Care Workers

Debate between Andrew Smith and Norman Lamb

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising that issue. When I was a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I specifically pushed for a change in the rules to make it easier to name and shame poor employers. That process was not completed by the time I left BIS to go into the Department of Health, but I continue to push for it. Indeed, the rules were changed, so that whenever there is a notice of underpayment of the minimum wage, the employer is named.

There is a complication in the care sector, in that arrangements are often quite complex and reaching a final decision often requires an investigation to be carried out. However, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that I anticipate the naming of poor companies within this sector in the relevantly near future. I totally support that process; there should be no hiding places for employers who break the law in that way.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

What we all want to hear is a commitment that HMRC will proactively go out, uproot and stop these illegal practices. The thought comes to my mind that in other sectors where the Government have been shown to be negligent in regulating areas of activity—such as investment, with Equitable Life and so on—the Government end up having to pay back the victims. Why do the Government not pay back all these care workers who have lost so much money because of the incompetence of HMRC?

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. However, I repeat the point that it was this Government who arranged for that themed work in the care sector. A substantial sum of money was collected from employers who had broken the law and returned to their employees who had been underpaid. I repeat that I have requested that that themed work should start again. As he will understand, I do not have responsibility for HMRC. However, I have made that request and I will continue to push for that themed work to happen. Where it seems that there is clear evidence that a problem is endemic in a sector, we ought to be prepared to focus on it.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) talked about outsourcing. That problem did not start in 2010. Most of the outsourcing—the creation of a predominantly private sector work force—happened before 2010, and we all have to acknowledge that. It is an endemic and deep-rooted problem in the sector, which needs to be challenged effectively.

I will talk briefly about the care certificate, because another issue raised by right hon. and hon. Members is the fact that training standards are often inadequate. I must say that when I came into this job I was rather shocked to discover that there were no proper mechanisms for ensuring that employers were required to provide proper training for their staff. We are changing that situation. We commissioned Camilla Cavendish to produce a report on this issue, and we have now legislated through the Care Act 2014 for a care certificate, which will come into force next April. That certificate will set a national standard for minimum training and competence levels that every employer will have to meet. They will have to ensure that their staff either have the care certificate or something equivalent, and they will have to satisfy the Care Quality Commission that that is the case. If they cannot satisfy the CQC, it can take enforcement action against them. I am proud of the fact that we are taking decisive action to improve training standards.

Hon. Members have also raised the issue of the role of the CQC. It has the power—and Ministers have the power to request it to use that power—to carry out themed inspections of local authorities where there is evidence that commissioning is falling short, resulting in poor care. Part of poor care can sometimes be the terms and conditions offered by employers. I am determined that, if evidence of poor practice emerges, we use those powers to ensure that local authorities, as well as providers, are held to account, in order to raise the standards in this sector. We all agree that that is necessary, and that the underpayment of wages to care workers is not an acceptable practice.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication Services

Debate between Andrew Smith and Norman Lamb

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for raising this issue, and for his work, together with that of colleagues, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties. An occasion such as this is particularly valuable, as was the meeting that we had yesterday, in ensuring that Ministers focus on issues that might otherwise not get attention. I learned a lot from the meeting yesterday, and from my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech today. He clearly speaks with real authority on this subject. I was struck by his point about the lad who ended up with a PhD as a result of the support that these facilities can provide. He made the point very powerfully that they can change lives.

Augmentative and alternative or assistive communication is one of the more specialised areas of health and education provision. The number of children who will require support in this way is relatively small, perhaps less than 0.5% of the population, so it is important that we do not lose sight of them. My hon. Friend rightly made the point that the ability to speak and communicate is a pretty basic human right, and that it should be recognised as such.

Augmented communication has the potential to have a tremendous beneficial impact on the health and well-being of those whose condition places barriers between themselves and others, which until recently were insurmountable, and indeed, on their families and friends. Technological and therapeutic advances have in recent years revolutionised the support that can be given to those who have lost, or never had, the tools of speech and language that allow us all to interact and that are critical to development, to education, to work and to living one’s life. Augmentative and assistive communication—AAC—aids range from tools for paper-based communication to pretty sophisticated electronic equipment.

Support in the past has not always been of sufficient consistency and quality, and the Bercow review in 2007 and the subsequent work of the Communication Champion, Jean Gross, have helped to identify systemic improvements, culminating in a new approach to the commissioning of AAC that began just a few months ago. It is worth pointing out that the new system is in its very early days. I was pleased that my hon. Friend acknowledged that it had the potential to work effectively. It is perhaps understandable that we have not got it quite as we would want it to be, given the early stage that we are at, but I agree that it has enormous potential. There is significant clinical consensus behind the new approach, and I am proud to say that it has been developed from the new structures of commissioning that this Government have introduced into the NHS.

In April this year, NHS England took on responsibility for the direct commissioning of specialised assessment and the provision of augmentative and assistive communication aids for adults, children and young people. NHS England’s role as an independent national commissioner is particularly suited to the effective commissioning of extremely complex, yet relatively low volume, services of this kind. Let us bear in mind that the patients who require AAC aids have extremely complex needs and in many cases require bespoke equipment that has been designed for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) mentioned the training involved in the use of such equipment. It could not feasibly be provided by small-scale local services. Assessment and provision is needed by specialised tertiary providers with their concentration of expertise.

Previously, we had no national commissioning of AAC services and improvement across the board was essential. There was no standard or nationally consistent definition of those services, which were the commissioning and funding responsibility of the NHS. The effect of that was variation in the organisations commissioning and funding specialised AAC services and, crucially, inequitable access to them. There was a mix of non-NHS commissioning agencies, including social care and the education sector, to which my hon. Friend referred, and charity and third sector funding agencies that were commissioning the assessment and provision of specialised AAC aids. It was haphazard, depending very much on where people lived. That was unfair to those in need, and far from ideal for commissioners or providers.

That has now changed. NHS England—committed to ensuring national consistent commissioning of high quality, equitable and effective specialised services—has worked with the expert partners on its clinical reference group for complex disability to develop for the first time a nationally consistent specification for specialised AAC aids, which was subject to public consultation. The specification has allowed a clear demarcation of the responsibilities of clinical commissioning groups in relation to less specialised AACs—around 90% of the total provision. The highly specialised services will be commissioned by NHS England. It will be an important role for NHS England to work to support CCGs in their commissioning of the less specialised end of the spectrum and to ensure that we build capacity rather than lose it, as my hon. Friend feared could happen. If we get this right, the potential of having this specialist team working nationally with local commissioners could be significant.

In implementing the specification, NHS England will draw on the recommendations of the Bercow review and the Government communication champion to consider, in particular, how best to ensure more consistent and responsive commissioning of AAC aids across England and the implications of meeting unmet need. We know from recent research from Communication Matters that there is variation in service provision across England—the postcode lottery to which I referred—and inconsistency in identifying, assessing and providing AAC services.

A key priority is therefore to ensure that commissioning arrangements for this specialised service are placed on a much more robust and equitable footing across England. NHS England is working with its clinical reference groups and area teams to identify areas where there may be inequalities and where additional resources may be required to bring about better access. The clinical expertise both embedded in the organisation and accessed through its close association and close partnership working with organisations such as ACE—Aiding Communication in Education—will be decisive in this. I met Anna Reeves of ACE yesterday, and I would like to pay tribute to the amazing work she has done in leading the case for much better access to these services. She has worked tirelessly in that regard and should be credited for doing so.

I would also like to acknowledge the potential benefits of clinically-led commissioning of services for children with special educational needs as part of new joint arrangements, which will also provide far more tailored support, focused on the health and lifestyle outcomes for the child, for the developmental needs of children who require AAC aids. The Children and Families Bill sets out a framework for a new integrated approach to meeting the needs of children and young people with special educational needs. This will include many children, potentially the majority, of children in need of AAC aids.

In brief, the Bill’s provisions will get clinical commissioning groups and local authorities—and, in some cases, the NHS Commissioning Board, where it is acting as a commissioner of services for a child or young person—to enter into joint arrangements to assess, plan and commission the services needed by children and young people with special educational needs. Each child’s improvement outcomes, and the services they need to deliver them, will be captured in the education, health and care plan, to which the relevant commissioners will contribute. That is a much more joined-up approach than we have ever had in the past.

The new arrangements will be introduced in 2014, Parliament allowing. Twenty pathfinder local authorities are piloting new approaches to integrated assessments and the plans currently. The amended Bill now includes a duty on CCGs to secure the services that they agree the individual needs and which comprise the education, health and care plan. We have specifically required in the mandate for the NHS—the Government’s priorities—the need for improvement, through partnership working, to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and for ensuring that children have access to the services identified in the agreed care plan. AAC support will be a significant part of these plans for many children.

NHS England and CCGs will need to work closely with local authorities and, of course, health and wellbeing boards, which will include the local authority director of children’s services and the local healthwatch. That is the vehicle for a consensual local identification of needs and a local strategy for meeting them. The health and wellbeing board must, as our guidance makes clear, have particular regard for hard-to-reach groups and those with complex conditions, which will require more specialised health services, as well as ensuring it has an in-depth understanding of more widespread health needs among the population.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on initiating this important debate. In the allocation of resources and the approval of plans, what mechanisms for appeal will there be for individuals who feel that they have not been fairly treated, or indeed for areas that feel that?

[Norman Lamb]

There will be the potential to challenge and question to ensure that the individual is satisfied that their case has been properly heard, but I will also write to the right hon. Gentleman to fill in the details further to ensure that he understands the position fully.

Let me make a quick point about the historical budgets to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys referred. To start with, NHS England has worked on the basis of the amount spent hitherto. It is important to say that work is very much ongoing on this matter, and it is absolutely recognised that it is important to get it right and to assess the level of need so that we can identify how much needs to be spend on it. This is not a done deal and he should not assume that this is the end of the story. He also made a point about organisations with great expertise which could be excluded from being able to play a part in this. I can reassure him that they will be able to bid to do work. He also made the point about loss of equipment on leaving school, and it is really important that that is avoided; that sort of thing is utterly crazy and we must ensure continuity. As he rightly said, this is a health issue and it must be recognised as such. He talked about the hub-and-spoke issue. The relationship between the expert team nationally and the CCGs has the potential to work well to build capacity within the system to improve the level of expertise available and to ensure a more consistent approach.

I hope that what I have said today provides significant reassurance to hon. Members about the robustness of the new approach to deliver AAC aids, not least in the role of NHS England in leading the development of expert service specifications and implementing them in a national programme of commissioning to deliver improved and responsive communication support. We are not complacent and, together with NHS England, we understand that more needs to be done to ensure absolute consistency across England, so that everyone who needs it has access to high-quality, equitable and effective AAC support. We have in place the right system to deliver that; my profound belief is that we will shortly be able to recognise NHS England, in this regard, as an exemplar of the effective design and commissioning of specialised services.

Question put and agreed to.

Mental Health

Debate between Andrew Smith and Norman Lamb

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that he, too, had made that point. I knew that someone else had talked about it, but I could not remember who it was. I take his point; I have heard it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made a thoughtful speech in which he talked about reminiscences. Oh! He has gone! Even though it pains me, as a Norwich City supporter, to talk about Everton, it appears that Everton and even Southport have done some very good work in these areas. My hon. Friend talked about a continuum of mental health. That was a good point, well made. He also mentioned community treatment orders and the need to look at how they are working. I will certainly reflect on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made a powerful contribution about the mental health aspects of female genital mutilation, a most horrific experience suffered by so many young girls. I really pay tribute to her for the work that she has done on that issue. The fact that there are 66,000 females in this country who have suffered this assault was an extremely striking point.

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) talked about waiting times for access to treatment. He asked if he could gently challenge the Minister—I appreciated that approach. On the mandate for the NHS Commissioning Board, NHS England has been very clear that we expect it to assess the scale of the problem of access, including for IAPT. Other Members have raised the question of whether we are meeting the IAPT programme’s four-week target. We want the NHS Commissioning Board to assess the scale of the problem with a view to setting access standards.

One of the big problems relating to what I regard as the institutional bias against mental health is that on one side of the equation we have the 18-week maximum waiting time for physical health, which is a very powerful political driver of where the money goes, yet we have nothing equivalent for mental health on the other side. That, to me, is a lack of parity of esteem. For people with mental health problems, early access is particularly important to ensure that their condition can be halted, if possible, and the deterioration stopped. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green made a good point there, and he also rightly talked about the importance of consistency and continuity of care.

I want to mention four of the most important things that this Government are doing to create the environment and incentives for improving mental health across the system as a whole. The first is the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which creates a “parity of esteem” so that mental and physical health share the same importance, as we have discussed this afternoon. Changing the law is just the start, but it sends a clear signal—that mental health is important, and that the health and care system can and must play a leading role in changing attitudes across society as a whole.

Secondly, there is the mandate the Secretary of State has issued to NHS England. It shows the importance we have ascribed to mental health and makes it clear where improvements are needed. The mandate makes clear our overarching goal—that mental health must have equal priority with physical health across all aspects of NHS work. In particular, we have highlighted the need to close the gap in outcomes between people with mental illness and the population as a whole, as well as the absolute imperative to ensure that people can access the services they need when they need them. Neither of these facets of good mental health treatment is entirely up to scratch at the moment. I think we all recognise that.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The Minister is generous in giving way, and he is making some very important points. Would he include within this the importance of access to family therapy both to repair broken relationships and to aid recovery—an issue that Oxford Mind raised with me?

[Norman Lamb]

Yes, absolutely; I understand the importance of that. Incidentally, I visited children and adolescent services in Oxford and I was very impressed by the work under way there. I am getting a message that I am under some pressure from Mr Deputy Speaker to make some progress—

Winterbourne View

Debate between Andrew Smith and Norman Lamb

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in this area. He draws attention to the fact that there is a serious issue about the quality of commissioning and the work done by primary care trusts and, in some cases, local authorities. Too often, people seem to be placed in those settings and then to all intents are purposes forgotten about, which is not acceptable. Standards of commissioning and ensuring that contracts contain the right terms are extremely important.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that this whole dreadful saga—which he rightly describes as a national scandal—underlines the importance of self-advocacy for vulnerable people? In his legislation and any guidance that may follow from it, will he take steps to ensure that the voices of these most vulnerable people will be heard directly wherever possible?

[Norman Lamb]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valuable point, and I would be happy to discuss that with him further. Too often in the past there has been a paternalist approach in which others have decided what is best for individuals. Hearing the voice of people with learning disabilities is absolutely central to getting this matter right.

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill

Debate between Andrew Smith and Norman Lamb

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

My understanding is that people are approved for the SHA in which they work, but it is an important question and I will happily confirm the position to the hon. Gentleman in writing.

In the light of our legal advice, we do not believe that any decisions made about patients’ care and detention require review because of this irregularity. Doctors should continue to treat patients who are currently detained under the Mental Health Act in the usual way.

My second point is that we have been advised by First Treasury Counsel that there are good arguments to show that the detentions involving these particular approval processes were, and are, lawful. Given the seriousness of the issues, counsel also argues the need for absolute legal clarity and advises that this is most safely resolved through emergency retrospective legislation. We are taking that advice. As soon as the irregularity was identified, the Department moved swiftly to identify the best course of action and to put the necessary preparatory work in place. Officials immediately sought initial legal and clinical advice, and then swiftly analysed the options, including the reassessment of all the potentially affected patients, working with the health leads in the regions involved and clinical experts from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

When I was briefed on the situation, I asked for detailed information on the time it would take—the Secretary of State has also sought and obtained this advice—and the clinical risks involved in reassessing all potentially affected patients. Last Friday, the Secretary of State asked for an emergency Bill to be drafted over the weekend as a matter of contingency, and he briefed the Prime Minister personally the following day. Following further discussions and analysis over the weekend, the decision to introduce emergency legislation was taken on Sunday.

At all times, the Secretary of State’s priority—and, indeed, mine too—has been to resolve this in a way that follows clinical advice. That is the most important thing. In the interests of a group of highly vulnerable individuals, it is important to do this in the most sensitive way. It would not have been feasible quickly to reassess all the patients and it may well have caused great distress to them and their families.

We have worked to remedy the problem as it relates to current and future detentions. The accountable officers for the four SHAs in question have written to Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, to confirm that they have made the necessary changes to their governance arrangements. Furthermore, the accountable officers in the other six SHA areas have written to Sir David to confirm, in the light of this issue, that they have reviewed their own arrangements and are in full compliance with the Mental Health Act. That directly addresses the question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East. I can confirm, incidentally, that approval in one SHA applies elsewhere in England. The Bill will put right those doctors’ approvals wherever they are now practising. That again gives complete clarity to that particular point.

Although we believe that there are good arguments that past detentions under the Mental Health Act were and are lawful, it is vital that doctors, other mental health professionals and, most importantly, patients and their families have absolute confidence in the decisions made. That is why, in relation to past detentions, we have decided that the irregularity should be corrected by the Bill.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

On this serious matter, will the Minister give a fuller explanation of why, given that the proper procedure was not followed, making it irregular, it is none the less his advice that it remained lawful?

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill

Debate between Andrew Smith and Norman Lamb

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for that intervention. We have gone through a very careful process and have followed legal advice on what is necessary to regularise the position. This relates specifically to the approval function, which is defined in clause 1(2). As I have said, the legal advice is that this is the best way to regularise the issue that has been uncovered.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Before the Minister responded to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), he told my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that if mistakes had been made before the establishment of the SHAs, some of the doctors who had not been properly approved previously may not have been approved by the executive action that the Secretary of Sate referred to earlier. Will the Minister assure the Committee that, should such instances come to light, those doctors will also be subject to a re-approval process?

[Norman Lamb]

The first thing I want to clarify, again, is that the clause ensures that if any previous authorisations were not done in accordance with the statutory provisions, the clause regularises that process, full stop. Of course, if we go back a long way, that may apply to people who have long since been discharged from their section. This regularises the situation for all. It also ensures that the detention of anyone who continues to be sectioned is regularised, because the original authorisation is deemed to be acceptable under the Bill and in accordance with parliamentary intent, as the Secretary of State said earlier.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not fully answered my question. The Secretary of State has now properly given approval to those who were previously improperly approved. The Minister is right that many of the people in question may have retired or left, but some may still be practising. If further instances come to light, will they too be subject to a new scrutiny process?