Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Before I begin, I am sure that the eyes of every Member are on events in France and we wish the French authorities the very best of luck in their endeavours in the aftermath of Wednesday’s events.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on navigating his Bill to this stage. Not many private Members’ Bills make it to this point. This is a good Bill and I am sure we would all like to see it on the statute book. I hope that it can complete its final Commons stages today.

On 13 November 2014, the Secretary of State for Health announced that Dame Fiona Caldicott would be the new national data guardian for health and care, and that her role would become

“the patients’ champion on security of personal medical information.”

She will

“be able to intervene if she is concerned by how an organisation is sharing data. She can refer concerns directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC)”.

Those principles are supported by all Opposition Members. Sharing data and information can and, indeed, should improve health care, but we must ensure that patient privacy is protected at all times.

If Dame Fiona’s role is to look at how organisations share data, that role will become directly relevant to the provisions in clause 3. In his announcement, the Secretary of State for Health said:

“I intend to put the National Data Guardian on a legal footing at the earliest opportunity”.

The business of the House is not so demanding that he can blame a lack of parliamentary time for not introducing such plans, especially as there have been concerns about data for a very long time. Those concerns have become even more acute since the bungled implementation of the care.data scheme, which is so important to our research base.

In Committee, I told the Minister that if the Government did not make progress on their announcement, the Opposition would help them out. That help has arrived today. The Government have done nothing, so I have tabled new clause 1 to place a duty on the Secretary of State to hold a consultation process on the role of a statutory national data guardian. We do not wish to prejudice the role by prescribing its functions. It is right that the role should be determined by consulting those on whom it will have an impact, not least Dame Fiona herself. Many stakeholders will be keen to contribute to a consultation process; they are crying out for progress.

The Bill places a duty on health care providers to share information wherever relevant. As new systems are put to the test, there will inevitably be more pressure on the national data guardian. The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to start a consultation within 30 days of the passage of the Bill. We are all keen to see progress, and the new clause would ensure that the process got under way almost immediately.

We want the consultation to be meaningful and thorough to ensure that the new role is as effective as possible in maintaining standards by highlighting and, more importantly, fixing poor practice as and when it occurs. The Minister said in Committee that the delay to date was because the Government wanted to consult widely with stakeholders. That is the precisely the purpose of new clause 1, so I can only imagine that the Government will support it. If they oppose it, will he explain why? Will he commit himself to writing to me about the proposed timeline for the consultation and the planned legislative timetable for putting the role on a statutory footing, as we discussed in Committee?

Sharing data can lead to much better outcomes for patients throughout the health and social care sector, but we must ensure that personal data are used safely, and that any promotion of data sharing is done responsibly to improve health outcomes. That principle has already been explored in depth, and the Labour party is clear that it supports that principle, as I am sure do all Members. There is wide support for the role of the national data guardian. Putting it on a statutory footing has cross-party support. I hope that the Government will get on with it today.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for tabling new clause 1, which allows us to debate the issue. I am most grateful to him for his full and constructive engagement with the Bill. A consultation on making the role of the national data guardian statutory is extremely important, and I fully appreciate the reasons why he has tabled the new clause.

I welcome the appointment last November of Dame Fiona Caldicott as the first national data guardian. Her extensive knowledge and experience in this area will ensure strong and visible leadership. She, together with her panel, will act as a source of clear authoritative advice and guidance across the health and care system. The Secretary of State said at the time of her appointment:

“We need to be as determined to guarantee personal data is protected as we are enthusiastic to reap the benefits of sharing it. Dame Fiona will oversee the safe use of people’s personal health and care information and hold organisations to account if there is any cause for concern, ensuring public confidence.”

Let me make it quite clear that the clauses on the duty to share information are not about care.data, which is another issue for another time. My Bill is about data being shared only with those who are directly responsible for an individual’s care for the purposes of that care. Its remit is very restrictive.

A consultation should, as the new clause provides, include reference to

“oversight of data sharing as set out in”

the Bill. Understandably, concerns have been raised that a duty to share information might somehow dilute the vital principle of patient confidentiality, which is protected by statute and common law. As I have explained before, I do not believe it will do so.

The seventh of the revised Caldicott principles, as set out in “The Information Governance Review”, is that

“The duty to share information can be as important as the duty to protect patient confidentiality. Health and social care professionals should have the confidence to share information in the best interests of their patients within the framework set out by these principles.”

As was set out on Second Reading and in Committee, clause 3 introduces a duty to share information. That must be done when it is in the person’s best interests and it is

“likely to facilitate the provision to the individual of health services or adult social care”.

Having a statutory duty to share information for the benefit of a person’s care, within the clear limits set out in the Bill, would, alongside the existing strong statutory protection for confidentiality, provide health and social care professionals with the confidence to which Dame Fiona’s report refers.

The consultation on the national data guardian will provide the opportunity to set out how oversight would work for the duty introduced by the Bill, should it become law, under the legislation that will make the role of the NDG statutory. If the consultation cannot be established through a clause in the Bill, which I understand may be the case due to the timing of the general election—the Minister will go into that, I believe—it needs to happen at the earliest possible opportunity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

The new clause relates to clauses 2, 3 and 4. Clause 2 will place a duty on providers and commissioners of publicly funded health and adult social care to use a consistent identifier in a person’s health and care records and correspondence. The consistent identifier must be specified in regulations, and the Government’s intention is that the NHS number will be specified. It is important to note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) outlined, that the duty to use the NHS number would apply only in the direct provision of care and when it was in the individual’s best interests. As he articulately said, this matter is very different from the issues with care.data that we have discussed. There is a duty on professionals to share information in the best interests of patients in respect of the provision of direct care.

Clause 3 will introduce a duty to share information that is held by providers and commissioners when it is in an individual’s best interests and will support their direct care and treatment. As we discussed in Committee, that is an essential part of the delivery of safe, effective and high-quality care.

Clause 4 defines health or adult social care commissioners or providers. Its effect will be that the duties imposed by clauses 2 and 3 will apply only to relevant health or adult social care commissioners or providers. They are defined as public bodies exercising health or adult social care in England and any person, other than an employee, who provides such services or care under arrangements within a public body.

I welcome the constructive support of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), throughout the passage of the Bill. There has been a great deal of consensus, and rightly so. I am grateful for his support for the role of the national data guardian. As was discussed in Committee, the Government are committed to consulting on the role of the national data guardian and the Secretary of State has given his unequivocal support to the consultation. We believe that having a data guardian is an important additional safeguard in the system.

As the House will be aware, Dame Fiona Caldicott has been appointed as the first national data guardian and has already built up significant credibility in her role of challenging and scrutinising the way in which information is shared across the health and social care system. Strengthening and broadening the role of the national data guardian will further enhance the confidence of patients and the public that there is a strong voice for their rights and protections in this area.

Even without a legislative basis, Dame Fiona’s panel, which was previously known as the independent information governance oversight panel, has built its reputation as an effective and authoritative voice. It has helped to ensure that data and information are shared in a way that allows the health and care system to access what it needs to improve outcomes for patients, while protecting against their inappropriate use. Having made significant progress, there is now clear agreement across the House that it is important to embed the national data guardian in the health and care system as a powerful independent voice, and to put that role on a statutory footing.

--- Later in debate ---

I offer sincere thanks to my hon. Friend, to Ken Lownds, the Minister and all the officials who have played such an active part in ensuring the Bill’s success. I wish it well on its way. It will make an enormous difference to health care throughout the entire national health service.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I would like to speak to new clauses 2 and 3 together. The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) seek to embed safety as the central component of the CQC’s inspection regime. My hon. Friend is not only a supporter of the Bill but a major inspiration behind it. His determination in this place to establish what went wrong in the care of his constituents and mine, and to ensure that our NHS was improved as a result, is a major reason for us being here today.

I agree entirely with the principles contained in the new clauses. New clause 2 would place a duty on the CQC to include safety in its annual performance assessment and ratings, while new clause 3 would require the CQC to consider safety in its annual state of care report. I believe that clause 1 of my Bill would already ensure that the CQC has a duty to do all that is contained in new clauses 2 and 3. I will try to explain why.

Clause 1 states that the requirements for registration with the CQC will always cover safety by securing that registered providers of health and social care “cause no avoidable harm”. The CQC will therefore be under a duty both to consider safety in its inspections and ratings and to cover this area in its state of care report. Indeed, it already does so, and here I pay tribute to the previous Government for introducing this annual state of health and social care report through the 2008 Act.

The foreword to this year’s report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has already referred, is hard hitting about safety and indeed quality. It states:

“The variation in the quality and safety of care in England is too wide and unacceptable. The public is being failed by numerous hospitals, care homes and GP practices that are unable to meet the standards that their peers achieve and exceed.”

I welcome this candour. This is what we expect from the CQC—to hold the NHS and indeed the Government to account, and to ensure that action is taken.

Let me mention an article that appeared in The Times yesterday, showing the huge variability of standards within the NHS and praised some outstanding trusts, specifically mentioning one in Birmingham and a couple of others. What we want to see is those standards being uniform across the NHS. I know that all those working within the NHS and social care want to see that. Nobody goes into work wanting to fail; they want to succeed for their patients to whom they have a duty of care. For our part, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have the environment in which that can happen. That is a small part of what this Bill is designed to bring about.

[Sir William Cash]

I recall the extraordinary experience of discovering that in order for the original trust in Mid Staffordshire to achieve trust status, an interview was necessary. In that interview, I believe 48 questions were put, 35 or so of which were about finance—not about care and safety. That demonstrated why everything went wrong. Now, however, under these arrangements, the whole situation is completely reversed, which is a thoroughly good idea.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. There were moves towards that when the Healthcare Commission, which was responsible at that stage and manifestly failed in the case of Mid Staffordshire, was replaced by the Care Quality Commission—an understanding by the previous Government that progress needed to be made in ensuring the quality and safety of care. That progress has been maintained and accelerated under the present Government.

I was referring to the 2013-14 report. One of my hon. Friend’s new clauses specifically provides that safety should be a part of such reports. Indeed, the report goes into detail over the way in which the CQC has inspected for safety. On page 12, for instance, it gives an example of a wide variation in the ratings on safety and four other measures—effective, caring, responsive and well led—for each department in a particular hospital. The ratings for safety range from inadequate to good, which shows that even within a trust or a hospital, there is a wide range of safety performance. The CQC is therefore already fulfilling what my hon. Friend is seeking in these two new clauses.

Of course, the same might be argued for clause 1 itself: why is it necessary when the CQC is now implementing the Secretary of State’s requirement to ensure that providers “cause no avoidable harm”? The reason is that, without clause 1, a Secretary of State would not have that obligation. While I cannot imagine a Secretary of State who would not consider safety and “no avoidable harm” as top priorities, experience and indeed the CQC’s own report from which I have quoted show that some of the organisations for which the CQC has the responsibility for regulation have not, and might still not, take safety seriously enough.

[Sir William Cash]

I distinctly remember insisting over and over again during the debates on the whole question of Mid Staffordshire that were taking place until the last general election that it was the Secretary of State who had to take the final responsibility for these matters, and that the duties imposed on him and the functions that he had to perform had ultimately to be his and must not be transferred to some other agency, however worthy it might be and however hard it might work to achieve objectives which, as we now know, were not being complied with satisfactorily, but which are being complied with satisfactorily now, under the Care Quality Commission. The argument that my hon. Friend is advancing comes straight from the history of the experience of Mid Staffordshire, and there is no one better to put the case than him.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I entirely agree that this is an extremely important matter. Clause 1 will ensure that there is no slippage in the future, because the Secretary of State cannot get out of her or his responsibility, and the Care Quality Commission’s annual state of care report will be part of the process of holding the Secretary of State to account. I encourage, indeed challenge, this or any future Government to hold a proper annual debate on the report, because it is a vital report. Indeed, I should welcome a debate on the 2013-14 report, uncomfortable thought it might be for certain people.

I believe that new clauses 2 and 3 are unnecessary, because what they prescribe flows from clause 1. However, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone for tabling them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I see him nodding and I am glad that I managed to pass that test. I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who ensures that we all keep up to the mark.

On this occasion, I think we would have the capacity to make the change in the first place, but, if not, perhaps we can take a belt-and-braces approach in the House of Lords and use the notwithstanding formula. We shall see.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Again, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for tabling this new clause, which covers an important subject—the language skills of doctors—although of course the language skills of all involved in clinical care are vital.

Clear and understandable communication is essential to safety and the quality of care of patients. Language skills are a necessary condition for good communication, but not a sufficient condition. They must be accompanied by good communication skills, with which not all of us are automatically blessed, however good our language skills. Communication skills teaching is now an essential part of training in medical and nursing schools and it is to the credit of the previous Government that they ensured that it was embedded in the curriculum of new medical schools and was taken forward in existing schools. I welcome the Government’s support for that important approach.

I understand that regulations have been in place for a short while to ensure that all doctors, whether from within or from outside the European Union, have appropriate language skills before being granted a licence to practise. I want to hear from the Minister what the effect of those important regulations has been and whether he believes that new clause 4 is necessary. I would also like him to consider whether the assessment of language skills should include communication skills within that language.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I want to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is an important new clause on a matter that it would be wise to have clearly set forth in primary legislation.

The heart of the matter is, unfortunately, the European Union and the mutual recognition of qualifications within the EU, and there are good reasons for that. The only way to open up service industries generally is if mutual recognition of qualifications takes place, so if we are to have a single market in services that is an important basis for it. However, above and beyond that there must be a fundamental principle of patient safety, which is embodied in this excellent Bill, and a lack of good language skills and of understanding of a language is a danger in both directions. It is a danger for the doctor who is listening to the patient explain his or her symptoms and it is also a danger when the doctor explains to the patient what steps the patient needs to take for better health. If there is confusion, it can have a seriously deleterious effect on the patient’s health.

We must be clear that this is not about restrictive practice or protecting the market for British doctors but about ensuring that there can never be such confusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone says, if this provision runs into trouble with the European Union, we need to state clearly that it is of such fundamental importance that it must override international treaty obligations. It was Disraeli who said in his speech in the Manchester free trade hall in 1872, “Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas”—that the first duty of Minister is the health of his people. That statement has underlined and guided Conservative policy for nearly a century and a half.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) opened the batting on this new clause.

I very strongly support the sentiment behind the new clause. It should go without saying that people who are practising medicine should be able to communicate properly in English. It is a sad state of affairs when we have got to a point where we feel the need to introduce legislation in this regard. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, sufficient examples have been reported around the country to indicate that we do have a problem. It may not be widespread—it may only occur in pockets—but it is perfectly clear that in some areas there is a problem that needs to be addressed. If the Government do not intend to accept the new clause, I would like to know what they intend to do about this genuine problem that people have identified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made a reasonable point about the measures that were put in place, partly by the previous Government, relating to new doctors and people who are currently going through training. The problem with that, however, is that it does not deal with the people who are already practising.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Does he accept—perhaps the Minister will comment on this as well—that the revalidation process that doctors now have to go through should include, if it does not already, as I am sure that it must, language and, indeed, communication skills?

[Philip Davies]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. I am not entirely sure, though, how robust that process is or whether the same test is applied for people who are currently practising as for those who are starting out on their training. I suspect that there may well be a slight difference in the standard that is expected. I hope that I am wrong and he is right; it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says. I would be interested to know how many people have been struck off because they are unable to communicate effectively—if it is hardly any, or none, that would indicate that the current regime is not working effectively—and how often the measures that my hon. Friend mentions have been invoked.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made an interesting point about the European Union. I do not intend to get bogged down in that today, but it would be interesting to know what the Minister’s understanding of this is. If he will not accept the new clause, is my hon. Friend’s point a factor in that, or is it his position, and that of the Government, that nothing in EU law would prevent such a provision from being introduced?

Although I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause, I wonder whether its wording is deficient and could lead to some unintended consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made great play of the need for people to be able to communicate effectively in English, and he is absolutely right, but unfortunately there is no mention of English in his new clause. That seems to be a rather glaring omission that could lead to unintended consequences at a later date. The new clause merely says that people who practise medicine should

“have appropriate language skills to communicate effectively with their colleagues and patients.”

I think what he is really trying to say is that they should have appropriate English language skills to communicate effectively with their colleagues and patients. As drafted, the new clause would place an onus on people practising medicine to have appropriate language skills in general to communicate effectively with their patients. In the case of a patient who speaks no English whatsoever and speaks Urdu, for example, would the new clause insist, in effect, that their doctor must be able to communicate effectively with them in the only language that they are capable of speaking? That would seem to be a possibility, because the crucial word that has been omitted is “English”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank all those who have worked with and supported me in bringing the Bill to this stage. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who, as I mentioned on Report, has been an inspiration, as have Julie Bailey, Ken Lownds and many others who campaigned for the Francis inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is now a Minister, was also a driving force—clauses 2 and 3 are substantially based on a Bill that he had previously introduced—and I thank him for his work and support. I also thank all hon. and right hon. Members who served in Committee and who sponsored the Bill.

I thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office for all their help, advice and skill, as well as the Bill team and others in the Department of Health, who worked extremely hard, for all their skill and advice. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) and his Front-Bench colleagues, and my hon. Friend the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues for supporting measures that I believe will assist us to get what we all want—higher-quality, safer and more integrated health and social care.

That is the purpose of the Bill: if it does not help in some important ways to achieve that, it will serve no purpose. I believe that it will do so for several reasons. First, it will ensure that every Secretary of State makes patient safety a priority at all times. Would that have prevented the tragic events at Mid Staffordshire or in other hospitals, surgeries or care homes? It would certainly not have done so in every case, but I am convinced that the attention given to safety would have done precisely that—prevented much avoidable harm to patients. In the important words of the Prime Minister in response to the Francis report on 6 February 2013:

“Quality of care means not accepting that bed sores and hospital infections are somehow occupational hazards—that a little bit of these things is somehow okay. It is not okay; they are unacceptable—full stop, end of story. That is what zero harm—the jargon for this—means.—[Official Report, 6 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 281.]

Secondly, the Bill will put in place another of the necessary building blocks for the integration of health and social care that we all desire. A consistent identifier is not sufficient to bring about integration, but it is most certainly necessary and will help in some way.

Thirdly, the Bill will help the sharing of information, which is vital for a person’s care. Almost everyone with whom I have discussed this matter has told me of times when they or their loved ones have had to repeat information about their care on several occasions, or found that vital information—perhaps regarding medication or allergies—was simply not available to the person caring for them.

Finally, the Bill will bring consistency to the objectives of the regulation of the health and social care professions under the overarching objective of the protection of the public.

During the passage of the Bill, a number of important questions have been raised, both within and without the House. I am grateful to those who have raised them, because it is vital that a Bill such as this receives strict scrutiny.

A fear was expressed that the consistent identifier would become an ID card by the backdoor. The identifier could never become an ID card because it will be used only to facilitate the provision of health services or adult social care, and it must only be used in the individual’s best interests.

It has been asserted that there is no need for the duty to share information because the sharing of information is already required as part of the professional duties of health and care professionals. However, Dame Fiona Caldicott’s review in 2013 concluded that such sharing was not always happening as it should as a result of a “culture of anxiety”. The legislative landscape was found to be a contributory factor and a risk-averse attitude to information sharing was cited as a barrier to sharing by staff who deliver care directly to individuals. The Bill seeks to provide a remedy, while setting clear limits on the information that can be shared and the circumstances under which it can be shared.

Others have concerns about the Bill’s introduction of

“public confidence in the professions”

to the objectives of the regulatory bodies. The Law Commission’s report of April 2014 noted:

“It was argued that maintaining confidence in the profession was being used to punish professionals who pose no threat to the public for something which incurred the profession’s, or the public’s, disapproval. Specific examples included a nurse who was disciplined for publishing a work of fiction about euthanasia and an investigation into a doctor’s behaviour at a Parent-Teacher Association meeting. Some argued that the concept of maintaining confidence in the profession was too subjective and difficult to quantify to form the basis of a statutory duty.”

The report concludes that in constructing the draft Bill on which the provisions of the Bill are based, the Law Commission was

“not seeking to change the current legal position or disrupt the relevant case law. The clause restates the existing legislative position that public protection is the regulators’ ‘main’ objective, and recognises that the public interest also consists of promoting and maintaining public confidence and proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

I have no doubt that, should the Bill receive its Third Reading today, all the matters that I and others have raised will receive further scrutiny in the other place by experts.

No legislation can guarantee that there will be safe, high-quality care. Such care is founded on the capability, commitment and compassion of those who work day and night in our health and care services; no law can bring it about. What legislation can do, and what this Bill seeks in some small way to achieve, is to ensure that the framework within which those people work is sound—that the systems, resources, training and regulation that they need to provide safe, high-quality care are in place. In doing so, this is a Bill for both patients and professionals; for avoidable harm and poor care hurt both, while safe, high-quality care is a blessing for all.