National Health Service
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burns
I will now make progress.
Treatments available on the NHS are based on clinical need. There should never be any arbitrary rationing based on cost either locally or nationally—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh shouts from a sedentary position, “There is”, and waves a piece of paper a little like Chamberlain on his way back from Munich, but if the piece of paper that the right hon. Gentleman is waving is his NHS health check, which officials in my Department have looked at, it is as worthless as the piece of paper that Chamberlain brought back from Munich.
If the right hon. Gentleman has any genuine evidence based on the cost of care, I and the Department of Health will certainly investigate it. Such practices are totally unacceptable, and we will take them very seriously indeed, but until then, although the motion talks about “the evidence presented”, the truth is that there is none.
The right hon. Gentleman claims that the number of cataract operations has fallen significantly since we came to power, but the reason for the fall is that clinicians have advised that the surgery is inappropriate in many cases—on clinical grounds. Surgery is available, however, for those patients who are clinically eligible, and they will receive it when there is a clinical reason.
Mr Burns
No, I am making progress.
The motion notes the growing involvement of the private sector, insisting that it represents evidence of growing privatisation. Not only is that unadulterated tosh, but I personally find it offensive to be accused of seeking to privatise the NHS, when in my political philosophy one of my core beliefs is in an NHS free at the point of use for all those eligible to use it.
Not only does the right hon. Gentleman have some difficulty understanding the meaning of “privatisation”, but he forgets his own record in government. The only plan to increase the private provision of NHS services came under the previous Government when he was Minister, when his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) was the special adviser and when Patricia Hewitt was Health Secretary. In May 2007, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“Now the private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate.”
Those are his words. It was his Government who saw private companies paid 11% more than NHS providers for doing the same work, and who wasted £297 million on operations that never happened at independent sector treatment centres. Given that he may have forgotten, I must tell him that the Labour party manifesto in 2010, when he was the Secretary of State for Health, stated:
“Foundation trusts will be given the freedom to expand their provision into primary and community care, and to increase their private services—where these are consistent with NHS values”.
That suggests that, as Secretary of State, he was prepared to have in his own party’s manifesto a policy allowing and encouraging foundation trusts to attract more work from the private sector.
This Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012 specifically prohibits the Secretary of State, Monitor or the NHS Commissioning Board from favouring any type of provider, be they from the NHS, the charitable sector or the independent sector. It does so because this Government understand something that the right hon. Gentleman’s never did—it is not the nature of the provider, but the quality of the outcomes that matters most to patients.
Care and Support
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It was neglectful of me not to mention that the White Paper and the announcement that I have made also drew on the recommendations and work of the Health Committee, and I am pleased to have been able to respond to its report as well.
First, matters relating to the legislative programme for the next Session will be announced in the normal way in the Gracious Speech. Secondly, I am determined that we will not only, I hope, have continuing cross-party talks but that they will be conducted, as I think that the shadow Secretary of State himself would wish, with the sector in a more open, public debate. If we were able to arrive at a position whereby, notwithstanding the fact that funding decisions might be made in the spending review, there was scope to put in place legislative provisions that allowed that to happen and could be agreed in time for the introduction of the draft Care and Support Bill, then we would look to make that happen. However, that is conditional at this stage.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to forget two things. First, his Government did not implement the Personal Care at Home Act 2010, which would have made a difference to people. Secondly, they did not ask Dilnot to consider where the money was coming from, so he can hardly be blamed for not putting forward suggestions. The Secretary of State has committed to a few of Dilnot’s principles but ignored the fact that he advised the closure of the current funding gap in social care. Will he back Labour’s call for the Treasury to use £700 million of this year’s health underspend to close that funding gap, which is the cause of the crisis in social care?
Mr Lansley
First, it is ironic that the shadow Secretary of State said that local authorities would be aghast if they were asked to do extra things without resources given that we are providing those resources and that the Personal Care at Home Act was completely unfunded, which is why local government was desperate for us not to proceed with it. Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues are very clear, as are we, that there are, as I said in my statement, baseline funding pressures on local authorities in relation to social care. That will be addressed in the next spending review, as it was necessarily addressed in the previous spending review in direct response to recommendations that Andrew Dilnot gave us in 2010.
Oral Answers to Questions
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware, as other Members are, that this is an independent review conducted by the joint committee of primary care trusts. On that basis, I will not comment directly on anything said in that context. I simply reiterate what was made clear in last year’s debate that the joint committee will not conduct its review solely on the basis of the options set out in its original consultation.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Regarding the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the Government did not promise to give us a progress report on funding, but to legislate in this Session to reform social care funding. Social care is now widely seen as being in crisis. When will the Secretary of State commit to acting urgently—because urgency is needed now—to tackle this crisis?
Mr Lansley
I must correct the hon. Lady. We did not say that we would legislate in the current Session. What we made clear was that we would publish a White Paper—which we will do—and that we would publish a progress report on funding reform. We were also clear—as we still are—about the fact that, as part of the coalition programme, we would act urgently, and we will continue to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
For both end-of-life care and social care more generally, the Budget was a real missed opportunity, in that the Government did not signal what they were going to do about the future funding of social care. Will the Secretary of State now update us on the discussions that he has had with the Treasury about what will be done about the gap in the future funding of social care?
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, the Chancellor set out very clearly his intention that a White Paper on the reform of social care would be published in the spring. The hon. Lady may wish to know that we are in direct discussions with the Opposition to seek consensus about the long-term reform of social care funding.
Health and Social Care Bill
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, for what I hope will be a brief intervention prompted by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
Later this evening, the House will consider—yet again, many of us would say—the Health and Social Care Bill, but the issue for consideration now is whether the Government should publish the transitional risk register on the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne was explicit that he was not arguing that all strategic risk registers should be published, and acknowledged the argument that there needed to be private space in which civil servants could give advice to Ministers secure in the knowledge that it would remain private, because there was an important interest of good government that that discipline and space should exist. That is an argument that he explicitly accepted and of which I am a strong supporter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reminded the House that only yesterday two retired former heads of the civil service told peers in the other place of the importance of the principle that Ministers must be able to receive advice from civil servants on policy issues, including the risks associated with them, without that advice later becoming public. The issue that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne did not cover but which is important is that there needs to be confidence within the civil service about which side of the line advice will fall. If civil servants can give advice to Ministers believing that it will remain confidential and if, after the advice is given, the line is moved and the advice falls to be published, we run the risk that across Whitehall the space that he advocates will, in truth, not exist, because there will not be the confidence that the advice will not later fall to be published.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about advice. It has been made clear that this is not advice but a management assessment of risks relating to the Bill and the reorganisation. It is not about policy or advice, which is why it is important that it is released.
Mr Dorrell
It is an interesting debate whether a risk register about a transition related to a policy is advice about policy or advice about management. The issue is that there is doubt. If the Government surrender this line without arguing the case to its conclusion, there is space for doubt about whether these risk registers will remain confidential or whether they will be published. The important principle is certainty.
Health and Social Care Bill
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Burstow
No, I am going to make some progress and then I will be more than happy to give way. [Interruption.] I am sure there will be more opportunities and I will give way in a moment.
On how Monitor exercises its powers, the Government have supported amendments made in the House of Lords, which were tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Williams, providing that the Secretary of State can give Monitor guidance to help ensure it exercises its functions in a manner consistent with the Secretary of State’s duty to promote a comprehensive health service. The amendments also help to ensure that the Secretary of State can discharge effectively his responsibility for the health service in England and to ensure that Monitor carries out its functions to that end. I therefore commend the amendments to the House. Both this House and the Lords have stressed the need for Monitor to use its powers to support integrated services and co-operation between providers. The Government therefore tabled amendments in the other place to provide express powers for Monitor to set and enforce licence conditions that would enable integration and co-operation between providers.
On the detail of Monitor’s specific regulatory powers, Monitor would have powers to intervene proactively to support commissioners in ensuring continued access to NHS services if a provider became unsustainable. Amendments tabled by the Labour peer Lord Warner, which we agreed in the other place, provide that Monitor will have to identify and publish evidence where it identifies risk that it considers arises from unsustainable service configurations. Those amendments would require commissioners to act on that information where necessary. Hence, they make clear the expectation that commissioners will address problems proactively and ensure that patients continue to have sustainable access to the services they need. These are sensible provisions that had support from all parts of the House of Lords and I hope that this House will also agree to them.
I want to say a bit more about the powers and responsibilities of Monitor, which relate to further amendments made in the other place. The extent of the various matters that Monitor would have to take into account was the subject of considerable debate in this House and the other place. I want to be absolutely clear about where we are regarding the overarching duty that Monitor has to take into account. Monitor will have a single, unequivocal duty—to protect and promote the interests of patients by promoting provision of NHS services that is economic, efficient and effective and that maintains or improves the quality of services. Beyond that overarching duty there is no hierarchy. No preference is given to competition or integration because integration is clearly a responsibility that sits with commissioners and Monitor’s role is to support it.
Peers also raised concerns about proposals for the Competition Commission to undertake seven-yearly reviews of competition in the provision of NHS services. The Government were sympathetic to the arguments and were concerned that it might be taken to suggest that competition was being given a higher status than the interests of patients. In order to avoid that, we accepted an amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones that removed the provision in the Bill for Competition Commission reviews. We also supported other amendments tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones requiring the Office of Fair Trading to seek advice from Monitor whenever it considers mergers or potential mergers involving foundation trusts. The amendments will help to ensure that benefits to patients are evaluated on an informed basis by a sector-specific regulator giving its expert advice to the OFT in the discharge of its responsibilities and as a paramount consideration.
Paul Burstow
Absolutely not; the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which had a substantial exposé in The Mail on Sunday, really do not bear as close an examination as he would like of them. We know that the relationship that existed in terms of contracting McKinsey to provide services was one that the previous Government engaged in far more freely than the current Administration. The amounts that this Government have contracted and the nature of the relationships that this Government have are far smaller.
Barbara Keeley
I have asked the Secretary of State about McKinsey and Co. in this Chamber and through a written question, but neither he nor anybody in the Department seems able to confirm whether it has access to the risk register. It seems very strange to me that the Department is not able to answer the question of an hon. Member about what access that organisation has to those documents. It is a very strange set-up.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady says it is a strange set-up and refers to her endeavours to get an answer to the question. I have not seen details of her exchange with the Secretary of State, but I will look at that and write to her with an answer to the question.
Barbara Keeley
I do not know whether I am alone in this—I do not think so—but the notion of foundation trust governors having to approve an increase in private patient income does not feel like much of a safeguard, especially as the governors are inclined to balance the books. It just means that the proportion of private patient income will slowly grow to 49%, rather than jump to it straight away. While we are thinking about this aspect of clause 163, I understand that the Department of Health still has an explicit target in the operating framework to increase the proportion of non-public sector provision purchased with NHS funding. There are so many pressures and drivers that the denial that it is privatisation and the influx of competition—[Interruption.] It is privatisation that will slowly grow to 49%.
Paul Burstow
Absolute nonsense. That is part of the rhetoric and fantasy that we have heard throughout the Bill’s passage. Let me deal directly with it by reference to examples of current practice. The Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton and Harefield all earn very high levels of private income but are consistently rated highly as providers of NHS services. They use those resources to reinvest in NHS services.
Health and Social Care Bill
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of the motion, which notes the e-petition and declines to support the Bill in its current form. As has been said but deserves repeating, the Conservative-led Government have no democratic mandate for the Bill; quite the opposite, given the Prime Minister’s promise that
“with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures”
of the NHS. Yet this reckless and unnecessary top-down reorganisation will cost £3.5 billion, which could be spent on patient care.
Already in my local area and many others, patients are losing services, waiting longer and receiving poorer treatment than before. Salford primary care trust has ended its active case management service for people with long-term conditions—the service had been both popular and effective. NHS budget cuts have meant that a community matron service was ended in a local area.
The Select Committee on Health recently dealt with the impact of the NHS reorganisation in its report on public expenditure—my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) quoted it. The report concluded:
“The reorganisation process continues to complicate the push for efficiency gains...it more often creates disruption and distraction that hinders the ability of organisations to consider…effective ways of reforming service delivery and releasing savings.”
Cuts are having a direct effect on treatment. A staff member of the local branch of the Parkinson’s Disease Society told me recently that NHS cuts mean that GPs and pharmacists are switching to cheaper brands of drugs for patients with Parkinson’s, many of which are much less effective. One person was admitted to hospital. She became ill following a switch to a cheaper, less effective medicine. The hospital staff told her that she should be “firm with her GP” and insist on the more expensive brand.
The Bill brings competition into the NHS at a level that is unhealthy and unwanted. The PIP breast implants saga showed us the dangers for the NHS of a vast increase in private provision when regulation of medical products for use in surgery is so poor. In January, 14 consultants, GPs and public health experts wrote a letter to The Times about the expansion of private provision and the issues arising from PIP implants. They warned that the Health and Social Care Bill
“provides much less protection for patients should their provider fail than is available to people booking package holidays”.
With PIP implants and private surgery, there was a strong marketing sell to patients of the benefits of surgery but little information about risks, and little or no interest in aftercare. That is an important warning. We know that there are potential health issues with metal-on-metal hip implants, yet there will be pressure on patients waiting for a hip or knee replacement to go for private surgery to avoid the waiting lists that we know are building up.
The Bill risks creating a two-tier NHS and a return to the long waiting lists experienced under Conservative Governments in the 1990s—the Government have already watered down guarantees on NHS waiting times. I recall meeting a patient in 1997 who had been waiting up to two years for vital heart surgery, yet more recently in my constituency I have met people whose lives have been saved in a matter of days by the rapid diagnosis and treatment of cancers.
A number of local GPs have written to me calling on the Government to drop the Bill because they feel it undermines the bond of trust between doctor and patient. One GP told me:
“The reforms are being made on the cheap. GPs are being asked to do the work of the PCTs with half of the funding and all of the blame when problems arise. The Bill drives a wedge between primary and secondary care.”
That GP actually supports the theory of clinicians being given more input and supports a reduction in bureaucracy, but says that the Bill “does the exact opposite” because it introduces new layers of bureaucracy such as the clinical senate. He says that people coming in
“are doing so at different levels of understanding…leading to confusion.”
He feels that, ultimately,
“it will be the patients who will suffer…no one has asked the patients what they want.”
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend describes a GP in her constituency, but a GP in mine described his concern to me. He said that he is there to be a doctor and wants to care for patients, and that he does not have the expertise to be a manager. That is the overwhelming concern of his colleagues around the country. Does she agree that that is the danger of that part of the Bill?
Barbara Keeley
I very much agree. Only quite recently have GPs expressed such concern. I have never known GPs to come to their MPs in numbers, as they are doing, to complain about the implementation issues they are already finding. As I said, the GP I quoted supported the idea of GPs being more involved with decisions about patients, but he now thinks that the Bill is
“simply a mask for a cost cutting exercise…a way to deal with the NHS on the cheap. A way of farming out support systems…e.g. clinical support, into the private sector.”
He says:
“More money will be taken out of the NHS and put into the private sector.”
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked us to trust the wisdom of our GPs. That is a damning indictment by a Salford GP, and one that I believe is echoed by GPs up and down the country. Trusting the wisdom of my local GP, I urge hon. Members to support the motion.
Adult Social Care
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on leading the debate and on the way in which she has just opened it? It is good to work with her on the all-party group on social care. In debates such as this we work together to ensure that social care receives the focus that it needs to have in the House.
I want to discuss two aspects of the future of social care. The first is the current crisis in care and the need to bring in extra resources to close the funding gap. The second is the recommendations of the Dilnot report, which the hon. Lady has already touched on, which mainly focused on dealing with the catastrophic cost of sustained high-level care and support.
On the funding gap, the Minister told me and the Health Select Committee recently:
“We don’t accept the position that there is a gap. We have closed that gap in the spending review.”
However, Age UK’s “Care in Crisis” report says:
“This year spending on older people’s social care in England has fallen by £500 million and the funding gap is growing. … We project that by 2011-13 the Government would need to spend £1 billion more than this year to stop the situation getting any worse. … The current system is at breaking point.”
Research by Age UK showed that 82% of local authorities now provides care only to those with substantial or critical needs. Fewer than one in five local councils still provide care for those with moderate needs. I have to say I am happy that that includes my own local authority of Salford.
The Economic and Social Research Council centre for population change has looked at the issue of unmet need for social care. It concludes that, regardless of the data source used,
“there is significant unmet need for care among older people.”
For example, 66% of people aged over 65 who need help with bathing were not receiving any support. That figure was based on data from 2008 and since then we have had front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets. I am sure that, although there is no up-to-date estimate, there are greater levels of unmet need than the figure I have given.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has reported £1 billion of cuts to adult social care budgets in 2010-11, with further cuts predicted for next year.
This week many of us were involved when about 1,000 campaigners and 60 organisations lobbied Parliament for the urgent reform of social care and an end to the care crisis. For the first time, thousands more who could not attend Parliament joined the lobby online. A statement from those care and support organisations to MPs and Ministers said:
“Our social care system is broken. It cannot cope with a rapidly ageing population and positive impact of people living longer with illness and disability. Those who use our social care system can no longer tolerate a social care system which leaves many with no support and others with poor quality services. The public are angry that they can face huge care charges and end up losing all their savings or being forced to sell their home.”
One of the 1,000 people who came to Parliament to lobby MPs was a deaf-blind woman from Manchester who got up at 5 am to travel down because she said she was so worried about the future of social care. The Care and Support Alliance said that MPs heard personal experiences from people who need care but are receiving none, disabled people unable to access the support needed to live independently, families paying huge bills for care and carers pushed to breaking point.
I wanted to test the situation in my local area before the debate. Over the past few days I checked with three organisations that support older people and carers in Salford and the neighbouring area in Greater Manchester. This drew a depressing but familiar picture of services worsening, mainly due to budget cuts, but also due to cuts and organisational changes brought about by the NHS reforms. A staff member at Parkinson’s UK in Greater Manchester told me about her clients, people who have worked hard all their lives but are now struggling to pay for services that are essential to them. In some cases she had to apply for grants to help people with Parkinson’s buy a profiling bed or even pay off debts.
The staff member told me about a couple struggling to pay for the care needed by the husband, who has Parkinson’s. To help get him out of bed and dressed costs £22 an hour, and having someone sit with him while his wife does the shopping costs £11 an hour. Another carer of someone with Parkinson’s and dementia had her respite care cut from two weeks a year to one week. She feels that she cannot cope without those two weeks of respite. The staff member also told me that budget cuts mean that people with Parkinson’s can wait for a year for a stair lift, and she knows one man who has to go to bed at 7 pm because later in the evening his mobility gets worse and he cannot manage the stairs.
The staff member also told me that NHS efficiency targets mean that GPs are switching to cheaper brands of drugs for patients with Parkinson’s, but many of these are less effective. One person she told me about was admitted to hospital after becoming ill following a switch to a cheaper, less-effective medicine. The hospital staff had told her to “be firm with her GP” and insist on the more expensive brand. We have to be realistic that that is a difficult thing to do. NHS budget cuts in the local area have meant the loss of the community matron service, a service that was used by Parkinson’s UK staff for many of their clients but has now ended. In Salford—I have raised this point before—the primary care trust ended the pilot of active case management for people with long-term conditions, which was proving popular and effective.
Locally, Age Concern has told me that it has now lost the funding for a “Friends for Life” pilot scheme, which was part of the national dementia strategy. Its dementia support service has a planned income reduction of 40% over three years. It has had to make seven staff redundant and reduce its dementia support. Funding for day centres is being reduced by one fifth and will then be ended owing to the switch to direct payments from individual budgets. We all support personalisation and individual budgets, but not if it is a cover for cuts. I was disturbed to hear of a couple of cases where that is happening. In one case I was told about, a carer who had previously had two hours of respite care was given a budget of £9 and told, “Do what you want with the money.”
Our carers’ centre manager in Salford told me of her own experience of such cuts, this time to the personal budget of a family member she cares for with a learning disability who lives in Sheffield. Following what she described as a “fairly perfunctory” re-assessment that was done solely with the person with the learning disability, with no input from a carer or guardian—that is an important point—the personal budget was cut by £10,000. In that case, the carers’ centre manager was able to lodge a complaint and get legal help from a community care lawyer, but she knows that such an intervention would not be possible for other carers. These examples are what we mean when we talk about a care system in crisis.
However, those are not the worst examples. As I mentioned earlier, we know that some 800,000 older people are left without basic care. They have been described as
“lonely, isolated and at risk”.
Those are the words of 60 experts in social care in their recent letter asking the Government to make social care reform a top priority. We therefore know that the problem of unmet need is getting worse. Much of the additional burden will fall on unpaid family carers, many of whom are already overburdened. Statistics from the NHS Information Centre show that the proportion of carers providing more than 50 hours a week has doubled in the past 10 years. I think that that is the level at which it can be counted as a 24/7 caring job, as was discussed by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod).
Many organisations have sent us briefings for this debate. There is a consistent call for a solution to the care crisis. Carers UK calls for the capped costs model that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth talked about. It sees a cap on costs as essential. It favours the cap being set at £35,000, which it feels would give carers and families the ability to plan for care arrangements and costs, and provide an opportunity for the development of care insurance products. I agree with that assessment and would caution against setting the cap at a higher level, such as £60,000, which has been discussed in the media. That is the value of some properties in Salford, so it could mean a family losing the entire value of their home, which would be wrong.
Carers UK believes that if families know that costs will be capped, they might be more willing to buy care and support earlier. That would help to promote independence and reduce the pressure on carers, which can result in ill health, giving up work or reducing working hours. It is thought that it will be harder to produce that shift in behaviour and move towards a new market in insurance products without a capped costs model.
Care and Support Alliance members argue for an additional £5 billion to be put aside over the next three years to meet the growing demand for social care. The cases that I have mentioned show that there is a clear need for additional resources to meet the growing demand, address the unmet need and tackle the shortfall in resources that has been growing for some years.
The Dilnot commission was given the task of making recommendations on how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support. Its report confirmed what has been said repeatedly for years: the current system is unfair and unsustainable, and without reform it will deliver ever-poorer outcomes for individuals and families. That includes the 1,000 people we saw here this week. The report also said that the funding of social care is inadequate and that people are not receiving the care and support that they need.
Although we may not have time to discuss this today—I certainly will not—the provision of advice and information is poor and very limited. People struggle to find financial information and advice, and there is little information and advice for carers. Worst of all—perhaps we can understand this—because the system is complex and difficult to understand, most people do not plan for, or even think about, the future care provision that they may need.
There is much consensus around the capped costs model. There is support for setting a cap at £35,000 and, as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned, for setting an asset threshold for means-tested support at £100,000. There are other important aspects, such as the need for national eligibility criteria and the need for local authorities to meet the eligible needs of carers. I think that those points are equally important. What still needs to be discussed, and I am not sure whether we will get into it today, is how to pay for the capped costs model and the additional resources that are needed to close the funding gap.
Care and Support Alliance members believe that there is a public appetite for reform. I think that we must take the debate across the country and ensure that the issues and solutions that I have talked about start to be debated. I have spoken about social care issues for the past seven years and I believe that they are now well understood. The 60 organisations that have lobbied Parliament this week have been lobbying on these issues for many years. The people in those organisations and the people they represent are tired of being consulted on the future of social care. What they want is action.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate my colleague on the Health Committee on her contribution to the report on social care. Does she agree that underlying the issue of care in crisis is an issue with the work force, who often work on the minimum income, are poorly regarded and are subjected to a lot of unfavourable reporting in the press? Does she think that we take them for granted when we look at the overall sector?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, the work force issues are very important. I will not have time to discuss them today, but perhaps other Members will. The things that we hear about, such as tasks being reduced to one-minute periods and visits being cut down to very short periods, must make it a distressing and difficult job. We also have to recognise that personalisation leads to people working in an isolated way. Whereas before they might have been part of a local authority work force, they are now individually employed by care agencies and may not see anyone else. There are some new issues for us to consider, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
In 2009, after much consultation, my party brought forward plans to establish a national care service. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State knows, Labour’s proposals for funding social care were treated as a political football, and there were some regrettable political attacks on them during the general election. That was unfortunate, and we cannot allow it to continue. I congratulate him on going back into the cross-party talks with great willingness, which must have been difficult knowing what happened to him during the election. We must work to achieve consensus across parties and across the country, because the issues that I have mentioned are becoming more pressing than ever before.
I believe I have found a unique way to link two speeches today, both of which you have heard, Madam Deputy Speaker. I talked earlier about women in sport, and this Sunday I will be running in a 10 km race to raise funds for Age UK’s “Spread the Warmth” campaign, which is aimed at making life better for older people in winter and avoiding needless deaths from the cold.
Paul Burstow
I am most certainly aware of that. Social isolation is a huge burden on the individuals affected by it and has huge consequences for health care. That is why, when I talk about independence, I also mean interdependence—the recognition of the value of family support and carers, and of the fact that people need to be active in their community throughout their life. Social care has a role to play in enabling people to do just that, rather than become institutionalised in their own home or a care home. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
The Dilnot commission made a number of recommendations on the development of a system such as I mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth described them well. In the spending review, we allocated an additional £2 billion by 2014-15 —£7.2 billion over the spending review period as a whole. In November 2010, we also set out our vision for social care reform, including the roll-out of personal budgets and greater personalisation. I agree that we need to ensure that that is genuinely about how we enrich people’s lives, not just an opportunity to reduce the available resources to individuals. We are also investing £400 million over four years to help to give carers much needed breaks. We are ensuring that the NHS is held firmly to account for delivering the money in the coming year by making sure that it has to account directly to carers’ organisations locally, and agree with local authorities the plans to provide breaks, spell out how many there will be and the size of the budget for that purpose.
It is also important to dispel a myth about social care, which has been hanging around for far too long—that, in some way, it is just like the NHS and free. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, it is not free and never has been. If people assume that the state will pick up the bill, they are unlikely to prepare themselves. If they do not prepare and they need help, the impact can be truly devastating for them and their families: life savings wiped out, family homes full of memories sold off, and thoughts of a comfortable retirement turned to dust.
We therefore recognise the problem, which is getting worse. Our population is ageing, and that should be a cause for celebration. Too often, debates about ageing in our media are couched in terms of demographic time bombs and the like. However, the current care and support system is not fit for purpose. I agree with the Care and Support Alliance about that. It is broken, and patching and mending it is no longer acceptable.
However, reforming social care will not be easy. As has been said, it will require bold thinking and difficult decisions. The Dilnot commission shed much needed light on the reality of social care funding. Soon, we will publish a White Paper and a progress report setting out our response to the recommendations.
Barbara Keeley
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on what is meant by “spring”. There is speculation that spring might extend to May, June or July. When I was in government, I spent a lot of time answering questions about what spring meant in relation to Government reports. Will he tell us what it means now?
Paul Burstow
On that basis, the hon. Lady knows the answer that I would give and I shall therefore not tire her by saying what she would have said if she were in my place. We are anxious to publish a White Paper as soon as we can in a way that ensures that we have successful dialogue with the Opposition on funding. Those two matters are interdependent.
We are considering not just funding reform, but the legal structure that governs social care, which must be updated. The Law Commission has done a sterling job of making recommendations for replacing the patchwork that has built up in the past 60 years with a legal framework fit for the 21st century. A new social care law will bring clarity where today there is a complicated and confusing system, facilitate personalisation and support staff, service users and carers.
Beyond that, we need high-quality, integrated care, which focuses on early intervention, prevention and the needs of the individual. Better care is about not just spending more money, but spending it much more wisely. The Health Committee made that point powerfully to us. Some councils do that well; others could do it better. That is why the Government are jointly funding with the Local Government Association work to support councils to release savings while improving the care and support they provide.
The Health and Social Care Bill will foster far greater integration between the NHS, social care and, importantly, other public services. Health and wellbeing boards will bring together democratically elected local councillors, directors of children’s services, adult social services and public health services, clinical commissioning groups, and, importantly, the public through Healthwatch, to improve services in our communities. They will identify local needs now and for the future and, importantly, be accountable for setting the strategy to meet those needs. The unprecedented transfer of money from the NHS to social care is creating new opportunities for joint working.
However, we have a long way to go to improve the quality of social care, especially for older people. Clinical audits on fractures or continence care; the parliamentary inquiry into the human rights of older people in health and social care; and damning reports by charities such as the Alzheimer’s Society and Age UK all point to the fact that health and social care in England is far from universally excellent. In too many cases, it is very far indeed from being excellent. There can be no excuses and no mitigating circumstances. Yes, there are excellent staff working in our services, but some staff need to be challenged, and some need to leave the profession because they do not do the right thing. We need to be honest. We need to applaud the good, but to shine a light where there is no good.
It is not a matter of not having enough staff. In some places—
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, not least as co-chair with Baroness Pitkeathley of the all-party group on carers. The first point I want to make is about the phrase “adult social care”. One of the difficulties in this area is that if we are not careful we develop a secret garden of policy and we all start to descend into shorthand—referring to Dilnot as though everyone understands the five paragraphs that follow from that. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State for Health made a good point when he said that, for many people, this is all about being afraid of getting old. I think that this should be about not adult social care but care of the elderly.
When the Law Commission was asked to define social care, the best that it could come up with was the phrase
“promote or contribute to the well-being of the individual.”
That was pretty otiose. We should focus on care for the elderly because we will need to enlist in our constituencies many more people to get involved in this, not least local councillors, with the introduction of health and wellbeing boards. I do not know about other hon. Members but, although I think that the provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill on integration are really good news—I will come on to that in a second—I do not sense that county councillors and others have yet woken up to the fact that shortly they will be part of the boards and will be involved in delivering integrated care. Part of the reason for that is that this has been a bit of a secret garden of policy. One of the things that Ministers will have to do in the near future is go out and talk to, in two-tier authorities such as mine, county councillors, but in others those councillors who are responsible for running social services, to get across the fact that the whole way in which services are delivered will fundamentally change.
About half the speeches this afternoon have been what I would describe as old-fashioned speeches to Ministers, saying, “Please can we have some more money?” The truth of the matter, as we all know, is that there is no more money. It is actually more challenging than that. We have the Nicholson challenge of 4% efficiency savings in the NHS over four years. We will make this work only if we completely rethink the way in which we deliver services. We all know of far too many people who are in hospital but could be moved elsewhere if intermediate beds were available. That would mean they could be moved out of acute beds, such as those at the John Radcliffe hospital or the Horton general hospital in Banbury, but that would require someone working out how to provide more community facilities and intermediate beds and how they would be paid for, and that will require a lot of rethinking by county councillors and GP commissioning bodies working together.
We have to start to put this in a language that everyone understands. When the White Paper is published in the “spring”—that leaves only April—there is a danger that we will all get fixated on Dilnot and the cap. It seems to me that that is just one part of the whole equation for improving care for the elderly and, increasingly, elderly people suffering from dementia. The figures on dementia are really pretty scary. Among the many organisations that produced briefings for today’s debate is the Alzheimer’s Society, which reports—I had forgotten this—that there are now nearly 750,000 people in the UK with dementia, and that figure is set to rise to over 1 million by 2021, when many of us expect still to be in the House.
Dementia costs the UK economy £20 billion a year. When I was first elected to the House, most Christmases I would visit the homes for the elderly in my constituency. The residents then were mostly spry widows in their 70s, but now all the homes are almost totally full of people suffering from dementia or age-related dementia. This is about how we care for the elderly and, increasingly, elderly people with dementia, many of whom are having to stay at home longer. Indeed, the Alzheimer’s Society says that more than half of the people suffering from dementia have not yet been diagnosed as such because their families or those are caring for them are probably disguising the fact.
Barbara Keeley
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thought that my speech was one of the old-fashioned ones asking for more resources, but he probably did. However, I gave three examples of cuts to services for people with long-term conditions: the support services for people with dementia that Age Concern was running; a community matron service; and active case management for people with long-term conditions. It is inexcusable for those to be cut. If the Nicholson efficiency reforms are causing those services to be cut there is no way forward, because those are the supports in the community that will keep people out of hospital. It seems crazy. I now have three examples, whereas at Christmas I had only one. I am distressed to think that those services are being cut, because they are the way to support those people in the community.
Tony Baldry
One of the advantages of having been in the House for a little while is that one spends some time on the Government side, some time on the Opposition side and some time on the Government side again—I hope not to be on the other side again but am quite content wherever. One of the things I have learnt is that which side one sits on does not change reality. The reality is that this challenge is so enormous that it will not be solved simply by all of us telling the Treasury, “You’ve given us £2 billion. Please can we have another £4 billion, or another £8 billion.” It will only be changed if we fundamentally rethink how we deliver services for the elderly. If all Members asked how many delayed discharges there were in the general hospitals in each of our constituencies, I suspect that we would find that it is a huge number—I am afraid that Oxfordshire is currently one of the worse offenders. We have to do better. We have to fundamentally rethink the whole way we deliver these services.
Health and Social Care Bill
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister’s letter promised
“additional safeguards to the private income cap”.
Will the Secretary of State explain what are these additional safeguards aimed at ensuring that foundation trusts cannot focus on private profits before patients?
Mr Lansley
We have already made it very clear in another place that the legislation will ensure that foundation trusts should have the freedom to increase their private income, not least in relation to international work. However, their principal legal purpose is for the benefit of NHS patients, and so they already have to make sure that they reflect that in their annual reports and in their annual plans. As the letter indicates, we are, with my hon. Friends in another place, working on a further corporate governance mechanism to ensure that foundation trusts reflect their principal legal purpose in all that they do. [Interruption.]
NHS Risk Register
Barbara Keeley Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
It was, and it was staggering—my hon. Friend will remember this—that all the difficulties associated with building the Norfolk and Norwich PFI were evident to the last Government and yet they carried on. They carried on signing up to PFI projects that were frankly unsustainable, including, for example, the project in Peterborough—which, sadly, we had to include in the support that we are offering to unsustainable PFIs—which was signed off although Monitor had written to the Department to say that it did not support the project. I do not know, but perhaps the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something about that.
From my point of view, that is why we need to reform the NHS. It is why we were in the position of undertaking the work as the risk register was being published, because we had to avoid all those risks, reform the NHS and move forward to put doctors and nurses in charge, give patients and the public more control, strengthen public health services and cut bureaucracy.
Mr Lansley
In a moment.
The Health and Social Care Bill underpins those reforms. We need to safeguard the NHS for future generations. The Bill does simple things—many things, but simple things. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy. It empowers the NHS Commissioning Board, which we promised in our manifesto. It empowers clinical leaders in local commissioning groups, which we promised in our manifesto. It empowers patient choice and voice, which we and Labour promised in our manifestos, but which only we are doing and Labour is now against. The Bill supports foundation trusts, which Labour said it was in favour of, but which we are going to act on. It introduces local democratic accountability, which the Liberal Democrats promised in their manifesto. It creates new, strong duties to improve quality continuously, reduce health inequalities, promote research and, yes, integrate services around the needs of patients. No fragmentation, no failure to connect up; for the first time, integration as part of the responsibilities, including those of Monitor; no change to NHS values; no undermining of the NHS constitution; strengthening the NHS constitution; free at the point of use, based on need; no privatisation, no charging—
Mr Lansley
I will give way shortly.
The only change in the legislation in relation to the private sector is that the Health and Social Care Bill outlaws discrimination in favour of the private sector, which is what happened under the Labour Government, when the private sector treatment centres got 11% more cash for operations and £250 million for operations that they never performed. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain that.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—eventually. I want to get back to the risk register, which is the topic of this debate. I understand that staff from McKinsey and Co. attended meetings of the extraordinary NHS management board, which was set up to implement the Health and Social Care Bill. Can the Secretary of State tell us what parts of the transition risk register McKinsey and Co. has been given access to?
Mr Lansley
I am not aware of McKinsey getting any access to it, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that since the general election, I can personally say that I have not met McKinsey, so if it is involved in any of this stuff, it is not involved in it with me.
Mr Lansley
No, I am not giving way again.
I asked about expenditure by the Department of Health on contracts with McKinsey, because I read about it in the paper and I thought, “Well what’s this all about?” I was told, “Ah, well, £5.2 million was paid to McKinsey in May 2010,” because it related to work done before the election—work done for Labour.
Mr Lansley
No, I am not giving way.
Before the election, in 2009-10 when the right hon. Member for Leigh was Secretary of State, more than £100 million a year was spent by the Department of Health on management consultants; now less than £10 million is being spent on them, so we will take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman.
We are managing the risks to the NHS. We have delivered £7 billion of efficiency savings and recruited 4,000 extra doctors, and there are 896 more midwives in the NHS than there were at the last election. We have cut the number of managers, 900,000 more people have gained access to an NHS dentist, and nearly 11,000 patients have had access to cancer medicines through the cancer drugs fund, which they would not have had under Labour. As I have said, waiting times are down, mixed-sex accommodation is down, and hospital infections such as MRSA and C. difficile are at record lows.
That is the progress we are seeing in the NHS today, but instead of celebrating it, the right hon. Member for Leigh has brought us a pointless debate. He talks about risk registers, which he himself refused to release. The debate is pointless, as the issue will come before the tribunal on 5 and 6 March, which is the proper place to examine these issues. It is a waste of Labour’s parliamentary time in an opportunistic attempt to divert attention from its lack of any alternative to the reform processes that the coalition Government are putting forward for the NHS. It is a futile motion, a pointless debate on Labour’s part, while we are supporting the NHS with reform through a Bill that has had unprecedented scrutiny. It has been consulted on through the NHS Future Forum, and through other routes continuously with thousands of NHS staff across the country, and we have listened and responded to everything they said. We are taking the responsible route by taking the NHS away from Labour risks towards a stronger future. I urge the House to reject the Labour motion.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I support the motion calling on the Government to publish the transition risk register because I think it is vital to ensure informed public and parliamentary debate on the Health and Social Care Bill. As other Members have experienced, 40 of my constituents have written to me about this issue in the last two days. They rightly worry that the Government’s reforms will damage the NHS. They want to see the risk register released to inform them and to let them make up their own minds about the issues. My constituents also believe that Members here and in the other place should have all the available facts and information when debating and voting on legislation.
The proposed top-down reorganisation of the NHS is unnecessary, costly and a threat to our current health and social care services. As we have to consider these costly and unnecessary proposals, we at least need to know the threats and concerns that exist, about which the risk register might inform us.
Risk registers—like other local registers we have heard about—are routinely published by the North West Strategic Health Authority and other regions to communicate risks about the transition to new NHS structures and to ensure that those risks are understood and managed. Let me point out some of the risks mentioned in a recent risk register report for the North West Strategic Health Authority. The transition might mean a loss of grip on current performance or that organisational and system instability during transition could adversely affect corporate performance. Furthermore, corporate and individual capacity and capability might be diminished by uncertainties arising from transition. Those are all rated as high risk.
I believe that we are already starting to see some of those issues arising in the north-west and nationally. The Health Select Committee recently dealt with some of those issues in its report on public expenditure. The Foundation Trust Network had told the Committee that
“in the short to medium term there is significant disruption in relationships as experienced people leave the NHS or are redeployed.”
It also said:
“With the financial pressures on commissioners, combined with the changes in personnel and disruption of historic relationships, there is growing evidence that commissioners are making unsophisticated attempts to reduce costs.”
Based on all the evidence we heard, the Select Committee concluded:
“The reorganisation process continues to complicate the push for efficiency gains…we heard that it more often creates disruption and distraction that hinders the ability of organisations to consider truly effective ways of reforming service delivery and releasing savings.”
I can provide a local example. Salford primary care trust was running an effective service of active case management for people with long-term conditions, but it ended that a few months ago. That is a counter-productive change—the sort of change being made by NHS bodies as they rush to meet the pressures of making savings and reorganisation. I know that ending that service was to the detriment of my constituents and other Salford people living with long-term conditions. I have raised the issue in debates with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is in his place on the Front Bench.
The Bill brings competition into the NHS at a level that I believe is unhealthy and unwanted. What are the potential risks to patients of a massive increase in the use of private clinics, private surgery and other private treatments? Much is said about choice, but what about the risks? We know that tens of thousands of women with PIP breast implants are sick with anxiety; they understand the risks of using private surgeons who then refuse to follow their duty of care to their patients. These are women who fear that they might have industrial-grade silicon leaking into their bodies, giving them immune system problems. They are finding that their surgeons are either untraceable or do not want to know about their problems with the implants.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that GPs will not be commissioning private breast surgery?
Barbara Keeley
In fact, there is a link, or a crossover, with the NHS. I have received letters from women who have had breast cancer and whose breast augmentation has been carried out in the private sector. I think that the hon. Lady attended the Select Committee meeting at which the issue was discussed, so she should understand the risks.
Many private clinics that were keen enough to sell surgery now want to charge their past patients just for a scan to check an implant. Women who have undergone surgery in those clinics have told me that the videos and brochures selling the surgery made no mention of the risks, or even of the fact that implants last only up to 10 years and that they would have to repeat the surgery every 10 years of their lives in order to keep replacing them. That was never mentioned.
Some clinics have gone into administration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) described what happens in such instances. The new owners—if there are new owners—tend not to want to know anything about the problems of past patients. Questions of capacity are involved. The largest private medical company undertaking implants dealt with some 14,000 of the 40,000 patients who were given PIP breast implants, and thus could be seen immediately to be liable for 14,000 removal and replacement operations. However, it now says that it has the capacity to deal with only 4,000 operations of this type per year. Having created a problem, that group of private clinics is now saying that it does not have the capacity to solve it. The Committee was worried about the capacity of the NHS to deal with it, but the capacity of the private clinics who sold all those operations is much smaller.
The problem of PIP implants is on a huge scale, and I still believe that far too little is being done to help the women who are sick with anxiety about their implants. As I have said, the private clinics and surgeons do not want to deal with the problems, cannot deal with them because they do not have the necessary capacity, or deal with them only if the patient pays again, often when she cannot afford to do so. As we have seen, the Secretary of State has no power to compel private clinics or private surgeons to meet what we say are the moral obligations and their duty of care to former patients.
We also, sadly, have a regulator for devices such as implants—the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—which seemed to be incapable of conveying to the 40,000 patients with PIP implants the message that the product was faulty and could be toxic, thus causing 21 months of delay before the patients even knew about the new risk to them. Much surgery, including much private surgery, involves various medical devices and implants, and that situation is not acceptable. Given that we have seen such regulatory failure in the case of one sort of implant, I want to know what risk is posed by private surgery involving other devices. It is possible that in future we will see further scandals involving replacement knees and hips.
We need to know what risks, at national level, are inherent in the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill, particularly the competition proposals. We need to know that in the House, as the Bill progresses, and we need to know it more widely. I support the motion.