Tobacco
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, it was as a direct result of the evidence of the underhand tactics of the tobacco industry that the UK very wisely adopted Article 5(3) of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In 2008-09, the noble Earl’s noble friend Lady Northover successfully asked the then Secretary of State Alan Johnson to write to all his ministerial colleagues drawing attention to and outlining the importance of Article 5(3) and asking for their assurance that they were abiding by the article in their dealings with the tobacco industry. I invite the Minister to agree to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to do the same with this Government.
Health: Stroke Care
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Wheeler on being patient enough to allow this debate to take place tonight. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
When Andrew Lansley was appointed to the Cabinet by David Cameron in May 2010, we might have expected that the new Health Secretary would take the trouble to introduce himself to the leading players in his department. I have to say that this was not the case. Sir Roger Boyle, who had been toiling away as the Government’s national director for heart disease and stroke for more than a decade, did not actually meet the Secretary of State until just before he parted company with the department. As someone who judges the success of something by the action that is taken, not by the rhetoric, I think that that is decidedly unimpressive.
Sir Roger Boyle was appointed as national director for heart disease in March 2000. He led the implementation of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, which led to a 50 per cent cut in deaths from heart attacks. That has been in the news very recently. He published the National Stroke Strategy in December 2007, and indeed was working on the implementation of that stroke strategy when he left the department last summer. My question to the Minister is this: I understand that Sir Roger Boyle has not been replaced. If he has not been, why not? Indeed, what does that say about the priorities of the department on the issue of stroke?
It is a pity that Mr Lansley did not make more of an effort to find out what Sir Roger was up to. He would have learnt some important lessons about the NHS and what it had achieved without the benefit of the market revolution that is being ushered in under the NHS reforms before the House.
The second question I would like to ask the Minister is what future, therefore, will the national stroke strategy have in a reformed NHS, and who will be responsible for its implementation under the proposed new system?
My third question picks up the points made by my noble friend Lady Wall. It concerns whether something as successful as the London stroke strategy could be replicated and how that would be achieved. I make no apology for repeating the question that I have been asking, on and off, at every opportunity over the last year or so, because I think that so far we have not received a satisfactory answer. The London stroke strategy was achieved through a London-wide strategic plan driven by clinical co-operation. I would like to know how, and in what timeframe, such a strategy would be possible under the new levels of decision-making bureaucracy and, some might even say, fragmentation that are being proposed by the new Bill.
Would there be a great risk that the clinical competition that allowed the London strategy to move forward, if it were to be an economic or financial competition, would have to be based on the failure of some centres, to allow others to emerge as winners? That is my understanding of how things would have to move forward. I hate to say this to my noble friend Lady Wall, but it seems at present to be less rather than more likely under the new regime.
I thank all noble Lords who have covered what seem to be all conceivable questions about the matter of stroke, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Health and Social Care Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the estimated costs of implementing the Health and Social Care Bill when it was originally introduced to the House of Commons one year ago, and whether they have changed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, in January 2011, we estimated the costs of implementing the Health and Social Care Bill at £1.4 billion. When we published the revised impact assessment in September, we estimated the costs of implementing the Bill to be between £1.2 billion and £1.3 billion. This will reduce administrative costs across the system by one-third by the end of this Parliament, saving £1.5 billion per year from 2014-15 onwards.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Many people in the medical world believe that the cost is mounting and that the cost which the Minister cites is not accurate. It is safe to say that this upheaval is costly both in money and in the risk to patient care. As well as the cost, at a time when the NHS has to find £20 billion of efficiencies, today the nurses and midwives have asked for the Bill to be dropped, arguing that their concerns have not been answered. Can the Minister give the nation and the NHS a first birthday present by listening to what is said and advising his right honourable friends Mr Lansley and the Prime Minister that it is time to pull back—
Baroness Thornton
I am asking a question; I am in the middle of asking it. You may not care about the NHS but, on these Benches, we do. When the medical professions and nurses say that the Government should think again, it would be wise for the Government to do so. My question is whether the noble Earl will ask his colleagues to do so, and whether we can then move together, with consensus, as my right honourable friend Andy Burnham has now twice asked the Secretary of State to do.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness is asking me to deliver a certain message to my right honourable friend. I am not quite sure what that message was, but if it is to do with the Health and Social Care Bill, I have to say that we need that Bill. We believe that reform of the NHS is essential if it is to be sustainable in the future. Every penny saved from this reform will be reinvested in front-line patient care. The previous Government had, as we do, an ambition to save £20 billion—the so-called Nicholson challenge—over the next three or four years. This reorganisation will enable us to contribute to that total. The modernisation will also move the NHS to a much more patient-centred system where good providers are rewarded for high-quality services. We are spending money on redundancy now to gain in the future.
NHS: Transition Risk Register
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My Lords, this issue turns on a disagreement between ourselves and the Information Commissioner about where the balance of public interest lies. Our view is that the balance of public interest does not lie in disclosure, and his view is the opposite. It would be likely, if we gave the Information Commissioner a second opportunity to look at this, that he would come to the same conclusion as before, so we have to let due process occur.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the strategic health body in London was perfectly content to make the register of risks on the health Bill available, so the House needs to know, first, what the difference is—except in terms of size—in the national Department of Health making its risk register available. Secondly, I realise that in appealing the Information Commissioner’s decision the Government have said, in effect, that this decision has cross-government implications. Does the Minister accept that it also has wider implications for Parliament? In this House, our ability to scrutinise legislation effectively must be in doubt if any Government withhold important information from us, so what course of action does the Minister suggest that noble Lords in this House should take under these circumstances?
Earl Howe
My Lords, to answer the second part of the question first, a substantial number of the risks pertaining to the Bill are already in the public domain and we are considering whether there is scope to draw these sources of information together in a single place, so that noble Lords can look at them more easily. To answer the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, I made inquiries about NHS London. Its situation is very interesting and quite different from that of the Department of Health. NHS London developed its risk management strategy with a view to it being visible to stakeholders and the public, as its document says. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that officials will have worded their risks for inclusion in the register in the knowledge that that wording would be likely to form part of a document placed in the public domain, so there is a very real difference between the two situations.
Health: Pathfinders
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right. We were very pleased to see the NHS Future Forum says that running right through the Health and Social Care Bill is the desire and aim to integrate services. That is certainly right. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between allowing local ideas to spring up and people to progress their own ideas and having the necessary support from the centre to do that. We have established a national learning network for pathfinders to complement the support given to them by strategic health authorities and PCTs. Those learning networks will ensure that best practice is spread and, specifically, that pathfinders support other local groups which are less developed.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question concerning clinical commissioning groups and the legal advice and support they might be receiving. Has the Minister taken advice on the impact of EU procurement law as regards the tension in commissioning and delivering integrated services and the legal requirements concerning procurement of services which are integral to the Health and Social Care Bill that is before the House? Will the Minister make any such advice available to us?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my understanding is that procurement law, which already applies in the NHS, is certainly part of the learning sets that clinical commissioning groups have been provided with. I would be delighted to supply the noble Baroness with further information but I do not have it in front of me.
Health: Breast Cancer
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I could not disagree more with the noble Lord. He refers to the policy of “any qualified provider”. That policy gives absolute assurance to every NHS patient about the quality of the treatment that they get if they are treated by the NHS, whatever the provider setting. Therefore, the idea that this incident has any bearing on the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill is absolutely misplaced. I cannot emphasise that more.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked a legitimate question. Any qualified provider goes through a process of approval in which the CQC is responsible for regulating clinics and services. That is exactly what the CQC has done for these private clinics. They have all been given a stamp of approval to carry out these operations by the CQC. That, surely, was the point of the noble Lord’s question. Therefore, what are the implications for “any qualified provider” under the fragmentation and increased marketisation of the NHS by the Bill?
Earl Howe
The “any qualified provider” policy was instigated by the Government of the noble Baroness. There is no suggestion that these clinics have been carrying out procedures badly; the issue is around the quality of the implant, which they could not be expected to know about. Nevertheless, the CQC is conducting inspections, some of them unannounced, on cosmetic clinics to assure itself that everything is being done properly. I will not stand here and say that any of these clinics have carried out the procedures badly. We have no evidence to show that they have.
Health and Social Care Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I return for the last time in 2011 to the issue of the risk register in the Health and Social Care Bill—a sort of Secret Santa for the Minister. During the course of the debate on the Motion to Regret on 7 December, several noble Lords referred to the start point of Report being timed so that the appeal on the Information Commissioner’s report would be complete and the House would know the result. The Minister himself—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, may I first ask Members to leave quietly so that we may hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. May we establish on what basis, on what Motion, the noble Baroness is making her point? She has not interrupted the House going into Committee. I believe that perhaps the most appropriate way forward would be for the first amendment to be called. The noble Baroness may then speak as part of her contribution to that amendment, but I believe she would be out of order to continue at this stage.
Clause 247 : Powers to publish information standards
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. This question brings us right back to the Secretary of State’s powers. I also agree that the procedure in the Bill is complex and I am not sure that it will work. It is not clear at all who will be the arbiter. It seems strange that Monitor has powers to intervene on failure but there does not seem to be the same structure around co-operation and when co-operation fails. This part of the Bill feels like it does not work properly. It is too complex and probably needs another look.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made. I feel it would be useful if I first set out how this clause would work and the series of events that it would allow. Then I will try to explain why we believe that the powers it provides are an appropriate and constructive lever within the new system.
The method of intervention set out in Clause 285 needs to be considered as one of a range of intervention powers and levers available to the Secretary of State in order to ensure that the system operates in the best interests of patients and that he complies with his duties in relation to the health service. These include the proactive setting of objectives for the health service through the annual mandate to the board and setting requirements through the standing rules. The Secretary of State also will have a duty to keep the effectiveness of arm’s-length bodies under review.
In addition, the Secretary of State will have more extreme intervention powers such as the ability to remove the chair of an organisation, where they have failed adequately to perform their functions, and the ability, under specified circumstances, to give directions to an arm’s-length body where the Secretary of State considers it has failed to discharge those functions, or has failed to discharge them properly. Clause 285 should be viewed as an additional power alongside the others conferred on the Secretary of State by the NHS Act and this Bill. Of course, should the Secretary of State employ his powers as set out in Clause 285 and the problem persists, then where he considers that one of the bodies is failing to discharge its functions properly, he would be able to exercise his powers of direction.
The Bill places new duties to co-operate, in addition to modifying existing duties, so as to ensure that all of the arm’s-length bodies in the system, such as the Commissioning Board and Monitor, are required to co-operate with one another. We wanted to do more to encourage co-operation in the new system, partly out of recognition that the current system would benefit significantly from greater co-operation, but also because the new arrangements will create an even greater need for co-operation given the strongly autonomous and interdependent arm’s-length bodies that will be created.
The clause sets out powers for the Secretary of State to take action in response to a breach of the relevant duties of co-operation. It provides a mechanism for pressing organisations to resolve disputes in the unlikely event—we hope and trust that it will be unlikely—that two or more organisations covered by the clause fail to co-operate. If the Secretary of State believes that the duties of co-operation listed in this clause have been or are being breached, or are at significant risk of being breached, he will have a new ability to write formally and publicly to the organisation in question. If the bodies continue to breach the duty following the notice and the breach is having a detrimental effect on the performance of the health service, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, then the Secretary of State will have a further ability to lay an order, specifying that each body could take certain actions only with the approval of the other body. This measure would be subject to affirmative approval by both Houses of Parliament and could last for up to a year. That means that organisations in dispute would be strongly reminded of their interdependence as part of a national system. As a matter of last resort, if agreement could not be reached, either party would be able to invoke independent arbitration under Arbitration Act arrangements. In this way, the organisations in question will be pressed to resolve their difference without recourse to the Secretary of State and the Department of Health.
This is an important element of our policy. We want arm’s-length bodies to focus on the functions conferred on them by Parliament, the objectives set for them by Government and the relationships with other organisations that will help them to achieve their goals. We do not want them placed in a position where they are trying to secure relative advantage in the system by using the Secretary of State as a means of determining the outcome of disputes. The existence of the order-making power will both help to preserve the autonomy of organisations and encourage them to work constructively with one another.
I emphasise that this is a precautionary power and we expect it to be used only in very exceptional circumstances. It is also important to note that the powers and duties described in this clause are about co-operative behaviours. They do not in any way undermine the independence of Monitor or the CQC to make specific regulatory decisions in relation to another arm’s-length body. For example, the Secretary of State could not use the provisions to constrain Monitor from taking action against anticompetitive purchasing by the NHS Commissioning Board.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, if these bodies are strongly autonomous, as the Minister has said, can they not just tell the Secretary of State to get lost?
Earl Howe
My Lords, that is the whole point of this clause. The Secretary of State must have levers at his disposal. Even if he does not use them, the fact that he has them will be a clear signal to bodies that they must co-operate in the way that Parliament—if the Bill is approved by Parliament—intends. As I said, we have identified gaps in the current system that need to be resolved because it is important that arm’s-length bodies that have functions directly conferred upon them take those functions seriously and do not resort constantly to arbitration by the Secretary of State or the department.
We expect that the vast majority of differences between organisations will be resolved by the organisations themselves and that this power will be used rarely, if at all. Nevertheless, it is important that the power exists. The fact that failure to co-operate could have public and highly embarrassing consequences will strengthen the incentive for organisations to co-operate effectively in the interests of patients.
We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between the need for the Secretary of State to fulfil his stewardship role within the system, being able to intervene to ensure that disputes are resolved, with the need to ensure that organisations are responsible and accountable for their own decisions and actions. These powers allow the Secretary of State to ensure that solutions to problems are found in a timely manner, without him or her stepping in to specify and micromanage what those solutions should look like.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me a number of specific and detailed questions. I will take up her invitation to write to her on those and copy other noble Lords in. With those assurances, I hope that she will feel able to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I really am not trying to prevent Christmas starting for Members of this Committee. I feel as though most of today’s amendments have concerned me. These are probing amendments, which relate to NHS capital assets. They are designed to explore what happens to the current offices and clinical premises of an NHS body at the time of transition and afterwards. If these premises are occupied by a clinical commissioning group or a company that is advising a clinical commissioning group on its commissioning, who will become the owner of the property?
This is important because GPs are themselves independent contractors, not NHS employees. For many—not all but a significant number—the premises from which they work are owned by their practice. They, not the NHS, jointly own them, even though the building will usually have been subject to a range of capital improvement schemes from the NHS over many years. Such schemes allow a GP to purchase a practice and invest in it over the years. The capital gained then forms a significant additional pension pot for that GP.
My question for the Government concerns whether the deeds of the property will be transferred to the general practitioners of the clinical commissioning group. Will they be able to sell it for profit that would then be their personal profit? Will the profit revert to the NHS and, if so, to which pot? If property is transferred, will the new owner be liable to put capital gained into the capital part of the commissioning pot to develop service premises and equipment for the health service itself, rather than be able to take whatever capital gain there is on that property? I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I just wish to add two questions of my own to the list that the noble Baroness asked. Has the Department of Health now resolved the issues around future asset ownership in respect of PCT and SHA estates? Within that, does that include LIFT schemes and PFI?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope I can answer the question of the noble Baroness very quickly. Clinical commissioning groups will be statutory bodies. They will be legally and operationally separate from GP practices. As such, if a clinical commissioning group occupies property that is under the ownership of that group, it will be under statutory ownership. It will not be open to GPs to sell such property at a cut price, or at any other price, to GP practices to enable such practices to pocket the profits. What the noble Baroness outlined sounded to me very much like embezzlement from the state. It will be no more possible for what she envisages to happen than for a primary care trust to sell a property and have its officers pocket the proceeds. I am a little mystified by the scenario that she has painted.
Health and Social Care Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
Could I just clarify for the noble Baroness that I do not claim that my wording is perfect? I brought the National Commissioning Board in—slightly against my better judgment, I have to admit—because it has the responsibility for, in a sense, approving the commissioning arrangements and spending the money. My instincts were that it would not support this unless it had been consulted and was satisfied with the commissioning arrangements.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I will be very brief because my noble friend and other noble Lords have pretty much covered the territory here. This small group of amendments is rather important and significantly improves the Bill. I realise that they are probing amendments, but they do three things. The first amendment is about changing culture. It talks about the manner of the integration of services, not just an integrated manner. The second one says that we need to define integration. This must be perhaps the third or fourth debate that we have had on integration in the past however many weeks. It seems quite clear that there needs to be some definition of integration in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Warner explained that. Given that many parts of the Bill offer a list of different ways in which things can be described and done, I see no reason why the same list on integration cannot be included. The third point in the amendment to which I was pleased to be able to put my name is about encouraging co-operation across the piece. Having the national Commissioning Board mentioned in that is rather important.
Those three points about changing the culture, defining what you mean and encouraging co-operation seem to me to be the type of message that any health and well-being board will look to as it starts up its work. It will look to what is in the Bill, what is in guidance and what is in statutory instruments to help it to work out what to do. To have something that defines the kind of culture that is expected, defines integration and the way the bodies should work, lists the bodies that should work together, if not in the Bill then certainly in guidance, and explains the manner in which they are expected to work seems to me to be a very helpful way forward.
Earl Howe
My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, are primarily concerned with strengthening the role of health and well-being boards in promoting integration between health and social care and wider aspects. I completely understand why noble Lords have felt moved to support these amendments. They are undoubtedly well intentioned, but I am afraid that I have a problem with them.
Amendment 336, which I will speak about more fully in a second, could be seen to enable changes to be made to the fundamental responsibility for functions, which we are clear would not be right. Amendments 332 and 335 would also introduce a prescriptive definition of integration. I resist that idea not just because it would be counter to the principles of localism, which we believe are very important, but because it could act as a diversion from effective integrated working between commissioners. I do not see the need for a definition beyond what the clause already says, which seems quite clear.
We have a shared intent on the importance of integration, but I cannot agree that this cause would be aided by pinning down a definition in primary legislation. I see no need for that. Apart from anything else, having a definition set in primary legislation would risk creating inflexibility as times and practices change. We should focus on removing barriers on the ground to ensure integration. That is where the Government’s response to the Future Forum’s work will, I hope, make a difference. We aim to publish our response to the Future Forum’s report before the Report stage of this Bill.
I am sure that Amendment 336 is intended to be helpful, but it might create confusion between the arrangements mentioned in the amendment and those made under Section 75 of the NHS Act, which would enable local authorities and CCGs to enter into partnership arrangements such as lead commissioning and pooled budgets. Existing provisions in the Bill are designed to encourage and enable the NHS and local government to improve patient outcomes through more effective co-ordinated working. The Bill provides the basis for better collaboration, partnership working and integration across local government and the NHS at all levels. I hope that that, in part at least, answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Indeed, health and well-being boards will have a strong role in promoting joined-up commissioning between health, public health and social care. Through their duty to promote integrated working between commissioners, they will also be in a good position to promote more integrated provision for patients, social care service users and carers. They will also be able to encourage close working between the commissioning of social care, public health and NHS services and aspects of the wider local authority agenda that also influence health and well-being, such as housing, education and the environment. Through statutory guidance on preparing the joint health and well-being strategy, and the Government’s mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, we will be encouraging lead commissioning and integrated provision.
There are enough levers and mechanisms in the system to encourage every part of the system to look for ways of joining up services, and the commissioning of those services. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords of our intentions, and that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Thornton
If a new health and well-being board got in touch with the Minister, or perhaps with the Commissioning Board, and asked whether it would please say which form of integration it should be using or how it should be doing this, would he tell it to work it out for itself?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we have to give credit to people on the ground to be the professionals that we know them to be. Integrated working can take many forms, as we have discussed quite often in Committee. I will not rehearse the various manifestations of integration. Once we have mandated the duties in the Bill and issued statutory guidance on what good practice looks like, I really think that it will be up to people on the ground to decide how best to set about fulfilling the duties and expectations placed on them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I shall add a few words because a pharmacist contacted me. Pharmacists are being encouraged to take on more and more, and the drugs are extremely difficult. Some drugs are the same but have different names. It is extremely difficult for patients too, and as they often go to pharmacies for advice it is really very important there this is openness and honesty when a mistake is made. However, I would not like this amendment to open a door for more mistakes to be made.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I support the amendment. I would have put my name to it, had I had the opportunity. However, in Committee those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have tended to block up their own amendments and have not sought support from across the House, which is a great pity.
My experience in dealing with the many drugs that my mother takes is that in fact pharmacists are often those who spot the doctor’s mistake. Our local pharmacists do an excellent job. My wider interest in this Bill and in pharmacists is that they play the proper, important role they need to play at local level in the health and well-being boards and with the planning at a local level of both preventive medicine and their jobs at dispensing.
This is also about a level playing field in regulation, which is very important. This Bill offers probably the only opportunity that there will be in the next few years to put right this wrong. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will support this amendment—and if not this one, then one like it at a later stage in the Bill—and rectify this error.
Health and Social Care Bill
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank my noble friend Lady Garden very much indeed for intervening. I would like to express the apologies of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames for being unable to be here on this occasion. Unfortunately he has been taken ill and will probably not be in the House again before the Christmas Recess. He extends his apologies to the House and his deep regrets at being unable to be here to move this amendment. It is therefore my honour to do so on his behalf.
The first amendment amends paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 7 to the National Health Service Act 2006 to remove the requirement for a governor to be appointed by a PCT. The reason for governors being appointed by PCTs, of course, is that they were the key sub-national level of organisation under the previous National Health Service. The Act of 2006 therefore reflects that organisational structure. I submit to the House that in the new structure it is as important that the national Commissioning Board should be able to appoint at least one—and, one hopes, more—governors to the board because of the need for a clear link between the clinical commissioning groups and the boards of the foundation trusts. Our amendment requires that at least one member be appointed by the NHS Commissioning Board in the place of the PCT appointee who will no longer be able to take his place. A substantial number of NHS patients—one hopes a majority—are patients under the foundation trusts. It is therefore important that the concerns of the CCGs and of the board should be represented on foundation trust governing bodies.
I will also briefly speak to Amendments 300, 301, 302 and 303 in the same group. All relate to the decisions to be made about the mergers or dissolutions of foundation trusts. The purpose of the amendments is to add the name of the Secretary of State to those who are required to consent to either a merger or a dissolution. I shall explain very briefly why we believe this to be of great importance. Despite these amendments looking rather petty, they are not.
The Secretary of State is in a unique position to decide on the strategy of the National Health Service over the whole country. He is in an especially good position to be well-informed on the balance between demand and supply across the territory of England. If there is no requirement for him to emerge at this point as the figure who makes the ultimate decision as to whether there should be a dissolution or a merger, there is nobody else able to detect whether the needs of all patients in England are met. As the House will be aware, if a foundation trust merges and perhaps one part of that merger ceases to offer services, that may be very much in the long-term interests of the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, spoke eloquently on this point yesterday. Where a foundation trust is the centre of, for example, pathways in a particular chronic illness, and where it meets the hospital needs of a substantial part of an area of the country, only the Secretary of State is in a position to decide whether that foundation trust merger or dissolution will have a major impact on the health services available in that part of England.
We suggest, once again, that this is not a tactical or micromanagement issue, but a strategic one, given the significance of foundation trusts in many parts of the country. We therefore very strongly urge the Committee to agree to this amendment. We believe it is a crucial part of the strategy of running a National Health Service in England. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we have all been precipitated into this debate some 10 minutes earlier than we might have expected. I should like to speak to Amendments 296A and 298A, and to whether Clauses 176 and 177 should stand part.
Amendment 296A provides that foundation governors must,
“be notified and have the right to attend all meetings of the Board and its sub-committees and have access to all relevant documents and papers”,
under a “duty to protect confidentiality”. Amendment 298A provides that the accounts of a foundation trust or other public benefit corporation,
“must identify separately the income and expenditure which relates to any private income business, and the audit of such accounts must include assurance that all costs which relate to private income business have been properly calculated or recorded”.
I accept that the Minister has an amendment that is not totally dissimilar to this, but it does not include the words about the need to audit and have income and expenditure on the public record, which we think are rather important. Clause 176 stand part would leave out the clause that abolishes NHS trusts. Clause 177 stand part objects to the repeal of various provisions in the authorisation of foundation trusts.
We have already touched on aspects of foundation trusts. Our position is that we support the concept of foundation trusts as a model for developing a form of multi-stakeholder or community-based governance, and allowing earned autonomy for NHS providers from direct performance management. As we discussed on Tuesday, we accept the role of Monitor as a regulator of foundation trusts. We agree with my noble friend Lord Warner that the plethora of other roles that Monitor has been asked to play poses risks, and we have set out our objections to and worries about that.
We accept that the foundation trust journey is still being travelled. I suggest that it is probably time for a proper independent study of how the foundation model might be taken forward. We are where are, not where someone might have hoped we would be. We make no great claims for foundation trusts but we would agree that the more trusts that can meet the standard the better. However, some will not meet it, for many different reasons. The rush to force them into hasty mergers and takeovers will bring great risks. I point to the fact that only today the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has issued the report Achievement of Foundation Trust Status by NHS Hospital Trusts, which I have asked the Printed Paper Office to make available. I said that it is quite possible that other noble Lords might be interested in it in the course of today’s debate.
On the point about how many trusts will make it to foundation status, I quote from the document:
“By 1 October 2011 there were 139 NHS foundation trusts, and 113 NHS trusts at various stages in the 'pipeline' towards foundation trust status. Only 14 trusts have achieved foundation status since the end of 2009 … The Department expects the majority of trusts to achieve foundation trust status by 2014, but recognises that a small number may not do so before 2016”.
The report goes on to say that there is indeed a very serious problem of hospitals not achieving foundation trust status:
“Twenty hospital trusts have declared themselves unviable in their current form”.
It suggests that more than,
“half of all trusts are not yet foundation trusts and more are likely to conclude they are unviable”,
and goes on to say:
“A particular concern is what will happen to trusts that are unable to achieve foundation status but nevertheless provide an essential service to local people”.
This report’s very timely publication needs to be acknowledged in the course of our debates on these matters.
We do not accept that every NHS provider must be a foundation trust. We agree with Sir David Nicholson that there is scope for some NHS trusts to be permitted. This also allows us to say that a foundation trust can be de-authorised in exceptional circumstances. This Committee needs to discuss the issue of the Government’s rush to say that all trusts must have foundation status. That is clearly not going to work and we have no satisfactory answers at the moment about what is intended under those circumstances.
We will discuss the issue of the private patient cap so I will not refer to it now. We do not go the whole way in deregulation and see a continuing role for Monitor, not just in authorising foundation trusts but, as we said in our earlier debate, in retaining oversight and intervention powers. We agree that the authorisation process should be rigorous and demanding, so the question there which the Minister needs to answer is: if the department is determined to push hospital trusts into foundation status, what does it mean for standards—will they be relaxed? We think that they should not be. If further lessons are needed from Mid Staffs then I suspect that this is one that the inquiry will raise.
We share the view expressed by several noble Lords on Tuesday that there may be examples where the cause of a foundation trust’s problem lies with the local health system rather than poor foundation trust management. A more effective approach to reconfiguration and a sensible pre-failure regime is absolutely necessary. We understand and hope that the Minister is looking into this and look forward to being part of those discussions. Our view is that while having a great deal of autonomy, foundation trusts remain within the NHS; they are not to be hived off as quasi-businesses. We believe that in general only the two extremes differ from our view—those who want a fully publicly owned, public-provided NHS with no split, and a small band around the current Secretary of State who want to make foundation trusts into businesses and, like a private provider, free from all scrutiny. The rest of us are probably somewhere in the middle.
I turn to the amendments. We support the idea that foundation trusts must open their governance and must meet in public—which is vital. We support the idea that to be effective in their duty to hold the board, and especially the non-executives, to account, the governors must have the right to access and observe all meetings and to see all papers. The confidentiality issues which this might involve can be resolved through appropriate codes of conduct, but if governors are to be the main lines of defence then they must be able to know what is happening. Sadly, that is not the case in some foundation trusts.
We support the need to separate properly the accounts in respect of non-NHS business. It is important to avoid smoke-and-mirrors accounting, especially on the issue of the private patient cap, which we will discuss later. Transparency on that issue is vital. The bottom line is that NHS resources should not be provided at knock-down prices. We have had an undertaking that foundation trusts will provide information showing how non-NHS income acts for the benefit of NHS patients, but in the absence of detailed regulations about how that is to be done it would be best to maintain a sceptical view.
In line with our view that foundation trusts remain part of the NHS family, we support the amendments that ensure the Secretary of State must approve major transactions such as mergers. We do not support the Government’s amendments which are a further example of layering of bureaucracy and paperwork to try to justify their failure regime, which pretty much got a hammering on Tuesday and must be thought about again.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I echo many of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, although I wish to put a slightly different slant on the issue. It is crucial that we press on with the project to get all trusts to foundation status. There is no doubt in my mind that having this two-tier system, which we have allowed to continue for too long, has led to difficulties in foundation trust hospitals becoming more self-reliant, more seriously entrepreneurial in the way that they think about their services, and more responsive to the local agenda, and so on. They have not had to bother because they have always had Big Brother watching. The de-authorisation process, which threatens to drag them back to the Department of Health, has acted as a sort of brake on their thinking. That has been quite difficult. I seriously think that we should move trusts to foundation status. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is looking puzzled, but I think that it has been a really serious problem.
Baroness Thornton
I was looking puzzled only because I wondered what evidence there was for some kind of break in the system.
Earl Howe
I understand that point. That is why we have built additional flexibility into the system. Although we have target dates for each of the NHS trusts that we plan to move to foundation trust status, we understand that nothing can be fixed in stone. There is some latitude here but at the same time it is important to have target dates; otherwise the momentum that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred to will be lost and that would be very regrettable.
That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that there appears to be a rush to mergers. We agree with the Public Accounts Committee and the noble Lord himself that mergers are only one way of creating more sustainable providers and services. Mergers must be assessed robustly to ensure that they really will deliver the promised benefits. The Co-operation and Competition Panel does that but at present it can only make recommendations. The NHS Trust Development Authority, which we propose to establish, will play an important complementary role in avoiding what one might call silly mergers. The key has to be local ownership and accountability, not oversight by the department. I was interested to see the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the gathering of management accounting data. I am personally a strong advocate for effective financial and management controls. I am sure we all want to see the NHS become more efficient. The problem with the amendment as drafted is that the system it proposes looks a bit clunky and bureaucratic. It goes against the grain to impose an extra layer of accounting and reporting requirements from the centre and it would clearly cut across the responsibilities of the foundation trusts’ governors and directors.
It is right for me to emphasise by way of concluding remarks that these reforms have been developed in discussion with, and informed by, the Foundation Trust Network, the Foundation Trust Governors’ Association, Monitor and individual foundation trusts. They are built on the experience of what foundation trusts know will work. I hope that in itself is a reassuring statement. I have not addressed the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the PAC report, which I am happy to do once she has intervened.
Baroness Thornton
In terms of discussions the noble Earl is having, are all the parties happy with the fact that if a foundation trust fails it goes into receivership instead of being de-authorised?
Baroness Thornton
“( ) After paragraph 10C of that Schedule insert—
“10D The governors shall be notified of and have the right to attend all meetings of the Board and its sub-committees and have access to all relevant documents and papers.
10E For this purpose, governors will be required to acknowledge their duty to protect confidentiality.”.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say and I was surprised that he dismissed, in a rather cavalier fashion, our two very small and modest amendments about access and transparency for foundation trust boards. We had to force foundation trusts to meet in public. They do not have a good record for their transparency or their willingness to be accountable. That is not so across the board—some are absolute models. I looked in vain for something among all the amendments that the Minister has proposed that might address this important issue of accountability.
I am very disappointed with the answers to my Amendments 296A and 298A. They are modest amendments about accountability. I beg to move, and I would like to test the opinion of the House—
Earl Howe
If the noble Baroness would like a fuller answer, I would be happy to give her one. I am glad to give the Committee an opportunity to hear a slightly fuller answer to the noble Baroness’s amendments. I apologise that I skirted over them in the need to move on.
On Amendment 296A, the purpose clearly is to ensure that governors of foundation trusts have all the relevant information about their board’s activities and decisions to be able to hold them to account. That is not a controversial idea, but the amendment may have the opposite of the effect that the noble Baroness intends. If boards are forced to have governors present at all meetings, they may instead discuss confidential matters in private to maintain confidentiality and hold robust and frank discussions. If governors are admitted to private board meetings, the directors may be inhibited from discussing those confidential matters. The governors can best be kept informed of directors’ activities by close working relationships with them, regular performance reports, meetings with directors including the chair and chief executive, access to all directors and joint activities with directors. It does not have to be the formula that the noble Baroness has suggested.
The noble Baroness said that we had to force foundation trusts to meet in public. That is not right at all. It was we who made foundation trusts have their meetings in public; the previous Government resisted doing that for the whole of the time when they were in office, or from the whole of the time when foundation trusts were set up in 2003, so I do not think that that criticism is at all fair.
On Amendment 298A, the purpose is to require foundation trusts to account separately for NHS and private activity, to show whether that activity is making a profit or a loss. We agree with the broad principle of separate accounting, as we indicated earlier, but we are concerned that putting a requirement like this in statute would impose high costs on foundation trusts with low levels of private activity. Many foundation trusts have little, if any, private activity. We have given a commitment that to provide assurance and transparency we will require foundation trusts to produce separate accounts for NHS and private funded services where they exist. To support its new regulatory functions, Monitor will require foundation trusts to report separately within their accounts their NHS and private funded income and expenditure. That will increase transparency.
We are onside with the theme of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but we do not think that she is setting about it in the right way. It is too heavy handed, and I hope that she will withdraw it.
Lord Clement-Jones
It seems rather extreme and extraordinary to be plunged into the possibility of a vote on a matter such as this without further consideration of what the Minister has had to say, particularly with a fairly thin House at the moment, although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. But it is obviously up to her to make her own dispositions.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the problem with transparency and accountability is that the issues of confidentiality and expense are always used as excuses. I do not deny that my own Government almost certainly used them as reasons for not proceeding with issues of confidentiality and accountability. I am struggling with the idea that we should withdraw this amendment, because I feel that this is a really rather important matter. It may be a very small and minor matter, but it is actually rather important and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has put his finger exactly on the point here. I absolutely agree that, welcome though the amendments in the Minister’s name are, they do not go far enough. Counting things after the fact will not necessarily provide the kind of protection that is required in this area.
Section 44 of the National Health Service Act 2006 currently provides for a limit on the proportion of income that an NHS foundation trust obtains from private charges. I am familiar with this; I had to deal with it in the Health and Social Care Act 2008. That was the point at which my party agreed that there needed to be a review of the private patient cap. That is absolutely the case and we would agree on that. The restriction was introduced to ensure that NHS foundation trusts continued to focus primarily on NHS patients, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, explained. However, as we accepted at the time, the way that the cap was based on the financial year cemented in a widely varying range of restrictions, from zero to a little more than 30 per cent, with the average being around 1.5 per cent.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I was not going to speak in the debate and I certainly do not want to speak on the subject of the cap, in case I get into too much trouble from my Front Bench. I would like to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We are moving into a world in which the NHS will have to look at how it uses its assets. As I have said in earlier discussions, the NHS footprint on its sites and its utilisation of buildings is relatively small given the size of the sites.
We are also moving in a direction where, across the House, we favour integration of health and social care. It would not be surprising if, in the next few years, on some sites of district general hospitals, there were nursing homes run by the private sector which had self-payers as well as state-funded payers. The way the Government are approaching this creates flexibility in how income might be generated. I hope we will not be so prescriptive in how we meet the legitimate concern that NHS trusts should concentrate on their core business, if I may put it that way, that we shoot ourselves in the foot again by having a cap that actually works against the best interests of the NHS.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I have never known my noble friend to show particular restraint about how he felt about his Front Bench.
This discretion has morphed into something that says that making efficient use of assets and being effective is the same as maximising private income. Of course, that is not the point here. The point is getting the balance right. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a very good point: the NHS does not exist to maximise private income profit.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is an important issue and one that I recognise is of considerable interest to the Committee. To start at the beginning, the Government are clear that NHS providers should always focus on the provision of care to NHS patients. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the private patient income cap, which Clause 162 would remove, is damaging to the NHS and to patients’ interests. We think that there is a very strong case for removing the cap, because doing so will allow NHS patients to derive even greater benefits from foundation trusts. At the same time, we understand the sensitivities. The key to addressing those sensitivities is to have adequate safeguards to ensure that NHS patients and resources continue to be prioritised and protected. I reassure the Committee that we believe we can achieve that through the Bill and through the government amendments, and I shall explain why and how in a moment.
The words “private patient” in the cap’s title may have unfortunately given the wrong impression about the substance of the argument. My noble friend Lady Noakes was quite right in what she said. The cap’s scope goes far wider than just private patients. It captures income from activities such as innovations involving research, joint ventures and the sale of medicines and intellectual property to private healthcare providers in the UK and abroad. This means that innovative partnerships of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, indicated might happen are being hampered, and the ability of foundation trusts to earn more income to help to bring in leading-edge technology to the NHS faster—for example, for cancer treatment—is unnecessarily restricted.
Foundation trusts have told us that the cap is detrimental to care offered to NHS patients. They have welcomed our move to remove what they and we see as an outdated, unnecessary and arbitrary legal instrument that locks them into maintaining income from private charges below the levels that applied in 2002-03.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the compelling reasons for removing the cap. As I am sure the Committee will agree, the rule itself is unfair. Some foundation trusts have much higher caps, and hence much more flexibility, than the majority. In 2010-11, around 75 per cent of foundation trusts were severely restricted with caps of 1.5 per cent or less. Meanwhile, the Royal Marsden benefits from a 31 per cent cap and is the country’s highest private patient income earner. It has also been consistently rated as a highly performing NHS provider.
Baroness Thornton
I have a question for the noble Earl on this. He is absolutely right that the Royal Marsden is a very effective hospital, but what independent evidence is there that the cap harms the interests of NHS patients? We know that quite a few foundation trusts have been going on about it, and I absolutely agree that the cap needs to be reviewed properly, but what independent evidence is there that it harms the interests of patients?
Earl Howe
My Lords, if the noble Baroness is calling for evidence beyond the testimony of numerous NHS trusts, I am not sure what more I can offer her. I can write to her on this but there is very considerable evidence—almost a priori evidence—that if you restrict a trust’s ability to earn income which would otherwise go to improve facilities for NHS patients, you are damaging the interests of those NHS patients. That is an argument that we have consistently put forward ever since the 2003 legislation. However, it is also an argument that I recall Ministers in the previous Administration making when we last debated this subject at any length.
I was going to point out too that NHS trusts as distinct from foundation trusts do not have a private income cap. A number of them earn private incomes well in excess of many foundation trusts. There is absolutely no evidence that these providers are ignoring NHS patients as their prime responsibility—no evidence at all. A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Williams, have tabled amendments in this area to ensure that foundation trusts must protect the interests of NHS patients above all and that public money should not subsidise private care. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I would like reassure noble Lords of the safeguards that the Bill already contains to this end. Some of these safeguards are prospective in nature and some are retrospective.
First, foundation trusts will continue to be bound by their principal legal purpose, which is to provide goods and services for the NHS in England. I am going to move Amendment 299ZA today to state explicitly that “principal purpose” means that the majority of every foundation trust’s income must come from NHS service provision. That amendment will make it certain that the trusts are NHS providers first and foremost. I admit to my noble friend Lady Noakes that this is something of a belt and braces amendment, but I believe that it directly addresses the main concerns voiced by my noble friend Lady Williams.
The second safeguard is that the Bill would make foundation trusts more accountable and transparent to their public and NHS staff. My second amendment in this group, Amendment 299AZA, would support that by requiring every foundation trust to explain in its annual report how its non-NHS income had benefited NHS services. The Bill gives governors, who represent the public and NHS staff, greater powers to hold directors to account and this amendment would help them do so. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones sought to place additional duties on directors. The Bill would also place an explicit duty on them to promote the success of their foundation trust with a view to maximising benefits for its members and the public. If, for example, directors were to pursue private patient activity against the interests of members and the public, the governors would be able to, and they should, use their new powers to challenge directors or they could use their existing power to remove the chair and non-executive directors.
Earl Howe
My Lords, it will be open to governors to seek information from the boards of directors on the plans that they have for the trust. They will have access to key papers. There should be no difficulty about knowing what the board has in mind for the trust in that strategic sense.
Thirdly, the NHS Commissioning Board and NHS commissioners would be responsible for securing timely care for NHS patients. They would be under a duty to exercise their functions with a view to securing continuous improvements in the quality of NHS services. That is an important provision too.
Finally, to achieve a fairer playing field, Monitor’s licensing regime would allow it to step in to prevent NHS money cross-subsidising private care. Foundation trusts would also be required separately to report to Monitor their NHS and private-funded income. My noble friend Lady Williams said that in her view it would be useful to have in the Bill that the majority of foundation trust patients have to be NHS patients. While I agree with the intent behind that thought, I cannot agree with her two arguments that support the need for an amendment. First, we do not agree that legislation should be used symbolically in this way. Foundation trusts’ principal purpose already covers the point that she raised. Secondly, even if we had such an amendment, it would not make any difference to how the courts interpret and apply EU competition law. It is the nature of the activities that they are undertaking that matter, not how many patients they treat or how much income they earn.
Perhaps I may make a specific point about my noble friend’s Amendments 297 and 299. They would duplicate unnecessarily the legal description of the NHS, which since 1946 has been described as “health service”. Use of the word “national” would be inconsistent with references to the NHS throughout existing legislation.
Just to elaborate on EU competition law, the Bill, as we discussed the other day, does not change the position on EU competition law or the applicability of the law. It remains the case that there is uncertainty on the status of NHS providers as undertakings for the purposes of competition law because no direct case law exists. In so far as foundation trusts already provide private healthcare services, they may be engaged in economic activity. Therefore competition law, both the prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour and the prohibitions on state aid, may apply to their activities in these markets. Although the Bill would offer more flexibility to participate in these markets if the cap were lifted, it does not mean that foundation trusts are more or less likely to be considered undertakings in their provision of NHS services.
It was suggested by my noble friend Lady Williams that there might be a sort of case-by-case approach to lifting the cap. I recall that that approach was strongly rejected by the previous Government, and for very good reasons. We agree with those reasons. The disadvantages of that approach would be that it would be very difficult to set up a clear system and it would be likely to be difficult to administer and to increase bureaucracy. It would potentially lead to greater variation between foundation trusts and to claims of unfairness between different trusts, which could possibly be a source of litigation. It would maintain the problematic definitional issues around the cap itself. We are not drawn to that approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether we could consider including in guidance to foundation trusts the need to avoid double-paying staff. I think she makes a very interesting point and I can confirm that we will give that some active consideration.
While the principles of some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords are ones that we could all agree with, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary and could be damaging. For example, a requirement for non-NHS income to support only NHS services could mean that foundation trusts would find it impossible to invest in their non-NHS activities and therefore make greater profits to support core NHS work. We want to avoid safeguards, no matter how well intentioned they may be, having a perverse legal consequence on foundation trusts’ ability to innovate.
I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment because I am completely convinced that the necessary safeguards are there and that what we are proposing are the right things to do.
Baroness Thornton
If the Minister thinks that the safeguards are here, and if all that is true, should the governors be the ones who decide on the level of the private cap?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think that the board of directors is best placed to decide how much private income overall a trust should receive, on the proviso that the principal purpose of the foundation trust remains adhered to. Governors should concern themselves with any threat to that status. If they perceive that the board is in danger of overstepping the mark in that sense, then of course it is their province. Otherwise, I think it is for the board of directors to judge what is in the best interests of the trust as a whole and of NHS patients. That could mean expanding the trust’s private patient work, capitalising on intellectual property, or whatever it happened to be.
Lord Clement-Jones
I want to add one further point about “prospectivity”, if there is such a word, and governors and/or directors looking at the activities of the trust. It is important that one considers that point from the social purpose point of view. One can then look at the pattern of activity of the trust and see what investments are going to be devoted to private and NHS patients. That is an important part of looking at the risk factors associated with a purpose not being a social purpose.
Baroness Thornton
I am glad that the two parties of government are in discussion with each other about these matters. However, there are Members on the Cross Benches and on these Benches who also have opinions on these issues. If it is appropriate, we would like to be involved in those discussions.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I put my name to these amendments, which are incredibly important. I hope that the Government’s response will be that they are listening and prepared to change this. It is worth noting that the Government’s response to Professor Sir Ian Kennedy’s report said:
“In the past, the NHS was not always set up to put the needs of patients and the public first. Too often patients were expected to fit around services rather than services around patients. Nowhere was this more the case than for children, young people and their families … If we are to meet the needs of children, young people, families and carers, it is vital that we listen to them in designing services, gather information on their experiences and priorities, provide them with the accessible information that they need to make choices about their care, and involve them in decision making”.
That is the Government’s own response to the report.
I also draw attention to the report from the ombudsman in Wales. I know we are going to debate ombudsmen later but I will make this one point. The ombudsman upheld a complaint that Health Inspection Wales,
“failed to seek the child’s perspective on her care”.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is very concerned that “no decision about me without me” must extend to children and should involve both children and young people. Without that we will have poorer service planning and, as a result of that, poorer health outcomes. A voice for children and young people needs to be incorporated in the decision-making process of the NHS Commissioning Board, health and well-being boards and clinical commissioning groups, and a safe conduit for this involvement may be HealthWatch and local healthwatch.
I want to briefly draw the House’s attention to the fact that we have many young carers so it is not only children as patients that we need to consider. In the 2001 census it was found that there were 175,000 young carers and no one is disputing that those numbers have gone up significantly since then. A third of those are caring for somebody with mental health problems and the average age of young carers is 12 years old. Reading their comments, society clearly does not understand the pressures that they are under. There is evidence that when they get to school late, the school does not understand. When they try to accompany their parent to out-patient or even in-patient appointments, they are not listened to even though they have been providing all the care. The facilities where their relative is looked after are not appropriate for them to stay overnight. I remind the Committee that when a young parent is dying, the children will want to stay at the bedside. They may want to sleep in the same room. They do not want to be taken away. They may want to have a break; they may want to go out; they may want to watch a video. If we are really going to invest in quality of care and health outcomes for the next generation, and meet the Marmot review’s requirement for health inequalities not to be widened but narrowed, we must address the needs of this group in our population who provide a lot of care, who are incredibly important and who will be the citizens of the future, but to whom the system does not currently give a voice. To expect adults to be a voice for them is completely unrealistic, because, when they are a young carer, there is no other adult there apart from the person whom they are caring for.
I hope that these amendments will not be dismissed with a whole lot of reasons as to why they cannot be put into practice. If we are really committed to changing healthcare services for the population, we should listen to the voice of children and young people.
Baroness Thornton
My noble friend Lady Massey is, as usual, correct about these matters. I am always happy to take my lead from her. All my experience of working with NCH and lots of children’s organisations over the years, and, more recently, of talking to YoungMinds, leads me to think that this is a matter that the Government need to take into consideration.
Lord Warner
My Lords, my name, too, is on the amendments. I support what my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have said. I want to refer to adolescent health services. We know that primary care services are not often very user-friendly in relation to adolescent health needs. I have come across GPs who have had special sessions and even private doors so that adolescents can come into their surgeries without being spotted by nosy neighbours. There are some real issues of privacy with young people in the adolescent years. They do not always find these services easy to use, when they often have considerable health needs and sometimes quite serious mental health needs. In my time as chair of the Youth Justice Board some time ago, we were starting to find that for many young offenders the origin of their offending was when someone significant in their family had died. It was the absence of any bereavement services that caused them to go off the rails. It is more than just symbolism to put these extra words in the Bill; it is a very important signal to the NHS that Parliament recognises the need to pay attention to the needs of children, to listen to them and to meet a set of needs which are often not being met.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Baroness Thornton Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My Lords, the NICE implementation collaborative is a collaboration between NICE and representatives or stakeholder groups, including the chief pharmaceutical officer, the main industry bodies, the NHS Confederation, the Clinical Commissioning Coalition, the Royal Colleges and, if Parliament approves, the NHS Commissioning Board. The idea is that its members are going to work together to identify where support is needed and to identify solutions for the NHS through the development of implementation guidance—in other words, to improve the uptake of new and innovative technologies in the NHS.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has never really liked NICE very much, so I am not surprised at his Question. A lot of the work of NICE is not about approving new medicines but about care pathways. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to look at its last 10 press releases; they are all about how you treat COPD or HIV, the care pathways for people with mental illness and so on. Will the Minister confirm that NICE’s guidelines on care pathways will have the same effect under the new architecture as they have today?
Earl Howe
My Lords, our expectation is that the NHS will continue to use NICE clinical guidelines to inform local improvement activity. These guidelines are tremendously valued and very authoritative. The noble Baroness is quite right: they have the potential to make a big impact on the quality of care and to add value.