Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Kevin Barron Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I am afraid that we are an hour into an hour-and-a-half debate, and I am anxious to allow time for other Members to speak.

The case that the amendment is intended to make is that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request, or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. I might say, after many years in the House, that in matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer we have almost certainly asked the wrong question.

The amendment is the opposite of evidence-based policy making. We know that the British Medical Association advises its members:

“A decision to terminate a pregnancy is never an easy one. In making these decisions, patients and doctors should ensure that the decision is supported by appropriate information and counselling about the options and implications.”

We know that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidance on abortion states:

“Women should be given counselling according to their need—including post-abortion if she needs it. All women should be offered standalone counselling. The counselling should include: implications counselling (aims to enable the person concerned to understand the…course of action…); support counselling (aims to give emotional support in times of particular stress) and therapeutic counselling (aims to help people with the consequences of their decision and to help them resolve problems which may arise as a result)”.

We know that Department of Health regulations state:

“Counselling must be offered to women who request or appear to need help in deciding on the management of the pregnancy or who are having difficulty in coping emotionally”.

We also know that all the clinics that have been discussed in the debate are inspected and regulated.

Yet the proposers of the amendment are asking us to believe, on the basis of purely anecdotal evidence, that tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and charity workers involved in the 190,000 abortions a year are wilfully ignoring both the law and the guidance of the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. They go further than that, arguing that tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and charity workers are merely in it for the money. They imply that those men and women are involved in some sort of grotesque piecework. It is almost as though they were paid per abortion. The proposers of the amendment, I might add, also seem to be arguing that thousands of women do not actually know what they are doing. It tells us something about the validity of their claims that they are obliged to smear tens of thousands of doctors and nurses to make any kind of case. No wonder that a journalist for The Sunday Times—no friend of the liberal left, but one who happens to have served as a lay member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—last weekend described the amendments as a “senseless and sinister bid” to cut abortions.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Any evidence that we have heard has been anecdotal—we have heard of a 16-year-old’s journey and of e-mails that hon. Members have seen but that I have not. However, my hon. Friend makes a real point. The conclusion of the consultation might be that a termination takes place, but this is the only procedure in this country that requires the informed consent of two doctors. Government Members besmirch doctors by saying that such things happen daily, but that is not true. From my nine years on the General Medical Council, I recognise that we have good ethical guidelines for doctors. Nothing is done without the informed consent of two medical practitioners.

[Ms Abbott]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

The very simple question to be asked is “Why the delay?” Why could the Minister not have introduced it earlier? We have known about the problem for eight months and more. The Secretary of State, who has been keen on changes such as this for a long time, must have given some thought to what he was going to do about staff training and work force planning in the NHS.

[Mr Barron]

It was clear from the day of its publication that the Bill, which abolishes the structure that had kept education and training in place, would create chaos in the national health service. Here we are, hundreds of amendments later, with a resubmitted Bill. Our debate on the outcome has been crammed into two days, which is wholly unsatisfactory, and the Government still cannot tell us what will replace the structure that has been in place for so many years. That is a nonsense.

I listened to the Minister’s speech earlier. He was telling people—people outside, including professionals who want this kind of professional development on a continuing basis—to have faith in what might happen at some stage. I have to say that I have little faith in what the Government have done with the Bill from the very beginning.

[Owen Smith]

I entirely agree, and my faith is diminishing by the minute. I do not understand why the Government cannot simply concede that they have signally failed to deal with this crucial aspect of the Bill. It took them months to produce the revised failure regime. They managed to drag that out in time for Report, but they have not produced the impact assessment, they have not produced any figures showing how much this will cost the public purse, although we know that the amount is rising—I should love the Minister to tell us by how much—and they have not produced a solution to the crucial problem of staff training and work force planning. That is a disgrace. They could have and should have done it by now.

New clause 13 would place a further duty on providers, related to what is in the earlier new clause. It would oblige them to make provision for training and work force planning for their own staff, thus filling another gaping hole in the Bill. As the Minister might say if he intervened on me, Monitor may well have powers, under the pricing clauses, to pay less under the tariff to providers who do not engage in training, but nothing in the Bill compels new entrants—especially private providers—to give their staff any training, or to deal with any costs that the NHS has traditionally had to bear for the education of the work force.

We all know that in the incredibly fast-moving and innovative world of health care, keeping staff up to date is absolutely crucial. That is why—I hate to say it—despite the news that we are to have an amendment ín the Lords, we will attempt to press amendment 7 to a vote. It proposes the retention of SHAs until and unless we know precisely what the Government will put in their place in respect of training and administration.

NHS staff is another group that is profoundly concerned by the shambles, chaos and confusion that Ministers have overseen. Under the Bill, they are described as assets and will be transferred lock, stock and barrel between new providers. The new providers may be a private company—such as Helios, Bupa, UnitedHealth, or whoever else decides it is interested in running the NHS in future—and the staff may be transferred to the new providers. The Minister shrugs, suggesting that that is a misrepresentation, so I challenge him to intervene on me and state what he seemed to imply earlier: that what I have just said is not the case.

Schedule 23 makes that explicit, however. It provides for the transfer of NHS staff and other assets. It allows such so-called assets to be passed in future from NHS entities to the new CCGs. That can happen to any

“person who provides services as part of the health service in England and consents to the transfer”.

Under schedule 23, any NHS member of staff—or a building or intellectual property—can, so long as they agree, be transferred to anybody else who is licensed to provide services to the NHS. I find that extraordinary, but not quite as extraordinary as the next provision, which refers to NHS bodies being able to transfer all such assets—what a delightful way to refer to people—to a “qualifying company”, whatever that means. I will be delighted if the Minister tells us what the term “qualifying company” in schedule 23 means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barron]

I have been a Member of this House for 28 years and I have been active in different parts of health policy for many years, and I have never seen any Bill—not just any health Bill—come to this House so ill-prepared to be put on to the statute book. I served during the two stages of the Public Bill Committee. Largely, I asked questions where I wanted explanations, but I got very few answers. As was said earlier today, part 3 remains in this Bill and its 97 clauses bring in economic regulation. Only nine of those clauses have been amended since the Future Forum met and said that we were in deep trouble with this.

What did the Future Forum ask for? It recommended that Monitor’s powers should

“promote choice, collaboration and integration.”

Monitor’s powers have changed somewhat, but the major change that occurred during the second part of the Committee stage was that the Government took away Monitor’s power to promote competition and gave it a new power to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. Perhaps, at some stage, somebody will be able to tell me what that means. Perhaps somebody will also be able to tell me the answer to something I asked in the first sitting of the Public Bill Committee: what do the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading have to do with the mergers of two NHS trusts? The relevant Minister said at the time that that was a good question, but I have not heard it answered since.

I must say, with all due respect, that no Labour Member argued that the NHS is perfect, nor would I do so. But this Bill is a dog’s dinner. The national health service and the nation do not deserve it, and I will vote against it tonight.