return later. When the Academy of Medical Sciences produced its report in 2011, the Government promised simplified, more unified and smarter regulation. The setting up of the Health Research Authority would herald a new dawn for those who see the regulatory burden—particularly for scientists, clinicians and SMEs working at the edge of discovery—as an obstacle to progress. Far from achieving that aim, the HRA appears to have become a very expensive national ethics service. If anything, regulation has become more complex and more bewildering. Indeed, as one expert witness revealed yesterday to our committee, “It is only accessible if you know where to look”.
Clinicians hoping to use new therapies to save the lives of cancer patients do not have the time, and often do not have the resources, to meet the demands of well meaning regulators and their plethora of never-ending hurdles set up to ensure patient safety. That is the real challenge. Without a more agile, unified and flexible regulatory system, which puts patients at its heart, all attempts to move novel and often untried treatments into patients will fail. In that case, we will fail my noble friend in his cause.
Nursing Quality and Compassion: The Future of Nursing Education
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on securing this debate and I echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about her efforts in the House. The fact that only four out of 788 Peers have a nursing background is a sad reflection on how important this profession is and how little it is regarded in terms of our debates and our work. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her very kind comments, particularly referring to district nurses—my mother was a district nurse and I remember only too well sniffing her bag.
The appalling events at Winterbourne View, which we discussed last night, and the disturbing revelations by Ann Clwyd about her husband are graphic reminders that care by nurses, or indeed other healthcare professionals, is not always what it should be. That has to be a starting point, rather than believing that everything in the garden is absolutely rosy.
This short debate does not allow us to look at the complex reasons why sometimes care breaks down but, no matter how difficult it is, I share the view of the general secretary of the RCN that poor practice has to be exposed. It has to be understood why it has happened, it has to be rectified and there should never be an excuse to patients or their carers about a lack of compassion.
I was privileged to be asked by the RCN to lead the independent review, which was about pre-registration nursing in the wake of changes to the Nursing and Midwifery Council standards and indeed to the growing media criticism that nurses were “too posh to wash” and “too clever to care”. Those descriptions were absolutely appalling to apply to any professional. Such comments were predicated on the assumption that the move to an all-graduate education programme for nurses would result in the recruitment of less caring and less compassionate students.
Today the vast majority of nurses are not graduates. If poor care is occurring today, it is not because we have graduates. In fact it will not be until 2013 in England that all entrants as registered nurses will be graduates. Making the bland assumption that by expecting higher educational attainment from nurses means you will get less care and compassion is absolute nonsense.
More than 100 organisations gave evidence to us, from every strand of opinion. We interviewed 29 witnesses, from the RCN to Health Education England; from charities to the NMC; from the Council of Deans to patient groups. I went over to Belfast and to Dundee, Cardiff, Oxford and Huddersfield to interview patients and to look at what was happening. Not one produced a shred of evidence to support the idea that raising academic standards would lower care and compassion, so we need to knock that on the head. We want the brightest and best of our young people, and indeed our mature entrants, to come into the profession. We want them to include care and compassion as part of those qualities.
Central to our report was the belief that patients must be at the centre of the education of tomorrow’s nurses. Universities must also do far more to ensure that patients and their representatives are central to recruitment and to programmes. If nursing is not about patients, quite frankly it is not about anything. We too often get tied into structures and to organisation rather than the root causes of what we are trying to do. I make a plea, too, for research to be placed right at the heart of training. I met students who saw the research component as an addition. You tick that box to become a graduate. I argued that that was not what graduateness is about. Graduateness is about developing critical thinking. It is about leadership. It is about challenge and if you are not building research right into the heart of it for nurses to ask: “Why am I doing this? Is there a better way of doing it? Can I be involved in a project to look at doing things better?”, then I think we are missing a trick.
I will finish, because of time, with the issue of healthcare support workers. The vast majority of patients I met did not understand the difference between a nurse and a healthcare support worker. Having a chart at the front of the hospital, showing people wearing fancy uniforms of different colours, really does not tick the box; when you are brought into an emergency ward, the last thing you want to do is say, “Stop, can I just have a look at the chart to see who everybody is?”. It is an absolute nonsense. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, that the vast majority of these people are hard-working, diligent and want to do a very good job. However, there is not a single care home in the United Kingdom that does not rely virtually entirely on this brilliant and dedicated workforce, which often performs tasks, including dispensing medicines, without any training or background and without there being any way of registering or regulating its members.
How can it be—I say this to the noble Earl, who I know is the most caring of Ministers—that the most vulnerable patients in the United Kingdom, often in their own homes and at the latter stages of life, are cared for by an underqualified and unregulated workforce? How can we allow that? We recognised, as a commission, how difficult it will be to move to a regulated and fully trained workforce. It cannot be done overnight, and to pretend that it can is fanciful. However, we should be making a start, which is what the commission recommended.
The idea of a voluntary register is perfectly okay for good providers—but they do not need a voluntary register, because they do it already. A voluntary register would not have made the slightest difference to Winterbourne View. I make a plea to the Minister that I would like to see all 29 of our recommendations referred to by the Minister in a proper report back. Ultimately, I am enormously grateful for having this opportunity to place the report before this Committee.
Care Services: Winterbourne View
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises another important point. In this country we have a list that acts as a check on those who have abused or otherwise maltreated adults or children and have been dismissed on that basis, to ensure that the scenario that she has painted in which someone who has committed such an offence is re-employed cannot occur in practice. I am not sure that I recognise the situation that she outlined because the POVA system is designed to ensure that dangerous people are not employed to look after the vulnerable. However, I will gladly drop her a line in writing to set out what we propose in this area.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I echo the comments around the House that this Statement is appropriate. The fact that it has support across the House demonstrates that there is unity in terms of tackling the issue. I spent a significant part of my professional life working with young people with severe behavioural issues. As the head of a school, I, together with my governors, would be held responsible for what happened to those young people—and rightly so. The weakness in the Statement is that it does not go far enough.
The Minister was right to make clear, and I am glad he did, that it was the management and the corporate owners of the home who were principally responsible, yet it was the staff who were prosecuted and jailed. I would like to hear what steps are going to be taken with the CPS to deal with corporate responsibility, and why that is not the priority here. Without it, frankly, a lot of the things that appear in this report will not have the necessary teeth.
I respectfully but fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the training of nurses and other health workers. The more that we demand of staff in terms of their education and other opportunities, the better the staff we will ultimately get. However, I agree with him and with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that it cannot be right that the most vulnerable people in our society are looked after by people whom we cavalierly say do not require qualifications. How unacceptable is that in the 21st century? A voluntary register of an organisation that is disreputable is utterly and totally meaningless. We need a commitment on this from the Government. I agree that this will be over a period of time; it will not happen tomorrow. However, simply stating, as recommendation 15 does, that by 2013 there will be a voluntary register will not give parents and carers of these very vulnerable adults and young people the support and comfort that they need. I plead with the Minister to make the case in the department for mandatory registration, to ensure that there is appropriate regulation and that nobody works with these young people or adults who does not have appropriate qualifications and training.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am very happy to recognise the excellent work done by my noble friend in the report that he published and submitted to the Royal College of Nursing, which we will debate later this week. He rightly drew attention to the responsibility that lies with leaders of organisations and boards of directors. They should be fully held to account for poor quality or for creating a culture in which neglect or abuse can happen. I completely agree with that. He was right to say that despite convictions for some front-line staff, Winterbourne View has revealed weaknesses in our ability to hold to account those who were higher up. Owners, boards of directors and senior managers must take responsibility for the quality and safety of their services.
We are determined to strengthen the accountability of boards of directors and managers, but we are not yet in a position to say exactly how that should be done. It is not as easy to define a legal route as it might first appear. It is perhaps easier to do so in the area of financial irresponsibility or negligence than it is where value judgments have to be made over the quality of care delivered to a group of individuals. However, I can tell my noble friend that this is one of the priorities that we have set ourselves. I listened with respect to his suggestions on the compulsory registration of care workers. I repeat what I have said in the past: the Government’s mind is not closed to this suggestion.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I think that the noble Lord asked me whether the board will be an advisory board or a board. Its function will be to provide advice. It will be a board, but the Secretary of State and the chief executive of PHE will look to the board for that robust challenge and advice that a public health service needs.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I am grateful to my honourable friend—I am sorry, I mean my noble friend; I keep calling him honourable, but I am sure he is as well—for that response to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. The issue is really quite fundamental. If what my noble friend has described is a purely advisory board, the board will not therefore be able to take any executive decisions about the nature of the research that it carries out; that will be totally dependent on the Secretary of State passing it down. Is that so? If so, how in fact will it interface with, for example, the new European programme, programme 8, in terms of European-wide research on public health?
Earl Howe
No, my Lords, my noble friend is not correct. It will be able to take decisions. What it will not be able to do is to bind the Secretary of State because, ultimately, if there is an issue of public health importance, it is the Secretary of State who must take responsibility for that. This said, Public Health England will of course be its own master as regards the research that it undertakes, and it will be operationally independent, as I emphasised earlier.
We will ensure the chair’s direct access to Ministers through regular and ad hoc meetings. The chair will have its own section in PHE’s annual report which it will draft personally and independently, and that report will also reflect the views of external agencies and individuals who have dealings with PHE. I hope that that gives my noble friend additional assurance about the independent voice that we want to see and hear.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked me whether PHE will be able to give professional advice freely to the public. We expect it to do precisely that, in much the same way that the Chief Medical Officer already does. It will be good practice for PHE and the department to consult each other about communications on public health matters, but with a view to agreeing the content, not censoring it.
PHE data will be subject to the code of practice on official statistics, which severely restricts access to certain material by Ministers or officials before it is published. Within three years of PHE becoming operational we will undertake a review of its governance to ensure that it is entirely appropriate and effective.
My noble friend’s amendment also addresses the very significant issue of PHE’s capability to undertake research and to bid for external research funding—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, devoted particular attention. This is something we have touched on in previous debates, and it is clearly vital to PHE’s long-term success. We will publish more information about how PHE’s research function will work, including its relationship with academic institutions, but I can assure noble Lords that it will be able to exercise all the necessary powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to research.
In particular, Clause 6 confers on the Secretary of State a duty to promote research relevant to the health service, which embraces public health services. Clause 11 specifies that the conduct of research is an appropriate step for him to take under his health protection duty. Clause 50 provides that charges may be made in respect of such steps. Clause 17(13) confirms the Secretary of State’s power to conduct, commission or assist research relating to health, which includes the power to apply for grants or other funding for the purpose of such research. In addition to the Bill’s provisions, the Secretary of State has power to generate additional income for the health service under Section 7 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988, which can be used by PHE to provide research services under contract. I can therefore reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that existing legislation gives the Secretary of State, and therefore PHE, the freedom to bid for research funding and to tender for contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about external partnerships and whether agencies that currently fund the HPA research will be able to fund PHE in the future. The answer is that we are not aware of any insurmountable obstacle to any of the HPA’s current partners choosing to fund PHE, although in some instances PHE may need to collaborate with an academic institution. Of course, we cannot guarantee that they will choose to. All we can do is ensure that PHE remains at least as attractive a partner for health protection research as the HPA has been. I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we will publish more information on this question quite soon, but we have no reason to believe, as I say, that academic institutions will be reluctant to go into partnership with PHE. In fact, the National Institute for Health Research has already announced that it will invite joint bids.
My noble friend’s amendment and the powerful way in which she has argued for its objectives—
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 66AA and 67AA in my name. The amendments are all designed to ensure that we have a strong commitment to the research duty throughout the NHS that matches the aspiration and vision set out so clearly during the debates on this issue on Report. There have not been many elements of the Bill so far that have been welcomed and united the House quite so strongly as the Government’s acceptance of the strengthening of the research duty placed on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups. As we know, that was met with universal support around the House. Once again for the record, I declare an interest as chief executive of a medical research charity, Breast Cancer Campaign, which is a proud member of the Association of Medical Research Charities. We have been one organisation among many calling for the research duty to be strengthened.
While amendments to strengthen the research duty were widely supported, the debate on the first day of Report when these amendments were discussed reiterated a critical issue that was also raised in Committee: the duties must be meaningful and must therefore be monitored. There must be monitoring mechanisms in place throughout the system to ensure that the research duty is not there in theory alone. For that reason, I was reassured to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State would be expected to report on how he fulfils his statutory duty annually, that CCGs will need to demonstrate how they will exercise important functions, including the duty of research during the authorisation process, and that a CCG’s commissioning plan and annual report will cover the exercise of the duty of all the CCG’s functions. However, no mention was made during the debate of the NHS Commissioning Board being required to report back on its duties when reporting its annual plan and business plan. The purpose of Amendments 66AA and 67AA is to make sure that we really address this key matter. I admit to being a bit confused about the Government’s position on reporting on duties. On the one hand, the research duties have quite rightly been strengthened but, on the other hand, there is a notable reluctance to ensure that it is a priority and a requirement for the Commissioning Board to report back on the activity relating to this duty. We need to have that transparency, so that we can see the benefits of the duty percolating through the system.
The duty relating to research is now stronger in wording than the duty relating to inequalities, but the Government have decided to include their own amendment, adding inequalities to the list of duties on which the board will be required to report. They have chosen not to do likewise for research. While I welcome and support the requirement to report on inequalities, this new step by the Government has reinforced my concern over whether there are sufficient reporting mechanisms embedded in the new structures of the NHS to promote adequately the vision of a research-led NHS that has found such widespread support in this House.
If, as the Minister may respond, all duties should be reported back on, why have this subsection, which identifies and highlights specific duties, within the clause at all? We are looking at a case of first among equals when it comes to some of the duties that the board is required to fulfil. How are we to understand what differences this will bring in reporting requirements? I hope that the Minister can use the opportunity now, late as it is, to reassure me that research will be a priority for the Commissioning Board and that there will be explicit reference to research and to the board’s plans in relation to it in the business plan and in the report.
Amendment 60A is to seek further clarity on what is to be understood by the term,
“research on matters relevant to the Health Service”.
My concern on this point is to ensure that the terminology used in the duty should be sufficiently comprehensive. For example, will the current wording require the NHS to enable research to occur, and to support it, as well as utilising the evidence from research that is available? Having discussed this with the noble Earl, I am confident that he will be able to reassure me on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I am eager to speak at this late hour. It seems that every time we talk about research it is always around 11 o’clock at night. The Minister and his minions must be planning something which we do not quite know about, but here we are. I support Amendments 66AA and 67AA standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin. Will my noble friend the Minister clarify the issue over the head of research at NIMR? At an early stage on Report, he clarified the duties of the Secretary of State and the commissioning groups, and how they will be reported. I think that is quite clear to the House. Speaking on behalf of the medical research charities, one of which I chair, there is general agreement on and support for the Minister’s general direction of travel. However, the Commissioning Board is a different issue altogether. The Minister was silent on that when he reported back but he indicated that it would be the role of the chief executive of NIMR, Dame Sally Davies, to prepare plans and report back on research. However, my understanding is that Dame Sally Davies has two specific jobs. On the one hand, she is the chief executive of NIMR and is therefore responsible for funding research proposals that come to the Department of Health. That is a very distinct role of looking after more than £1 billion of spend in this particular direction.
Her other role is that of Chief Medical Officer. In that role, I understand that she is responsible for organising, on behalf of the Department of Health, research programmes that deal with both public health and those areas of the health programme that require specialist research input. The Minister appeared to say earlier on Report that Dame Sally Davies would, in her role as the head of NIMR, report to the board on research. However, perhaps she will not report to the board on research; perhaps she has a separate reporting line to the Secretary of State or Parliament. In that case, I should very much like the Minister to clarify that role.
In conclusion, I strongly support the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, in making her point about cherry picking duties. Earlier today, in response to Amendment 38A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the Minister rightly said that we should not cherry pick particular conditions in order to report on them. However, that is exactly what is happening over the duties. A specific set of duties, of which the whole House is incredibly supportive, are laid down in the Bill. However, only certain ones must be included in an annual plan and reported on. There can be no duty more important than that of research. It is the one area in which we will get the very latest treatments to patients quicker and with better health outcomes, yet it is one of the areas that is regarded as less important than others. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy both the medical research charities and this House on those two issues.
Lord Turnberg
I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It is almost churlish to return to the matter of research when we have heard such welcome words and support from the noble Earl on research in the Bill. However, as an ex-chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service, it would be wrong for me not to comment on Amendment 60A, which seeks to have research supported in the health service for the purpose of protecting the public in England. It is in that area that we may have a specific problem because public health will be dealt with largely by the local authorities. It is unclear how local authority support for research will be kept within the context of the needs of the country, and how that will work with the marvellous amendments that the noble Earl has tabled. Perhaps he will clarify how local authorities will be engaged in promoting research and how we will encourage them to do so.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we had a very positive debate on the importance of research at an earlier stage of Report. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for the support she expressed for the changes the Government have made to the Bill. I am more than happy to respond to these amendments this evening. I sympathise and agree with the noble Baroness’s championing of research in this Bill. She and my noble friend Lord Willis have been particularly vocal and well informed on this subject. Nevertheless, I am afraid I am reluctant to agree that the Bill needs yet more amendment. Having said that, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness going forward.
On Amendment 60A, the duties on the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs to promote research and the powers to conduct research all apply to the health service in its widest sense. This encompasses both NHS and public health services under the 2006 Act. In relation to the board’s duty in new Section 13L, the duty to promote research on matters relevant to the health service already covers public health protection. Public health protection is a function of the Secretary of State under Section 2A of the 2006 Act and therefore part of the health service.
There are also other clauses in the Bill that focus specifically on research into health protection. Clause 10 lists research and other steps for advancing knowledge and understanding as examples of action that the Secretary of State may take under his wider duty in relation to protecting public health. Public health and health protection in particular will, of course, be predominantly the responsibility of Public Health England rather than the board. It is not therefore necessary for the board’s functions to cover such matters but there will, of course, be close working between them and there are powers under Clause 21 for the Secretary of State to arrange for other bodies, including the board, to undertake any of his public health functions if necessary.
Turning to Amendments 66AA and 67AA, we have had a number of debates about exactly what the board should give particular attention to in its annual business plan and its annual report. I would like to remind your Lordships that the board is already required to set out in these documents how it intends to exercise its functions including how it will meet the various duties placed on it under the Bill.
The Bill emphasises a very few key duties that the board must look at in particular in its business plan, annual report and performance assessments, and that CCGs must look at in their commissioning plans and annual reports. We feel that we have chosen the right duties in each instance. As to the board’s and CCGs’ annual reports, it is more important that they focus on the outcomes that have ultimately been achieved through the provision of services, rather than on the way in which those services are being delivered. On the whole, that is the distinction we have tried to draw.
My noble friend Lord Willis asked about Dame Sally Davies and her reporting lines. I am sure my noble friend will remember that I wrote to him on 17 November and briefly covered this point. In short, as he knows, the National Institute for Health Research is and will remain part of the Department of Health. Its budget is held centrally by the department. The Chief Medical Officer is and will remain responsible for the NIHR and its budget. In her capacity as Chief Scientific Adviser and head of the NIHR, she will report to Ministers and the Secretary of State, but she will be there to give advice to the NHS Commissioning Board if asked to do so on matters relating to research. Similarly, in her capacity as CMO, she reports directly to the Secretary of State, but will be there to provide advice to Public Health England. I hope that that is of help to my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, asked me how the local authority role in promoting research would be assisted and how that would manifest itself in practice. I should like to write a letter to him on that point because the planning on that is, if I can put it this way, work in progress and I hope that I will be able to tell the noble Lord a little more in writing in a few days’ time.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Before he sits down, will my noble friend tell the House whether he has made it clear in his remarks that the chief executive of the Commissioning Board will not have a direct relationship in terms of research, and will not have responsibility that will, in fact, be with the Chief Scientific Officer—the head of the NIMR? If that is the case, how on earth will the Commissioning Board have a relationship with the commissioning groups in terms of their duty to promote research?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is not correct. The board will have a duty to promote research, and we have debated that point. What it will not have is the budget for the National Institute for Health Research, which is held centrally. I think that noble Lords have welcomed that because it will mean that that budget is held separately from the board’s own budget. However, that does not absolve the NHS Commissioning Board from responsibility for promoting research. Indeed, it will do that and have responsibility in particular for ensuring that the health costs of research carried out in NHS establishments are covered under the various tariffs. That will be a major part of the board’s work.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness sufficiently to enable her to withdraw her amendments, but I should of course be happy to talk to her outside the Chamber if there remain points that she would like to raise with me.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, particularly on what is behind the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that enormous progress has been made since our first debate in Committee where we neared the point of voting through an amendment that would have stymied any discussion on education and training, and I am very grateful that that vote did not take place. However, the reality is that there is a feeling abroad that when you have underqualified providers entering the health space, they will be able to offer services without having to invest in the very important aspects of training.
Given that on the first day of Report the Minister and the Secretary of State agreed to significant amendments about a research-led National Health Service, it is absolutely crucial that whoever takes part in that is able to offer the kind of education and training that enables it to become a reality rather than simply dealing with past techniques. I hope that when the Minister sums up on this group of amendments, and particularly on Amendment 13, he will make absolutely clear what the contractual obligations of other qualified providers will be in order to ensure that the duty placed on the Secretary of State in relation to those who are wholly NHS providers is actually carried through. Will there be a contractual agreement so that they have to agree to education and training, otherwise they will not get a contract?
Lord Winston
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said about higher education. He talked about the academic health science centres, but they are not what I want to talk about, although I come from Imperial College, which of course has such a centre. My conflict of interest arises possibly as chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, which has a very big stake in health service education, as I am sure the noble Earl knows. It has one of the most successful schools of radiography in the country, a very large physiotherapy school and an immense nursing school. In particular, of course, the university has very close connections with the University of Sheffield and with health services in the area. The reason for my supporting these amendments is the need to make sure that integration continues in a health service that might become rather more fragmented as more providers come in. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Willis of Knaresborough Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 12 but I have shifted my allegiance to Amendment 13, along with other noble Lords. However, I want to speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. In doing so, can I say how much I, too, very much appreciate the government amendments in this group?
At the end of the day, education and training have to be provided within hospital trusts, in general practice and—a slightly separate issue—in local authorities for public health consultants. At this level, local education and training boards are to be given responsibility for overseeing the provision of all this education. Here, local employers are to play a key role in the trusts. These local employers clearly have an interest in being able to plan for their manpower needs and in having an influence on what sort of training their employees should have to do the job that they want doing. However, they are not in the best position to decide the educational content of the programmes that the trainees go through. They are not best able to design the training or education of an orthopaedic surgeon or cardiologist, for example.
Furthermore, they may have a conflict of interest when they are asked to make sure that the facilities for training are adequate to their trusts’ needs. Is there a full range of patients coming through the hospital to give trainees the necessary experience so that a specialist trained in one area can practise somewhere else? Are there enough staff to enable trainees to have the time they need for education? Will they have the time to attend courses? Will it be in the trusts’ best interests to allow the rotation of their trainees to other trusts? In all these areas employers may have different priorities. For this reason, it is vital that we have the input of those with particular expertise in and knowledge of education and training, and enough independence to ensure that the training needs of the trainee are met.
Hitherto, specialist postgraduate training has involved the medical royal colleges in designing the curricula and educational programmes for trainees, and in setting and running the postgraduate exams and assessments, while the postgraduate deans are responsible for ensuring that local conditions are right for trainees—that training posts are available and for funding those posts. With the dissolution of the strategic health authorities, the postgraduate deans and deaneries are left in the air and the local education and training boards are to be taken over by the employing authorities. The amendments in my name try to redress that balance by ensuring that the training boards have in their membership the independent voices of those—namely the universities—whose prime role is to help them with the activities. To this I would add the postgraduate deans and colleges. Furthermore, it is important that the local education and training boards, while quite reasonably including local employers, should not be led by them. Boards should have sufficient independence to keep employing authorities focused on meeting the needs of trainees. That is why I have tabled these amendments.
I know that the Minister has given some reassurance from the Government along those lines in the letter that he has written to some us. He said in his letter, which I hope he will not mind my quoting back to him:
“This framework will be maintained in the new system, with the LETBs assuming responsibility for the quality management role at local level”.
That bothers me a little. Quality management should be independent of the employers themselves. We now need to see something in the Bill that will give us the confidence that it will happen.
My name is also attached to Amendment 105. Here we are concerned specifically that private providers should not be able to shirk their responsibility for training. There is no doubt that training requires more time and money. If private sector providers are able to avoid training, they will have an unfair advantage over NHS providers. Of course, there is much valuable experience and training to be gained from private practice. For those reasons, I am happy to support this amendment, too.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I support government Amendments 61 and 104. As regards Amendment 2, which the noble Baroness has introduced, Clause 6 adequately describes the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to education and training. My noble friend the Minister has done an incredibly important job in recognising the real anxiety that existed at Second Reading about education and training. Indeed, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for withdrawing his amendment at that time as that has enabled major discussions to take place on the issue.
Government Amendments 61 and 104 bring us to the heart of who will be driving much of the education and training—that is, the national Commissioning Board and the local commissioning groups. In fact, neither of these groups seems to have any responsibility for education and training, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, rightly says, they will be right at the heart of commissioning the healthcare required, whether it is in an NHS setting or a private, approved setting. That appears to be an omission in the Bill.
Although I have much sympathy with Amendment 109 of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and he is right to point out that there is a requirement on private sector providers or, indeed, third sector providers, to engage in training, I hope that when the Minister winds up on this group of amendments he will point out the advantages to those providers of engaging in education and training. Indeed, he has privately assured many of us that they are more than willing to do so because they cannot become qualified providers unless they are engaged in cutting-edge training and education.
In Amendment 109, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, raised the important issue of the involvement of universities. It worries many of us that the universities which have been very much at the heart of education and training, particularly postgraduate education and training, appear to be sidelined in the new architecture of the Bill. Frankly, that is unacceptable. It should not be for local employers to decide whether or not they want a university to be involved; it should be a requirement for universities to be involved. We must not have a situation where universities are regarded as predators in relation to education and training, as they are fundamental to it. If research is a fundamental part of the architecture of the Bill and of improving patient care, frankly, it is absurd to have universities outside that remit. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister responds he will assure us that universities are part of the solution—as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, rightly said—and are not seen as part of the problem.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I have just counted that in the course of the past few weeks and months I have attended 28 seminars, group discussions and personal meetings with Ministers, the Bill team and others. That was extremely useful. We have spent a lot of time discussing education and training. I pay warm tribute to the Minister—the noble Earl, Lord Howe—and his team and colleagues for the way in which they have responded and listened to many of the concerns which we have expressed about these problems. The Government have tabled a number of very helpful and constructive amendments. However, I seek to ascertain whether they meet all our concerns.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will say that our earlier concerns about research and its role in the NHS have been completely met. I agree with him entirely. We are satisfied on that point. However, in relation to education and training, I said at Second Reading that since the health service began, undergraduate training of doctors, medical students and dental students had always been the financial responsibility of the universities, but that it had always been the responsibility of the NHS to provide the clinical facilities in hospitals and general practices of the United Kingdom for the training of those undergraduate students. Of course, in more recent years, the newer universities—the former polytechnics—have played a major role in the training of other healthcare professionals such as nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and others. That commitment has been totally accepted.
However, postgraduate training of doctors, as the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Willis, have said—those who are training to become physicians, surgeons, psychiatrists, and specialists in any branch of medicine—is the financial responsibility of the National Health Service and has been from the very beginning of the NHS. At the same time, the NHS has employed postgraduate deans who have been very helpful and responsible in helping to provide that training. It has also been monitored throughout by the royal colleges and faculties that have provided the content and curricula for the training of these groups of specialists. It is crucial that that interrelationship of all these bodies be enshrined in the Bill, even when Health Education England comes into being. I am mildly surprised that all the amendments grouped with Amendment 2 deal with education and training, but so too do Amendments 13, 16, 62 and 106 that are equally important and crucial to this whole programme.
I therefore ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that in the amendments that the Government have tabled, or in regulations that he can assure us will follow, the responsibilities of the universities and other institutions of higher education will be enshrined and clarified. Is he satisfied that through the postgraduate deans and the clinical senates—wherever they are housed, or whether they are housed with the National Commissioning Board and its outreach into parts of the country—the responsibilities of the royal colleges and faculties will also be enshrined, and the postgraduate deans will thereby continue to supervise the programmes? Is he satisfied—and this is crucial—that independent foundation trusts and any qualified providers that are providing NHS services will be required to accept responsibilities for the training and education of healthcare professionals, just as NHS hospitals, general practices and other NHS institutions are?
It is crucial that these issues are confirmed, and I trust that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that in the government amendments, and in regulations that may follow, all our anxieties about these major issues will be accepted and covered to the benefit of the healthcare workforce and the National Health Service overall.