Children’s Cardiac Surgery (Glenfield)

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow such excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I rise to speak both as the shadow Health Minister and as the Member of Parliament for Leicester West. My constituency is extremely fortunate to include Glenfield hospital. I welcome the members of staff who have taken time out from their busy jobs and travelled a great distance to attend the debate, and I thank them for doing so.

The future of children’s heart surgery matters greatly to the thousands of people who signed the e-petition that has made today’s debate possible. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) for securing the debate. The issue also matters to thousands of families right across the country, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) have attended this afternoon.

The issue of children’s heart surgery has needed to be resolved for many years. Following the findings of the Bristol royal infirmary inquiry 10 years ago, clinicians and professional bodies, including the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, have been very clear that children’s heart services need to change.

The problem is that services in England have grown up ad hoc and are too thinly spread across the country for every child to get the best possible standards of care. That is why the previous Government initiated the Safe and Sustainable review and why we continue to support the principle of fewer, more specialist centres for children’s heart surgery.

The issue is whether the Safe and Sustainable review has fully considered all the relevant clinical evidence in making its recommendations. The review has failed fully to consider the clinical implications of moving services from Glenfield, particularly the children’s ECMO service. I fear that that mistake is about to be repeated, because the new review being conducted by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which we learned about earlier today, will not include discussion of the former Secretary of State’s decision to sign off moving children’s ECMO services from Glenfield to Birmingham.

The two things cannot be separated and are inextricably linked: what happens to the children’s heart surgery happens to ECMO services. It is important to remember that any decisions about nationally commissioned specialist services, such as ECMO, must be signed off by the Secretary of State. I assume that the former Secretary of State made that decision only because of the recommendations of the Safe and Sustainable review, so we need to ensure that any review of those recommendations looks at both ECMO and children’s surgery.

At the risk of repeating the many eloquent speeches that we have heard, Leicester has one of the largest ECMO units in the world and it has long experience, having started in 1989. Glenfield has built up a team of more than 80 ECMO specialists. It is the only unit in the UK that can treat all age groups, which was critical during the H1N1 flu pandemic, because Leicester was able to flex its service to treat up to 10 adults simultaneously while training people working in other adult centres and co-ordinating the national service, triaging all the patients and providing the majority of the patient transport.

[David Tredinnick]

Will the hon. Lady dwell on the mobile service, because that is often a last-hope service for patients? I am informed that, without the mobile service, some patients would not survive.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman has predicted my next sentence. Leicester is also the only unit in England and Wales to provide a mobile ECMO service for babies and children. Once again, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the adult ECMO service from the children’s ECMO services. The two are linked. It is not just about equipment; it is about staff and teams working and learning together.

I do not want to denigrate any hospital’s work, but I understand that Birmingham has neither the capacity to continue the mobile ECMO service nor any plans to develop a mobile ECMO service for children. That is a serious cause for concern and something that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel must consider.

Hon. Members have already talked about the outcomes for ECMO patients at Glenfield being significantly better than elsewhere. This is not anecdotal opinion, but clinically audited, peer-reviewed evidence that has come from the very best clinical databases available in this country and internationally. Independently validated data from the UK paediatric intensive care unit database, or PICANet, show that survival rates are at least 50% higher in Leicester. That difference in mortality is maintained even when the severity of illness treated by Glenfield is taken into account.

Data from the best available international register, provided by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation, support the evidence of good outcomes in Leicester and show that crude mortality rates in Leicester are 19%, but nearly twice as high in other centres, at 35%. Both those independent, validated data sources show the high quality of ECMO care provided at Leicester and bring into sharp focus the risks of closing Glenfield’s children’s ECMO service.

A service cannot simply be picked up and moved to another city without losing vital skills and expertise. It takes years to build up the quality of care to the same level. Interestingly, the Safe and Sustainable review explicitly addresses the time it takes to build up the quality of care in relation to children’s heart surgery. It says that

“clinical outcomes improve with experience”,

due to factors such as team working, as well as the experience of individual clinicians. The review says that this is a

“statistically significant observation in keeping with analysis which demonstrates historically, an 8 - 10 year period of time before such a service matures to produce excellent clinical outcomes”.

If that is so in relation to children’s heart surgery services, it also pertains to children’s ECMO services.

It was unfortunate that, in his letter to the chair of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, the Secretary of State referred simply to moving the equipment of the ECMO service. It is not just equipment; it is about staff. It is clear that the majority of staff at Glenfield will be unable to move due to family commitments. Many of the nurses there have homes, families and children, and they may be second earners. A family cannot simply be uprooted and moved. Indeed, an anonymised survey of all staff at the unit found that 80% are “not at all likely” to move to Birmingham. Significantly, none of the ECMO specialists who replied to the survey were able to consider working in Birmingham.

I am concerned that the Safe and Sustainable review has not considered the evidence about ECMO in sufficient detail. The review panel took advice about the future of ECMO services from the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services. There was no representative from any UK or international professional ECMO body on the advisory group, so it commissioned a report from ECMO experts, including Dr Kenneth Palmer, director of the ECMO unit at Karolinska university, whom several hon. Members have mentioned.

Following that report, the advisory group said that it would be “possible” to move Glenfield’s children’s ECMO service. However, the question is not whether it is possible, but whether it is desirable and whether it makes sense to move one of the best-performing services—if not the best, not just in this country but in Europe and internationally. That would not be considered in respect of children’s heart surgery services, so why consider that for ECMO?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Mr Hollobone, I apologise for not being able to follow the whole debate; I am participating in the debate on Hillsborough.

A number of hon. Members from all parties have praised the work of the campaigners. Our best evidence that the facilities work comes from people such as Ria Pahwa, the young girl from Rushey Mead in my constituency, who had seven operations in Glenfield and who has been an essential part of this campaign. If we are looking for evidence that the facilities need to stay in Leicestershire, the evidence is in the campaigners themselves.

[Liz Kendall]

We have all met many children, some of whom are now adults, and families who have received excellent care and support. It is important that we put their views forward strongly and that the best peer-reviewed and validated clinical evidence is considered in the new review.

As many hon. Members have said, Dr Palmer wrote to the former Secretary of State saying that he sharply opposes the use of his name for the proposed transfer of services from Leicester to Birmingham. A similar view is taken by leading international ECMO experts from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation, which also wrote to the former Secretary of State:

“We are united in our dismay. We are united in our dismay at the proposed move of ECMO services from the Glenfield programme in Leicester to elsewhere…The Glenfield program is clearly and objectively recognised as one of the finest ECMO programs in the world. Movement of an established unit such as Glenfield in the manner described will have profound negative consequences on the outcomes of patients needing ECMO. This move…is one clearly likely to produce results that will have a human toll in increased deaths.”

That is why the specific evidence on ECMO must be fully considered, including by the new review.

An issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and several other hon. Members must also be considered by the new Independent Reconfiguration Panel: whether the assumptions about the level of cases remain based on the best available evidence. The Safe and Sustainable review looked at surgical activity data from the central cardiac audit database for 2002 to 2006—the latest evidence available at the time—which suggest that the number of cases for heart surgery would remain roughly stable over the next 20 years. New validated data, however, are now available for three more years—to 2010—showing a consistent rise in activity, suggesting that adult and paediatric activity will each increase by approximately 75 cases per year.

We also have new evidence from the Office for National Statistics about population growth, which comes from data published in October last year and indicates that there will be substantial increases in the number of nought to four-year-olds, in particular in the east midlands, the east of England and London. That causes real concern about whether Birmingham will be able to cope with all the extra cases that it will receive.

Birmingham’s case load will also increase because of the closure of Northern Ireland’s children’s heart surgery services. The Safe and Sustainable review reports an all-Ireland framework, with Northern Ireland cases going to Dublin, but that will take several years to establish and, in the meantime, a significant and increasing number of babies will continue to travel to Birmingham.

The Birmingham children’s hospital itself is concerned about whether it has the capacity to cope with all the extra cases that it will receive from a closing Glenfield, from the likely increase in surgical activity, from the increase in population, in particular among the nought to fours, and from the increase in cases coming from Northern Ireland. The hospital, I understand, has analysed the case load and produced an internal paper concluding that it would have to perform 1,000 cases a year, which is at the very limit of what the Safe and Sustainable review panel reported as a safe number for cases to be treated. I urge the IRP—rather than the Minister, if she cannot do anything—to look at whether that paper has been written and to assess all such evidence in its review.

Finally, like the previous Government, this Government rightly want changes to children’s heart surgery services so that they provide not only safe standards of care, but excellent, high-quality standards for every child in every part of the country. Just as they want that for children’s heart surgery services, they must want that for children’s ECMO services. It is not good enough to say that it is possible to move a service; we want to know whether it is desirable to move a service to get the very best outcomes.

Glenfield survival rates are 50% higher than any other unit’s in this country and internationally. It will take at least five and probably up to 10 years to redevelop the same quality of service. No one would take the best service in the country for children’s heart surgery and close and move it, so no one should do that for ECMO either.

The issue is of concern to my constituents and those of hon. Members from throughout the east midlands, and to families everywhere in the country. Such people include Clare Johnson, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). She contacted my right hon. Friend to tell him about the experience of her son, Michael. Michael was born in July last year with severe meconium aspiration, which means that his lungs fill with a substance that makes it very difficult to breathe. His lungs haemorrhaged and his heart failed. The paediatric mobile ECMO service from Leicester came to collect him and transferred him to Glenfield. He was on the ECMO machine 24 hours a day for four days; when he came off it, his heart and lungs were working for themselves. Ms Johnson said:

“As soon as the team arrived to prepare him for transfer, their evident skill and professionalism gave us that very first glimmer of hope…The care we received was second to none.”

Ms Johnson also said that:

“although I am not the best person to point out facts and figures, I cannot help but pore over the evidence available and the main thing that strikes me is the ECMO survival rate”,

which is so much better. She said:

“Glenfield is the only unit to offer Mobile ECMO”—

the very service to save her son—and concludes:

“I understand that I probably sound like a Mother who is just wanting to support the unit who saved her baby’s life”

but:

“My beautiful baby boy Michael Martin Johnson died at 10.40 pm, 8 days after his birth and 3 hours after being transferred back to Hull from Leicester. He had a reaction to some medication he was given and died very suddenly and unexpectedly of a severe gastric perforation. A successful result will not bring my son back. But it WILL prevent other mothers from losing their child, as that IS the ultimate and inevitable result that stopping ECMO at Glenfield will have.”

Clare Johnson makes the case far more eloquently than I ever could. I hope that the IRP looks properly at Glenfield’s ECMO service and at the real benefits that it brings. The Minister has rightly said it is up to the IRP to consider the evidence, but it was the new Secretary of State who decided not to include ECMO as part of the review—that is what he says in his letter today—and that is a mistake, because the two services need to be looked at together. I ask the Minister to explain why the Secretary of State has explicitly excluded ECMO from the new review. That is the wrong decision and I hope that it will be changed.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

After the Minister has spoken, I will call Sir Edward Garnier to wind up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, then to the hon. Member for Leicester West.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It will be for the IRP to decide the full extent of its review of all the decisions that have been made, but the points that he has made here and in various letters will no doubt be put to it for consideration. I am told that, so far, it has not had a formal request from Leeds city council’s overview and scrutiny committee, and perhaps he can prevail on the committee to make that submission as a matter of urgency, so that we can all be absolutely sure that the review will be concluded by the end of February, and that there will be as few delays as possible.

[Liz Kendall]

The Secretary of State’s letter today says that his decision regarding removal of ECMO from Glenfield to Birmingham should not form part of the review. Is the Minister saying that the IRP will not look at the Secretary of State’s decision, but that it can look at ECMO services, although not at what he said? I am afraid that that is still unclear.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention. I will explain why the Secretary of State has not been able to review the previous Secretary of State’s decision in this way. However, I am making it clear that the IRP will look at the implications of the decisions, and I will shortly turn to why the previous Secretary of State’s decision is not part of the process. I will then answer some of the specific points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Leicester South, but I want to finish dealing with the IRP.

More generally, in undertaking its review—this may assist my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey—the IRP will interview and take evidence from a number of parties, including, but not limited to, NHS organisations, local authorities and local Members of Parliament. That will normally include evidence used in developing recommendations and proposals, taking decisions and national guidance.

I turn to the specific point about why the decision to move the children’s ECMO services over to Birmingham from Glenfield is not part of the review, or at least part of today’s decisions. Decisions about ECMO for children at Leicester being moved to Birmingham follow from the decision to transfer heart surgery to Birmingham. In other words, it was a consequence of the JCPCT’s decision. Children’s ECMO services are a nationally commissioned service, so the decision was taken by the Secretary of State, not the JCPCT. The Secretary of State made his decision based on the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services. To be clear, the JCPCT having made the decision, AGNSS then looked at the children’s ECMO services at Leicester and recommended to the Secretary of State that, in light of the JCPCT’s decision, those services should also be transferred to Birmingham.

I want to make it clear that it is unfortunate that the word “equipment” has been used. I am more than aware that the matter involves considerably more than pieces of equipment at Glenfield, and I pay full tribute to the team who work there, and indeed to the children’s heart surgery team there and to every team throughout the country. It is important to make it clear that no one is saying that a good service is not being provided, or that a service is bad or poor. The issue is all about ensuring that we get the very best service in fewer but bigger centres.

Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for bringing forward this excellent Bill, and warmly congratulate her on doing so. She is a long-standing advocate and champion of unpaid family carers and wider social care issues. Today, she has again displayed her invaluable contribution to these issues and the House.

The Bill is important because it seeks to change in two fundamental ways the way in which we support disabled people and the family members who care for them. First, it seeks to shift the care system away from focusing predominantly on the needs of people whose care is funded by the state, to recognising the millions of individuals and families who fund their own care. The vast majority of those people are not hugely wealthy, but live on low or modest incomes. When a person whom someone loves becomes frail or ill, it comes as not only an emotional shock, but a financial one, because they have to pay for the care. When they then ask for advice, information or support, they do not get it. People do not even receive the information that is available. That is a big and important change that the Bill seeks to achieve.

Secondly, the Bill seeks to shift the nature of the support that is available to disabled people and their family carers, so that people’s broader needs are met as individuals, not just as carers. That includes their health needs and their needs for skills and training, so that they can build a full and fulfilling life. Crucially, it includes their need or desire to get work and to stay in work. The Bill would make a significant difference in allowing disabled people and their carers to achieve a better quality of life. It would also provide better value for money for taxpayers.

There have been big improvements in the care system over the past decade, with new rights for carers to have their needs assessed, new rights to request flexible working, improvements in respite care, a training and support programme for carers, and strengthened rights for carers in their entitlements, for example to the state pension. However, like many hon. Members, I know from my constituents and my own family that a desperate daily struggle is still faced by too many people who are looking after someone whom they love and who is disabled, is physically frail or has Alzheimer’s—sometimes even all three.

As hon. Members have said, many people do not think of themselves as a carer, but are just trying to be a good daughter, son, husband or wife by looking after the person they love. They therefore do not realise what support is out there. Often, it is only when somebody reaches crisis point and can no longer cope that they look for support. However, people do not know where to go and often the right services are not available to them. The result is that millions of carers see their own health suffer. One in three unpaid family carers of working age has to give up work or reduce their hours, adding financial worries to their already stressful lives.

As has been said, that often happens to women aged 50 to 65, or even older, who still want, and may need, to work. Indeed, as the population is ageing, they will need to work for longer. They face the awful double whammy of having to care and work for longer, and may be unable to balance the two. Any kind of social life or leisure time—something that many people look forward to when they retire—is nothing but a pipe dream. That is not good for carers, and it costs us all more through increased costs to the NHS and a higher benefits bill.

One issue to consider is the statutory framework within which local councils work. Particularly when they are under intense financial pressure, as they are at the moment, they understandably and inevitably focus on delivering their statutory duty to provide care for those in the greatest need. Indeed, they are focusing more and more on a small number of people with intense needs, because of the financial pressures that they face. The bigger agenda of prevention and early intervention is going by the wayside. The Bill’s provisions are intended to change that framework so that councils have a duty to assess the range of care needs in their area and then stimulate the market to ensure that services are available to meet those needs.

The Bill also includes important provisions to ensure that schools and further and higher education bodies identify young carers. Many Members have spoken about that issue, and I will not go into detail because I want to give others time to come in. However, the idea of involving further and higher education providers is groundbreaking and very welcome.

The Bill also addresses how we can get NHS bodies to better identify people who are, or are about to become, carers so that their health needs are assessed too. Many Members have talked about changes that are already being made in some parts of the country to achieve that. My hon. Friends have talked about the work that is taking place in Stockton and Salford, and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) mentioned Torbay care trust, which I visited earlier this year. It is doing brilliant stuff in schools, but also in hospitals. Its staff know that if an elderly person who has had a stroke comes in with a husband, wife or partner, the latter will probably end up being a carer. It has a package of measures in place to identify such people.

In my constituency, Leicester city council has recently set out its plan for improving support for carers. As far as I remember, the plan says a lot about what schools can do, but I do not believe it mentions Leicester college, Leicester university and De Montfort university. The Bill would ensure that such issues were considered in every area, which would make a big difference.

I want to take a few moments to talk about something that we have not focused on so far in the debate but that is critical, which is how the Bill could help our economy. Creating jobs and growth is the biggest challenge that the country faces at the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, the business forum Employers for Carers has clearly spelled out the mounting costs not just to families but to businesses of a care system that is not helping families to juggle their work and caring responsibilities. As our population ages and people have to work, and probably care, for longer, we have to understand that changing our care system is as important as continuing to make improvements in child care in helping families balance those responsibilities.

Using research from the London School of Economics, Age UK has shown that the cost to the economy from carers’ inability to balance their working and caring responsibilities is now £5.3 billion in lost earnings and more than £1 billion in lost tax revenues and benefits bills.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the shadow Minister agree that extending the right to request flexible working is also important? It will enable people with all sorts of caring responsibilities to enter into a discussion with their employer to see whether there might be flexibility for them to be able to work in a different way.

[Liz Kendall]

I have always been a champion of the right to request flexible working, which has made a big difference. I hope the Minister will not listen to the voices of some Members sitting behind him who want employment rights, including the right to request flexible working, removed from those working for a business employing three or fewer people. That would be a mistake and would not help us to address the issue. Employers for Carers has stated that if we stimulate the care market, as measures in the Bill seek to do, that could—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said—deliver a triple economic win: better services for families, infrastructure to help employers retain skilled staff, and a boost to economic growth.

The Bill introduces the big challenge of flipping the care system on its head. Instead of seeing the ageing population and growing care needs and demands as a drain and burden on the country, we should see it as an opportunity for growth. The population is changing; it is ageing. Demand for care and support services will grow, and there is a huge opportunity to develop and stimulate jobs, companies and growth in that area, as has been done in France. In 2005, the French Government launched a plan to develop what they call services à la personne—a range of home care services, home visits and domiciliary care, and different types of services such as those provided by handymen and handywomen, drop-in services and support.

Between 2005 and 2007, 100,000 jobs a year were developed through the different incentives introduced and, as my hon. Friend said, even after the financial crash, 50,000 jobs a year were stimulated in that way. I urge hon. Members to read the report by Carers UK, “Growing the Care Market”, which sets out an important challenge. As we seek to develop and rebalance the economy, growing the care market will deliver better services for families who desperately need them, and a better, bigger, vibrant care market in the future, which is vital.

My hon. Friend’s Bill builds on many of the previous Government’s improvements and on recommendations in the Law Commission’s review of adult social care legislation. That review began under the previous Government, and reflects many aspirations in the current Government’s White Paper and draft Bill on care and support. There is much cross-party consensus that we must move forward on these issues.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the hon. Lady also agree with the Law Commission’s view that it is best to get everything codified in one place so that one piece of legislation addresses all issues of care and support?

[Liz Kendall]

Opposition Members, myself included, want to ensure that the draft Bill on care and support covers all the issues that we wish to see progress. However, we also want to see the provisions in my hon. Friend’s Bill on the statute book. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to engage with my hon. Friend on the draft Bill, but when he rises to speak will he go further and commit to including those clauses for which he has specific responsibility in the Department of Health? Those will include the duty on local authorities to assess people’s needs, ensuring sufficiency of provision, and for NHS bodies to identify carers. I understand that the Minister needs to engage with colleagues in different Departments—notably the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Education—but it would be a welcome step forward if he committed to including in the Bill those clauses for which he has responsibility as a Health Minister.

I should, of course, welcome the Minister to his new role. He has a track record—certainly before the previous election—of commitment to social care. He will also know, however, that we cannot deliver the vision of a transformed system of care and support that Ministers claim to want in their White Paper and Bill, and which Opposition Members certainly want, without the money to deliver it. My hon. Friend’s Bill will make a big difference, but we cannot deliver without getting more money into the system.

As the Minister will know, there are two key challenges. First, we need to address the current funding gap in social care. Because local councils’ budgets are being cut by a third, social care services are being reduced and cut. That is inevitable. Adult social care makes up around 40% of local councils’ budgets, and up to 60% in some areas—it their biggest discretionary spend. When their overall budgets are being cut by a third, it is inevitable that those services will be cut. We need to address that immediate challenge and the immediate care crisis.

Secondly, we need to reform care funding in future. The Minister will know that the Opposition called for and initiated cross-party talks with his predecessor on the recommendations of Andrew Dilnot’s commission on the future funding of care and support. We remain completely committed to trying to achieve cross-party agreement and consensus on that vital issue. Will the Minister tell the House whether the quad of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have agreed to fund Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations, as was reported in the newspapers over the summer recess? I hope they have made such a commitment. We could then work with the Minister to secure the cross-party consensus on both the current gap and the future funding of care. That will enable us to make the vision that Opposition Members have of a better and fairer system of social care a reality.

The provisions in my hon. Friend’s Bill, which I hope will become legislation, would ensure that we deliver that better system of care and support for all those disabled people and family carers, whether they are funded by the state or self-funding, and whether they are younger or older carers. They will also ensure that we give people the decency and dignity they deserve when they are looking after frail, vulnerable and elderly relatives whom they love and whom they want to have a better life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman raised those points earlier. Yes, of course I am keen to engage with Scotland and Wales, and I would certainly be happy to meet the all-party group. I want to be as open and inclusive as possible in this process.

As I have said, there is also a concern that the Bill would impose a range of new, additional burdens on public and private bodies at a time when we are committed to reducing such legal duties. We agree with much of the intent of the Bill, but there are a number of ways in which we can pursue our common goals effectively. In July, the Government published the draft Care and Support Bill, which will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny later this year. That is information on the timetable for the hon. Lady. We can use that process to discuss the provisions relating to adult carers. In addition, earlier this week the Department for Education published draft legislation on the reform of provision for children and young people with special educational needs. That will also present an opportunity to consider how we might improve the identification of and support for young carers. I urge the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) to engage with that process as well.

Private Members’ Bills have played a central part in the history of carers legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberavon for the significant contribution that he made by promoting the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004. He has been involved in these matters throughout the period since, and I want to express my gratitude to him for that. I also want to thank other parliamentarians, including the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) and Lord Pendry. Their contributions to the development of carers’ rights date back to the mid-1980s.

I also want to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). He has championed carers, both from the Back Benches and while Minister with responsibility for care services, and I am certain that he will continue to do so. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work he has done as a Minister. He has shown utter dedication to the cause, and I know that that has been widely appreciated.

Carers make a vital contribution to society, as many Members have said, and we are taking concerted action to support them. We set out our priorities in “Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers Strategy”, in November 2010. Between 2011 and 2015, we will provide an additional £400 million to the NHS to support carers, including through the provision of carers’ breaks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North mentioned this earlier. The White Paper commits to over £125 million of additional resources being allocated to carers.

Carers are central to the Government’s proposals for care and support. For the first time, carers will be placed on the same legal footing as the people they care for. That is an incredibly important breakthrough. We will extend the existing right to a carer’s assessment and provide carers with a new entitlement to support to meet their needs. The hon. Member for Aberavon mentioned Scotland and Wales. Both are planning new legislation, but neither is proposing to require councils to meet the eligible needs of carers for support, as our draft Care and Support Bill does. That should be acknowledged. I understand that Wales and Scotland are proposing a discretionary power to provide services to carers. We are taking groundbreaking measures to improve the position of carers. We are providing resources to the Royal College of General Practitioners. In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South referred to GPs in her own constituency and some of the interesting, innovative things they are doing. I accept that this is not widespread enough at the moment, but interesting things are happening around the country, which we should acknowledge. We are providing resources to the voluntary sector as well as to the Royal College of General Practitioners to help increase awareness among health professionals of the importance of supporting carers to identify themselves as such and to direct them to relevant information, advice and support.

Our care and support White Paper, “Caring for our future”, together with the draft Care and Support Bill published in July, set out the Government’s plans for the biggest transformation of care and support in England since 1948.

It is vital that carers are able to take a break from their caring responsibilities. To help support them to do this, the Government have made available an additional £400 million to the NHS between 2011 and 2015 to provide carers with breaks from their caring responsibilities to sustain them in their caring role. Under the White Paper proposals, carers would benefit from a diverse range of supportive personalised interventions. This might take the form of providing additional support for the care user either through respite care or in their own home; it might give the carer the opportunity to take a short break, perhaps a weekend away to see friends; it might mean being free to get a hospital appointment to look after the carer’s own health—a point raised by many hon. Members.

[Liz Kendall]

Will the Minister clarify how we will be able to keep track of the money allocated for respite care? It is often given out nationally but not ring fenced, which can be a problem when it sort of disappears. How will we know where the money is going? Is it going to clinical commissioning groups, for example? How will we keep an eye on it and how will we know that it has been spent effectively?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I remember challenging the Labour Government on similar grounds when I was in opposition. Money had apparently been allocated to primary care trusts to provide carers with support, but nothing ever happened. I made that point as strongly as I could at that time. I will come on to explain how we shall deal with the legitimate point that the hon. Lady raises.

This extra support might mean the carer and the cared-for person taking a day trip together, so they can spend time outside of the confines of the caring relationship. It might also be through a direct payment—pursued under the Labour Government and now developed under this Government—that could be used to buy a laptop so that the carer can keep in touch with family and friends. In all these matters, we need to be as open as possible to the different ways in which the money can be spent.

There are some excellent examples of good practice in the area of carers’ breaks. In Surrey, the new GP carers’ breaks pilot has been running since 1 December 2011. So far, 80% of the 136 practices in Surrey have signed up and over 250 breaks have been provided, with 75% to parent carers. Surrey has been working with Carers UK on the evaluation of the pilot to tie up with its work on the GP carers’ champions project. In Cambridgeshire, Crossroads Care is part of a very good scheme whereby PCT money for supporting carers is used to support a GP prescription service. This is really good, innovative stuff. The GP can simply prescribe a carer a break, send a request to Crossroads, which will quickly contact the carer to discuss what sort of break they would like, and then arrange it. I urge GP practices across the country and the emerging clinical commissioning groups to look at this best practice that is emerging around the country and to implement it in their own areas in a way that suits their own local circumstances. We must do more to spread the best practice that is starting to emerge.

Let me say a few words about the mandate. In July, we published for consultation the first draft mandate for the NHS Commissioning Board. The mandate will be at the heart of the accountability relationship between the Department of Health and the Commissioning Board from April 2013. The draft mandate contains a specific objective: to improve the support that carers receive from the NHS by early identification of carers—that is dealt with in the Bill—by signposting to advice, and by working collaboratively with local authorities and carers’ organisations to enable a range of support to be provided. The consultation on the mandate is currently taking place, and I welcome Members’ engagement in that process.

[Norman Lamb]

Four days into the job I am not entirely sure of the details, but I will ensure that the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is included in the letter to her. I certainly want the process to be as transparent as possible.

The NHS operating framework for 2012-13, published last November, contains stronger requirements for supporting carers, and is more specific about the plans of PCT clusters. Those plans should be in line with the “Recognised, valued and supported: next steps for the Carers” strategy. Plans should be explicitly agreed and signed off both by local authorities and by PCT clusters. Local authorities and PCT clusters should identify the financial contribution for supporting carers. They should identify how much of the total is being spent on carers’ breaks—this deals with the point raised by the shadow Minister—with an indicative number of breaks that could be made available within that funding.

PCTs or PCT clusters should publish their plans on their website by the end of this month, so we shall be able to see which areas are doing the job well and which are failing. Area authorities need to be held to account, whether they are PCT clusters or commissioning groups. People need to know what is available in their areas. A number of PCTs have already put resources into support for carers, significantly enhancing their existing support for them.

The current legal framework for care and support is out of date, complex and confusing. More than a dozen Acts of Parliament relate to adult care and support, and four relate specifically to support for carers. We can imagine how hard it must be for people out there, beyond this place, to understand what their rights might be. People who need care, carers, and even those who manage the system find it difficult to understand how statutes operate and interrelate. That is why one of the overarching objectives of the Government’s draft Care and Support Bill is to consolidate the existing law on care and support into one clear Act, making the law far easier to navigate. Introducing yet another stand-alone Act would only prolong fragmentation and militate against the thrust of the draft Care and Support Bill, which is to consolidate provision for carers in Government legislation. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry).

As I said earlier, the Government’s Bill has been published for pre-legislative scrutiny, which we expect to begin later in the autumn. We should view that process as an opportunity to explore how we can make legislation fit to support carers in the 21st century.

I am afraid I must disagree with the assertion by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South that her Bill will be cost-neutral. Placing new duties on public and private sector bodies inevitably involves cost. New processes must be developed and operated, and will surely be a potential drain on the already tight social care, NHS and education budgets. That goes against the Government's commitment to reduce the overall regulatory burden. Inevitably, organisations confronted with a new legal duty must establish processes enabling them to demonstrate, when challenged, that they are observing it, and that means costly bureaucratic processes. As other Members have pointed out, it is much better to ensure that the money is being spent on the front line. We are committed to spending significant amounts on carers in the coming years, and we should be spending that money on supporting people, not on expanding bureaucracy.

[Liz Kendall]

The Minister seemed to be coming to the end of his speech, but I hope he is going to reply to my question about whether the quad has agreed to fund Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations, as has been reported over the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just last week we published the world’s first ever survey of bereaved people’s experiences of the end-of-life care received by loved ones. It revealed quite stark variations from one part of the country to another, and will prove a valuable tool in driving up performance of areas that are not doing well by families in end-of-life care. As for the White Paper, we have said clearly that we are committed to doubling funding for the pilots to ensure that we have the data to take decisions about the introduction of free personal care when it comes to end of life.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Opposition Members are genuine in our desire to reach cross-party consensus on the funding of social care. Will the Minister demonstrate his Government’s seriousness by agreeing to include Treasury Ministers directly in the cross-party talks, as Labour has offered to do from the start?

[Paul Burstow]

Talks that start with lots of preconditions are not going to be very good talks to start with. The Government always retain the responsibility for making decisions about taxation and spending priorities. We set out our position last week on the Dilnot Commission, and we now have a clear basis for talks, as those on both sides of the House seem to agree on the principles of Dilnot as the basis for reform.

Health

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Indeed. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would have been welcome in Leicester. He is quite right: where do our constituents in the east of the country, between Newcastle and London, go? That is something else that many of my constituents have raised with me.

I wish to concentrate on the biggest deficiency of the decision, which is the impact on our world-class ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—service. On Friday, the Secretary of State announced that he would accept the recommendation to shift our ECMO service from Leicester to Birmingham. In Leicester, we have had a brilliant, world-renowned ECMO service for 20 years.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting my intervention, as I cannot speak in the debate because I am a Front-Bench spokesperson on health. Is he aware of the international evidence that shows that Glenfield’s ECMO survival rates for children are 50% to 75% higher than other centres? Those very good survival rates, and the benefits that they bring for children, must be taken into consideration as part of the review.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend is right, and she makes the point with her usual eloquence and insight. I pay tribute to the work that she has done and, indeed, the work of other Leicestershire Members—I see that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) is in the Chamber—on the ECMO service. I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet a delegation of east midlands MPs, as we had a useful discussion.

Giles Peek, a consultant paediatric heart surgeon, said last year of the ECMO service:

“We use it not just after surgery but also to stabilise children and to stop them dying before surgery. We are always full and often take children from other hospitals…Our role at Glenfield as a national reference centre for this treatment is important and underestimated.”

I fear that Giles Peek’s concerns have come true and that our ECMO service has been underestimated.

I was grateful that the Minister said in the meeting that the Secretary of State’s decision was based on the Agnes review, but there are other ECMO experts who disagree with that review, so I hope that he will consider publishing the Agnes report. In the few minutes I have left, I shall run through the points that various ECMO experts have made. For example, Glenfield has a world-class facility with more than 20 years’ worth of service. There are deep concerns that by uprooting it from Leicester to Birmingham expertise will be lost along the way. Mr Kenneth Palmer, an ECMO expert, gave a stark warning on Radio Leicester today that, as a result of shifting the children’s ECMO service from Leicester to Birmingham, lives would be lost, saying:

“They could never have the same survival rate in another unit if you move it like this. Leicester has one of the highest survival rates in the world, 10%-20% higher than the normal survival rate in the world. To come up to the same skill it will take 5 years at least.”

He has been joined by other experts who have warned about the impact of shifting the unit from Leicester. Jim Fortenberry, the chair of the ECMO leadership council in Atlanta, when asked whether he agreed that lives would be lost, said:

“I do agree with that unfortunately. I think the risk is great that by attempting to move and start over that you’d really start the learning curve all over again and the improved outcomes take time and experience to develop, and so by effect starting over on the learning curve you certainly would potentially put lives at stake and it could be very significant.”

I accept that the Minister takes advice from experts, but given that there is one set of experts making one argument, presumably he receives advice from a different set. If he published his evidence, those of us who are laymen on health policy can try to make our own judgments as those experts scrutinise one another’s work.

Concerns have been raised about the Birmingham facility and whether it can deal with the new ECMO service. Dr Andrew Coe, a paediatrician from Coventry, said on Radio Leicester this morning that he was

“not convinced that Birmingham will cope with increased demand following closure”

of Glenfield. It was suggested to me that if the 80 ECMO nurses at Leicester are not prepared to leave Glenfield, it will take up to eight years for nurses in Birmingham to be trained to the appropriate level of expertise.

I conclude by mentioning the family from South Cambridgeshire, which the Secretary of State represents, who appeared on Radio Leicester this morning. They said clearly and movingly that the service they received for their little girl was the best they could receive and went beyond what staff needed to do. I hope that the Minister will give us guidance on what is next for Leicester’s ECMO service. I hope that he will consider publishing his evidence, and that we can have some sort of review of, or at least look again at, the shift of Leicester’s ECMO service to Birmingham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) about children’s heart surgery at Glenfield hospital in Leicester. In view of the time limit, I will not repeat the issues to do with the Safe and Sustainable review, because those have been well rehearsed by other Members.

It is no great surprise that all Members, as well as all patients, all staff, all parents and all families, want the best services when dealing with children’s heart surgery. We are talking about very sick young babies and children, and there is no doubt that high-quality services are wanted across the country. At the same time, we have to recognise that in the 21st-century national health service there are bound to be reconfigurations. The reconfiguration that has been worked on by the Safe and Sustainable review arises out of what happened in Bristol, and there is a very good reason for what it proposes. As we have heard, there are some serious questions still to be answered about the process and the way in which decisions have been made.

In the debate in this Chamber in June 2011, I talked about the ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation —service offered in Leicester, which the hon. Member for Leicester South discussed. It is a world-class, excellent service, and the question is what will happen to it if the children’s heart surgery unit is moved from Leicester to Birmingham. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thank the Minister very much for meeting a delegation of east midlands MPs this afternoon to talk about this. ECMO is a nationally commissioned service and the Secretary of State is therefore required to sign off the move. I understand that he accepted the recommendations of the panel last Friday.

Those of us who are most interested in this and have been listening to constituents and to consultants and staff at the Glenfield unit have a number of questions to raise with the Minister. I would like to be sure of three things before I can be happy with how the decision has been taken. First, before the Secretary of State signed off the move, was he aware of the misgivings of experts that have been described by the hon. Member for Leicester South? Letters are still arriving from international experts. Indeed, since I have been sitting in the debate I have seen a letter that has arrived from the medical director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I should like to read out a couple of quotes. The first is from Stephen Conrad, who is chairman of the steering committee of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation and who says that

“moving an ECMO program is non-trivial and amounts to much more than moving equipment and some key personnel. Excellent outcomes that are now characteristic of the Leicester group, whose work was instrumental in the worldwide adoption of pediatric and adult ECMO, would not be maintained following such a move.”

[Liz Kendall]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on, and support for, this important issue. Does she agree that this is not simply a matter of moving the machines but also about the expertise and skills of the staff, which would not be easy to move? Leading international experts on ECMO say that it could take between five and 20 years for the excellent level of service that is available in Glenfield to be made available anywhere else in the country.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Leicester South referred to Kenneth Palmer, who was retained to give his expert advice to the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts on the move. Since the decision was made on 4 July, he has said:

“You will take over 20 years of experience from one of the world’s absolute best ECMO units and throw it away and then to rebuild it in another place and probably it will take at least 5 years to have some kind of quality and probably 20 years to come back to top quality, if it’s ever possible.”

As the hon. Lady said, it is about the staff. Of course the machinery is important, but what has been built up in Leicester, and what it is most renowned for, is the expertise of its consultants, nursing staff, and all the other staff. That is what people particularly rely on. In addition, Leicester has the only paediatric mobile ECMO unit, which is often called out to fly by helicopter to other parts of the country to retrieve patients and take them back to Leicester. I hope that the Secretary of State and the JCPCT were aware of that when they made their decision.

My constituent, Mrs Edith Felstead, who wrote to me and talked about the risk of moving the service, says that survival rates at Glenfield are 20% better than in the rest of the world. The point that I made last year and still want to make is that we have an excellent, internationally renowned service, and if we move it, we must be sure that we are doing so to obtain better outcomes. Will the Minister tell me what advice was given to the JCPCT about the likely outcomes if the move were made?

The rather hefty tome that was published to help the JCPCT to make its decision on 4 July, refers to the secretariat being able to provide “reasonable assurance” that paediatric respiratory ECMO could be transferred safely to Birmingham. I am concerned about that phrase. What assurances have been given? In particular, if the move goes ahead and has to be implemented, what will happen if it then becomes clear in the course of preparing for the move that the service cannot be safely moved and we need to undo some of what has happened as a result of the review?

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, two narrow questions could be independently reviewed in relation to the Leicester move. I very much hope that following the meeting that we have just had and this debate, the Minister will agree to such a review. I would like to know what advice was available to the Secretary of State and to the JCPCT and the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services before they made their decision.

Adult Social Care

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the growing crisis in adult social care; welcomes many of the proposals in the Care and Support White Paper including national minimum standards on eligibility, stronger legal rights for family carers, portability of care packages and improvements to end-of-life care; notes that many of these ideas were proposed by the previous administration, but believes they are now in danger of appearing meaningless without the ability to properly fund them; is concerned that the Government is considering a cap on individual costs as high as £100,000; is committed to the important Dilnot Commission principle that protection against the risks of high care costs should be provided for everyone; and calls on the Government to honour the commitment in its 2010 NHS White Paper to introduce legislation in the second session of this Parliament to establish a legal and financial framework for adult social care.

The issue of how we provide decent care for older and disabled people and their families is one of the biggest challenges facing Britain today. Ten million people in the United Kingdom are now over 65, and that figure will rise to more than 15 million by 2030. The number of over-80s is growing even faster, and is set to double to nearly 6 million in 20 years’ time. Medical advances also mean that people with disabilities are living longer than ever before.

The fact that we as a nation are living longer is something that we should celebrate. There have been many improvements in adult social care over the past 10 years, and I shall say more about that in a moment. However, too many people still face a daily struggle to get the care and support that they need if they are disabled or become frail and vulnerable in their old age. The ways in which we provide and fund care need major reform if we are to deliver a better, fairer and more sustainable system. That reform is vital for older and disabled people and their families who want and deserve a decent system of care and support, but it is also vital for our economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal sustainability report states that the primary pressure on the public finances is our ageing population. Without major changes to pensions and, crucially, to health and social care, the long-term growth of our economy and the sustainability of our public finances could be put at risk.

Last week, the Government had the chance to show that they were prepared to meet the challenge of fundamentally reforming care and support, and many of the promises in their White Paper and draft Bill on social care are welcome. They build on Labour’s achievements when we were in government. Indeed, many of the Government’s announcements were put forward by Labour in our White Paper, “Building the National Care Service”, more than two years ago. They included a shift in the focus of local council and NHS services towards prevention and early intervention to help more older and disabled people to stay living independently in their own homes, and more joined-up NHS and council care to stop families having to struggle with the different services to get the support that they need.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Those of us who take an interest in these matters pleaded with the previous Government in debate after debate to take action and to make some tough decisions to ensure that we looked after our ageing population, but, time and again, they failed to take any real action. We are not building on what they did; we are having to go into the space where they failed to act.

[Liz Kendall]

I always respect the hon. Gentleman’s interventions, but he seems to forget that we faced up to those difficult decisions and choices on adult social care in “Building the National Care Service”. We tried to get cross-party agreement on those proposals, but they became a political football at the last general election. The hon. Gentleman should be encouraging those in his Front-Bench team to engage seriously in cross-party talks and to take the difficult decisions that need to be taken.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Liz Kendall]

I want to make some progress, then I will give way.

Labour proposed better information and national minimum standards to tackle the postcode lottery in care. We also proposed that everyone should have the right to have a personal budget—which we introduced—that people should be able to take their care package with them if they moved to a different area, and that carers should have the right to have their own needs assessed and met independently of the person for whom they cared.

The difference between the Labour Government and the present Government is that we set out the difficult decisions about how those changes would be paid for. The absence of that information is the gaping hole at the heart of this Government’s plans. There is a risk that their promises of new rights and services will be meaningless without the ability to fund them properly. Indeed,

“this White Paper is not worth the paper it's written on.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Alzheimer’s Society, which has damned the White Paper as a massive failure. Similarly,

“the key test for this White Paper was to deliver an urgent timetable to reform social care funding. The Government has failed this test.”

Again, those are not my words. They are the words of the Care and Support Alliance, which consists of more than 65 organisations that represent and support older and disabled people.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I entirely support the principle of a national care service, but will my hon. Friend go slightly further and be as bold as Nye Bevan in suggesting that it should be free for all at the point of need?

[Liz Kendall]

I know that my hon. Friend is passionately committed to this issue, and he will know that we remain determined to ensure that there is a fair, affordable and sustainable system for care and support in future.

The Government have failed to take proper action to tackle the immediate care crisis, and they have failed to confront the difficult funding decisions that we need for the future. Last week we heard nothing but complacency from the Government about the desperate care crisis that faces people throughout the country. Ministers repeatedly claim that there is enough money in the system, but the truth is that the Government’s savage cuts in council budgets have pushed an already pressurised care system to breaking point.

Adult social care accounts for about 40% of council budgets—it is up to 60% in some areas—and for the largest elements of councils’ discretionary spending. When council budgets are slashed by a third, it is inevitable that care services will be cut. Figures from the Government’s own Department for Communities and Local Government show that more than £1.3 billion has been cut from older people’s social care provision since the coalition came to power. Fewer people are receiving the support that they desperately need as councils raise eligibility thresholds. Charges for vital services such as home help are soaring, with huge variations across the country. That is a stealth tax on the most vulnerable members of society. At the same time, the quality of care is being put at risk as councils are forced to pass on cuts in their budgets to care providers. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) asks what we did in 13 years. We increased spending on adult social care by 53%, we invested £1.2 billion in the carers’ grant, we provided new rights for carers to have their needs assessed and to request flexible working, we introduced the Supporting People programme, and we spent £227 million on extra care housing. I rest my case.

According to the United Kingdom Homecare Association, one in 10 home care visits now lasts for only 15 minutes. That is a completely inadequate amount of time if frail, vulnerable people are to be helped to get up and to be washed, dressed and fed. Residential care is under huge pressure too. Nine out of 10 home care providers say that low council fees are creating a two-tier system, with new investment being directed only towards wealthier parts of the country. Unpaid family carers are suffering as well as they are forced to give up work, and their own health suffers because they cannot obtain the help that they need to look after their loved ones. Yet the Government repeatedly deny the scale and urgency of the care crisis.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

Last week, local councils throughout the country will have listened in disbelief as Ministers repeatedly insisted that there was enough money in the system and no need for councils to cut care provision. Sir Merrick Cockell, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association, has said that the current system does not have enough money to provide care for

“anyone other than the most needy, or those who can afford to pay for all of their own care.”

Without more funds, he says, we will

“see some of the most popular services councils provide, such as parks, leisure centres…winding down by the end of the decade.”

The Government are astonishingly complacent about the impact that cuts in social care are having on the NHS. Last week the Secretary of State for Health brushed aside concerns about delayed discharges from hospitals, saying that they were

“broadly the same as… last year”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 322.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

In reality, the number of days on which a hospital bed is occupied by someone who could have been discharged has risen by 18% since this time last year, and by a staggering 29% in the last 18 months. These delays now cost the NHS £18.5 million every single month, and more than a third are due to cuts in social care. The number of delayed discharges from social care has risen by 11% in the last month alone.

Instead of burying their heads in the sand, Ministers should be taking action. Labour has called for £700 million from last year’s NHS underspend to be ring-fenced for social care immediately, and I was delighted to learn that the all-party group on local government today called for those funds to be used for that purpose, rather than being absorbed back into the Treasury coffers. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will tell us whether he agrees.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on giving way at long last. It is nice of her to do so, and we are most grateful. Given that she began by saying that she wanted to see a consensual, non-partisan approach to the issue, can she explain why we have just heard a party political diatribe? I find that very disappointing.

[Liz Kendall]

I was stating the facts about the care crisis, which have been made clear not by me but by organisations representing older and disabled people, by local councils and by the NHS. It is the Government’s denial of the existence of the care crisis and their insistence that there is enough money in the system that I am seeking to correct.

As I have said, the Government have failed to recognise, let alone tackle, the care crisis, and they have failed to face up to the difficult decisions that we need for the future. Their progress report on funding merely says that the Government support the principles of Andrew Dilnot’s commission on the funding of long-term care and support. They now claim that it is only right for Dilnot’s proposals to be considered as part of the spending review. That was not their view two years ago, when they made a clear promise in their NHS White Paper to legislate on a new legal and financial framework in the current parliamentary Session. Now we have only a draft Bill to reform social care law alone. At best that means that there will be no change in funding before the next general election, and at worst it means no change at all if the Government return to power.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Liz Kendall]

I want to make a little more progress.

According to yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Dilnot has said that the delay has left older and disabled people in fear and misery. He expressed serious concern about the possibility that the Government will set the cap at a far higher level than that proposed by his commission—at £75,000 or even £100,000 rather than £35,000. He also said:

“if you go beyond £50,000 it is less effective in giving reassurance to the population and ceases to be a way of helping people with lower levels of assets.”

Instead of making real progress on funding reform, the Government trumpeted proposals for a national deferred payment scheme, providing loans to cover the costs of residential care.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recall what the Secretary of State actually said when he announced his proposals last week? He made it very plain that, if the hon. Lady’s party sat down seriously with Ministers and reached the consensus that the whole country is clearly crying out for, the necessary mechanisms could be introduced in the Bill and the funding could be found in the comprehensive spending review. We need less party politics and more consensual conversations.

[Liz Kendall]

It was Labour Members who proposed cross-party talks, and it was Government Members who decided unilaterally to publish the progress report on which we had been trying hard to agree. The hon. Lady accuses Opposition Members of not being serious about funding reform. We are, and I will set out what we would like to happen so that those talks can proceed.

The deferred payment schemes that were announced last week already exist in some parts of the country and are currently interest-free, but according to the Government’s plans interest will be charged, which will make loans more expensive than they are now. Many councils remain utterly unclear about how they will find the money to pay for those schemes. As the Local Government Association says,

“Councils are not banks and the implication of this level of debt in an already overstretched system needs urgent attention.”

The truth is that the Government have so far ducked the care challenge, and the reasons for that are clear. First, owing to their disastrous economic policy, they are now borrowing £150 billion more than they originally planned to borrow. The Treasury has pulled the plug, and has kicked long-term care funding into the long grass.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As she recognises, cross-party consensus is required if we are to solve the social care problem. Care workers—the people who actually provide the care to people—do not get sufficient attention, however. One of the problems they have suffered from over many years is per-minute billing. Does she recognise that our changes to get rid of per-minute billing are worth while, and what impact does she envisage that will have on the provision of care over the long term?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I know from shadowing care home assistants in my constituency that commissioning by the minute can cause considerable problems. For instance, it does not allow the staff to meet the individual needs of those who are most desperate for help and support. As I have said, we welcome many of the proposals in the White Paper, but they need to be properly funded, and that is why I am so concerned that the issue of long-term care funding has been kicked into the long grass.

The second reason why the Government have failed on this issue is that the Health Secretary’s obsession with reorganising the NHS has been a disastrous distraction. Two years have been wasted on an unwanted and unnecessary reorganisation, when everyone should have been relentlessly focused on the key challenge of our ageing population: meeting rising demand for care at a time of unprecedented financial pressure.

The third reason is the most fundamental of all. Many Conservative Members have still not grasped the basic principle that we must collectively and universally pool the risks of facing catastrophic care costs, as we do in the NHS, in order to make things better and fairer for us all. A voluntary system that leaves it up to individuals and their families alone will not work. The only way forward is through an effective partnership between individuals and the state.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The Government keep on talking about consensus, but the problem is that we say yes to Dilnot, but they do not. If they were to say yes to Dilnot, we might have a basis for consensus.

[Liz Kendall]

We remain serious about trying to achieve cross-party consensus. If one party comes forward on its own and proposes a controversial and difficult decision, that always leads to a political fight; we saw that only too clearly before the last general election. However, we need cross-party consensus because this is a long-term challenge. We have to try to get agreement so that, whichever party is in power, people know there is a system that they can understand and pay for in future.

Government Members have criticised Labour’s record in government, but we are proud of our achievements on social care. We increased spending by 53% when we were in government. We helped drive up quality through national performance assessment of local councils and independent inspection of care services. We championed integration, with new legal powers for the NHS and local councils to pool budgets, and new care trusts jointly to commission care. Those care trusts will be swept away under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We supported carers through the carers grant and new rights for carers. We introduced the first ever national dementia strategy, and we backed improvements in housing through the Supporting People programme and extra care housing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) mutters from a sedentary position that that is not real action. He should try telling that to the carers we supported through breaks that are now under threat, and the people who have benefited from extra care housing and the Supporting People programme, which his Government have cut by 12%.

We understood that we had much further to go, however. That is why before the last general election we published plans for fundamental reform, including difficult decisions on how care should be funded. We tried to get cross-party agreement. We did not succeed, but we are determined to try again now.

A year ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made an open and sincere offer of cross-party talks, and it is a matter of genuine regret that the Government unilaterally decided to publish their own progress report on funding, rather than the joint report we had wanted to agree. Labour remains committed to serious and meaningful cross-party talks.

I hope that the Minister will tell the House whether the Government will commit to addressing the current funding gap as well as future reform. Andrew Dilnot says that that is vital. Will they also set a clear timetable for reform, with legislation on funding reform in this Parliament, as Labour has called for? Will they agree to include their Treasury team in the talks, which Labour has offered from the start?

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

One of the authors of the Dilnot report was Lord Warner, who was a member of the previous Labour Government. He made the point that one of the reasons for the funding crisis is that the previous Government failed to invest adequately in social care; it received only 70% of the funding compared with the NHS. That was one of the major failings of the previous Government. They should have invested more in social care when the sun was shining and the country had the finances to do that.

[Liz Kendall]

I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that we did not cut local council budgets by a third. I have always said that social care budgets have been under increasing pressure for many years, which is why we desperately need funding reform. I know that he supports that reform and will work with us in the years ahead.

The Government’s decision to kick the issue of long-term care funding into the long grass is a bitter blow for older and disabled people and their families. It is a huge disappointment for local councils, which are desperate for a new social care settlement, and it is a disaster for our NHS, which will face intolerable pressure as our care system crumbles further still. This issue will not go away, because our population is ageing. Our care system needs fundamental reform—reform this Government have so far failed to deliver. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I will start my contribution with some points that I wanted to make earlier in the debate about the origin of the problems. I accept that there are severe problems with adult social care. I do not know where the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) got her figures about the last Government’s record on adult social care spending, but according to local government figures, between 2004 and 2010, spending increased by 0.1%. Meanwhile, the population of over-65s grew by 7.7% and the number of over-80s by 11.6%.

[Liz Kendall]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being more generous with her time than perhaps I was. I got my figures from an independent assessment of Labour’s record in Government that was produced by the King’s Fund before the last general election.

[Margot James]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that. According to local government statistics, in the six years up to 2010, the spend was flat, and I have mentioned the demographic pressures. Interestingly, the same analysis states that over the same time, NHS expenditure rose by 27%, expenditure on the police rose by 20%, and even expenditure on schools rose by 12%.

A picture is emerging of the deprioritising of adult social care under the last Government. That is the origin of the problem that we are debating. That is what gave rise to the restrictions of the eligibility criteria for care. Long before this Government came to office, many local authorities started to restrict eligibility to those in moderate need of care and then to those in critical need of care.

Cancer Treatments

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), hard-working as always, on focusing on the issue.

Several hon. Members talked about the context of the debate and the improvements made over recent years. Several mentioned the research—published, I think, in the British Journal of Cancer—that showed that, over the past 20 or so years, the NHS in England and Wales has achieved the biggest drop in overall cancer deaths among 10 leading countries worldwide. There have also been significant improvements with individual cancers. For example, death rates for breast cancer have fallen by 40% since 1989, virtually closing the gap with other countries such as France. Furthermore, the NHS has done so despite having a smaller budget, which led the British Journal of Cancer to conclude that the NHS had achieved more with proportionately less than in other major developed countries.

It is clear, however, that far more can and must be done to bring cancer outcomes for all cancers and all patients up to the very best standards achieved in other countries. Hon. Members have rightly said that our overall survival rates are still not as good as those in countries such as Canada, Australia, Sweden and Norway and that, although survival rates are good for breast and skin cancer, for example, they are low for lung and pancreatic cancer. I am also particularly concerned about differences in outcomes for people from different minority ethnic groups or from different social and economic backgrounds. As the shadow Minister with responsibility for older people, I am concerned about the worse outcomes for older people in the UK compared with those in other countries, even after we have taken social and economic factors into account—I shall say a bit more about that in a moment.

Hon. Members welcomed the focus in the NHS outcomes framework on one and five-year survival rates but rightly questioned why the three cancers mentioned account for 40% of new cancer diagnoses and asked about the other cancers that could be included. Although survival rates are absolutely vital, other issues need to be addressed to improve the patient experience and the quality of care—in particular, for those who will not survive cancer, at the end of life.

[Mr Edward Leigh in the Chair]

I want to focus my comments on three key areas of care in which we need to improve services: first, early diagnosis and intervention; secondly, tackling treatment variations; and thirdly, ensuring that the patient experience is at the heart of all aspects of cancer care. There is a very important issue about how we prevent cancer from happening in the first place, but I will not focus on that in this debate.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) —I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group—hit the nail on the head when he said that the survival rates at one year are crucial, and the differences between our survival rates and those in other countries are largest around that first year. We have to ensure either that patients present to their doctors earlier or that we identify them through effective screening. We then have to ensure that GPs properly examine, diagnose and quickly refer patients to appropriate specialist and other services.

International comparisons generally indicate that England has high-quality cancer screening programmes, although there is considerable regional variation in uptake. The key to improving uptake of screening programmes and ensuring that patients present early is to improve public awareness. I am worried about who will be responsible for promoting public awareness of cancer and running cancer awareness campaigns.

In April 2013, local authorities will take over responsibility for public health. The main focus will be on strategic needs assessment for their local population and developing joint strategic health and well-being strategies, but they will also be responsible for commissioning specific public health services, and they will be free to set their own priorities.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in saying that cancer survival rates have been improving for 30 to 40 years, but we still lag behind the European average, although I accept that we must be careful when comparing statistics. Will she confirm that, although we heard a lot about the Opposition’s concerns about changes to the commissioning structures, we did not hear much about the other key element of the NHS reforms: the importance of focusing on outcomes, particularly in cancer, as a way to drive forward earlier diagnosis? The spotlight should be on the local NHS and areas with poor outcomes, which should introduce initiatives to drive forward earlier diagnosis, including awareness of cancer screening programmes and so on, but we did not hear a lot about that from Opposition Members.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He was lucky enough not to experience the 16 weeks of the two Public Bill Committees that considered the Health and Social Care Bill, when I regularly raised the key concerns, such as how to improve outcomes for cancer and heart disease and how services, not structures, needed to be reformed to do that. If he has a spare moment and reads the report of those debates, I am sure that he would become aware that I was very concerned about how to improve patients’ lives, their experience and the quality of care, which is always the issue for me. My concern was always about whether the reforms would do that.

I return to the point that I was making about local authorities’ role and the concern that, under the mandated public health services that local authorities will have to commission, public awareness campaigns, including those for cancer, are not included. There is a real worry among public health professionals and those working for and with cancer patients about whether public health awareness campaigns, such as the bowel cancer awareness campaign, which certainly attracted my attention, will continue.

A second issue is how to improve GPs’ skills and their awareness of cancer. Many GPs see cancer patients relatively infrequently, particularly those with rare cancers. Will the Minister explain what national or local action may be taken to ensure that skills and awareness improve?

We want to ensure that, when people are referred by a GP, they have swift access to diagnostic tests. That is about not just good outcomes, but the quality of their experience. Anyone who has had the misfortune of themselves or a family member waiting for cancer diagnostic tests knows that it is a frightening experience and that it should be done as quickly as possible. There were big improvements under the previous Government in speeding up diagnostic tests, but there is evidence that the service is going backwards. Some 78% more patients now wait more than six weeks for diagnostic tests compared with May 2010, and there are even bigger increases in the number waiting for vital tests to diagnose cancer. Some 230% more patients now wait more than six weeks for endoscopic diagnostic tests, and that includes a 242% increase in the number waiting more than six weeks for colonoscopy and a 140% increase in the number waiting more than six weeks for MRI scans. What action could and should be taken to reduce those diagnostic waits, which is vital to improve one-year survival rates?

Turning to the important issue of treatment variation, I want to put on the record the excellent briefing from the King’s Fund, “How to improve cancer survival”, which goes through the issues in detail, with the best clinical evidence and the implications for services on the ground. Treatment factors can be divided into four main groups: surgery, radiotherapy, cancer drugs and the overall co-ordination of care. On surgery, there is a lot of evidence that the outcomes for many types of cancer might be better in centralised, specialist centres, particularly for complex surgery, because their use can lead to better training for surgeons. If they have a higher case load, doctors develop greater expertise and experience. More specialist support is available, such as nursing and intensive care, as well as superior equipment. One concern that we raised when discussing the Health and Social Care Bill and reorganisation was who will lead the strategic configuration that is needed to centralise some services, such as cancer, into specialist centres.

Radiotherapy has a significant although modest overall impact on five-year mortality rates. Obviously, the optimum proportion of patients with cancer who should receive radiotherapy varies by tumour type and stage, but it is thought that overall around 50% of patients with cancer would benefit from radiotherapy. However, in 2005, the radiotherapy access rate in England was 38%. That was one reason why the former Government introduced a new strategy, “Radiotherapy: developing a world class service for England”, in 2007. Can the Minister update me on any progress on that?

I am sure that the Minister will talk about the cancer drugs fund and the Government’s aim of improving access to such drugs. He will know that concern remains that the fund has not removed variations from the system. There have been underspends in some parts of the country, and some regional cancer drug funds approve drugs that others do not. The King’s Fund raises a bigger question in its document. It says that it is more important to improve access to surgery and radiotherapy overall. It is worried that there has been almost too much attention on the cancer drugs fund and not enough on the variations in radiotherapy and surgery.

I am really concerned about older people and the variation in their care. Will the Minister say whether the Government will look into that specifically? Older people are under-treated, and their outcomes for cancer are worse as a result, even when account is taken of the different types of tumour and the presence of other diseases or co-morbidity. Older people are less likely to receive intensive treatment and more likely to be admitted as an emergency.

Crucially, major international studies show that differences in survival rates between the UK and other countries are greater for older people. We are not sure of the reasons for that based on the evidence, but the King’s Fund suggests that there may be three key issues: even later presentation; co-morbidity with older people having two, three or more other long-term chronic conditions, which may lead to cancer then being misdiagnosed or not diagnosed; and age discrimination and the feeling that, because someone is getting older, their health is perhaps not so important. I am pleased that the Minister will implement the ban on age discrimination in public services that the former Labour Government introduced. I am very keen that the Government look more into that issue as part of their work on cancer.

I wish to say something about co-ordination of care, which, as we know, is important for patients and the patient experience. During debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, we asked whether cancer networks would continue in the NHS and, if so, how they would be funded. In May last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that the Government would fund and support cancer networks in 2012 and that, after that, the NHS Commissioning Board would continue to support and strengthen them. Over a year later, however, the future of cancer networks is still unclear.

The NHS Commissioning Board has recently published early proposals for clinical networks, which include the new strategic clinical networks prescribed by the NHS Commissioning Board. The proposals also mention 14 to 15 overarching networks in England that will cover a specific geographical area and review the work of the prescribed strategic clinical networks every six months. I think, however, that people are still quite confused about how that will work, and the Government’s proposals do not refer specifically to the 28 cancer networks. I therefore ask the Minister whether all 28 current cancer networks will become prescribed strategic clinical networks, or will their number be reduced? How will they fit into the umbrella networks?

Funding is crucial. In response to a parliamentary question on 21 May this year, the Minister stated that strategic health authorities will be given £18.5 million to fund cancer networks in 2012-13, just as in the previous two years. Page 6 of the recent document from the Department of Health, “Progress Update on the Design of the NHSCB” states:

“Around £10 million of the costs of supporting Networks and Senates are expected to count against running costs.”

That seems to imply that the £10 million is to run not only cancer networks but all clinical networks and senates and that would be a cut of £8.5 million to the cancer networks. Will the Minister say whether the £10 million referred to in the document about the future functioning of the NHS Commissioning Board covers all networks, or cancer networks alone? That is a real concern for people who work in cancer networks and are already worried about the future.

I will conclude by mentioning the patient experience. Several hon. Members have rightly mentioned the need for the patient’s experience of a service to be placed at the heart of what the NHS is trying to achieve. I agree with the call from Macmillan Cancer Support and Breakthrough Breast Cancer for the NHS cancer patient experience survey to be included as part of the fourth domain of the NHS outcomes framework, which is about ensuring that people have a positive experience of care.

The cancer patient experience survey shows that the NHS does well on issues such as waiting times, pain control and patients who feel that they have been treated with dignity and respect. It does not, however, do as well as it could on issues such as patients receiving written information about their condition, financial help, clinicians who work well in a hospital and the community and whether there is enough nurse support. Those are important matters for patients.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Does my hon. Friend agree with expectations that the system will work more closely in partnership with the third sector, so that when patients come into the community they get support from that as well? We need a partnership that works together to improve the condition of patients once they are released from hospital.

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely agree. Last year, I visited the oncology and radiotherapy wards at Leicester royal infirmary, and I saw the work done by Macmillan Cancer Support to help patients with cancer and their families. It had a multi-disciplinary team that worked around the needs of the individual patient and their family and involved not only doctors, nurses and radiographers in the hospital, but GPs, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians and pharmacists in the community. Macmillan Cancer Support does excellent work to improve the information and advice that is given to patients and their families, and it deals sensitively with issues such as when patients might want information, how it is provided and what is wanted by different family members. I am very supportive of that.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I know that the hon. Lady will wish to leave time for the Minister to reply. The debate must finish at 12.30 pm.

[Liz Kendall]

I am about to sit down, Mr Leigh. The Minister will know that the Opposition have put forward proposals for social care to be free at the end of life, to avoid the awful situation in which families have to fill out means-test forms and might struggle to get the care package that they need at that crucial time—the end of their loved one’s life. There is evidence that such a proposal would be cost-neutral, as it would reduce the number of more expensive bed days spent in hospital. Survival rates are absolutely critical, but we must not forget other issues, such as the quality of the patient experience and end-of-life care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

It is for the primary care trust to appraise the options and decide which is best for local people. The SHA has a role in providing assurance in that process, but I would urge both the PCT and the SHA to ensure that they meet the test that we are looking for, which is that any decision must be in the best clinical interests of patients and must meet the views of clinical commissioners in the future and, indeed, those of the public, not least as expressed through the local authority. I would urge the PCT and the SHA to make progress on that, and, if it would be of any assistance to my hon. Friend, I would be glad if he were able to meet me, the PCT and the local authority to help to resolve the issue.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

In their 2010 NHS White Paper, the Government promised legislation on a new legal and financial framework for social care. However, last month’s Queen’s Speech included only a draft Bill, on social care law alone. We cannot tackle the care crisis without tackling the funding crisis, so will the Secretary of State now agree to Labour’s call for legislation on a new system for funding social care in this Parliament? Yes or no?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know very well that last year we made it clear that we intended to publish both a White Paper on the reform of social care law and, alongside it, a progress report on the reform of the funding of adult care. We still intend to do both those things, and to do so soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

It is important that that is applied to all who have direct responsibility for delivering care, and hands-on care in particular. The work that Russells Hall hospital is doing on care and respect, and in its responsibility programme, is a good example of that. On issues such as dementia, we are clear that we need to ensure good advice, training and support for all nursing staff—we are working with the Royal College of Nursing on this—so that they treat people who have dementia with dignity.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The Government are rightly building on Labour’s national dementia strategy, and the Minister should know that the dementia crisis cannot be addressed without tackling the crisis in care. Yet his Government have cut more than £1 billion from local council budgets for older people’s care, services are being withdrawn and care charges for dementia sufferers are soaring. The Alzheimer’s Society and Age UK say that these cuts have pushed the system to breaking point. Does the Minister agree with them, yes or no?

Health and Social Care Bill

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by two points. First, the Bill contains far greater duties and responsibilities for integration over the whole provision of care within the NHS, and that will obviously include children’s services. Secondly and more precisely on the narrow issue that he raised, the children’s health outcomes strategy, published some time ago, will ensure that commissioners provide services to improve integration and that there is greater working together between the NHS, public health bodies and commissioners in securing an improved pathway of care and greater integration.

Lords amendment 320 ensures that the NHS continues to provide funds to local government for investment in community services at the interface between health and social care.

Thirdly, amendments in the other place have placed a greater emphasis on the duties of the Secretary of State and commissioners with regard to system-wide issues, such as education, training and research. Amendment 7 ensures that the Secretary of State will remain responsible for securing an effective system of education and training. Amendments 21, 26, 35 and 42 will place duties on the board and CCGs to have regard to the need to promote education and training, and the Government supported the noble Lord Patel’s amendment to ensure that providers of health services were required to participate in the planning, commissioning and delivery of education and training.

The Government have also listened further to concerns that the strength of the research duties on the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs did not properly reflect the importance of the NHS as a world leader in supporting research. Amendments 6, 20 and 34 have strengthened these to a more direct duty to promote research.

Fourthly, concerns were expressed in the other place about the treatment of charities, other voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises that provide or want to provide NHS services. We are committed to a fair playing field for all providers of NHS services, regardless of their size or organisational form. We see voluntary organisations and social enterprises as key to this vision. For example, they can play a key role in understanding the needs of local communities and delivering tailored services.

Amendment 8 commits the Secretary of State to undertake a thorough and impartial statutory review of the whole of the fair playing field for NHS-funded services. I can confirm that it will cover all types and sizes of provider, including charities, social enterprises, mutuals and smaller providers. It will consider the full range of issues that can act as barriers for providers, including access to and cost of capital, access to appropriate insurance and indemnity cover, taxation and access to the NHS pension fund. The Secretary of State will be required to keep consideration of these issues under review. As my noble Friend Earl Howe set out in another place, during preparation of the report there will be full engagement with all provider types, commissioners and other interested stakeholders to ensure their concerns are looked at.

Finally, I turn to the amendments relating to mental health services. I would like to thank my noble Friend Lord Mackay for his work in developing amendment 1, which inserts the words “physical and mental” into clause 1 in order to promote “parity of esteem” between physical and mental health services. In response to the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ concerns, I would like to offer the reassurance that the definition of “illness” in section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 would continue to apply to section 1, meaning, for example, that learning disabilities, mental disorders and physical disabilities would continue to be covered by the comprehensive health service.

Although our view is that the most important work in achieving genuine parity of esteem will be non-legislative—for example, through our recent mental health strategy, “No Health without Mental Health”—we recognise the symbolic significance of including these words in clause 1. Mental health is a priority for this Government, so I commit to considering further the role that the mandate, the NHS and public health outcomes frameworks can play in driving improvements in mental health services. Similarly, we decided not to oppose amendment 54 by the noble Lord Patel of Bradford relating to mental health aftercare services provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and tabled a number of consequential technical amendments.

I am grateful for the scrutiny that the Bill has received in another place. There is no doubt that it has been strengthened and improved as a result. It will help to ensure that the Secretary of State will remain accountable overall for the health service and provide a robust framework for holding commissioners to account. I urge hon. Friends and hon. Members to agree to the Lords amendments in this group, but to reject Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment 31.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

There have been 1,000 Government amendments to this disastrous Health and Social Care Bill—374 in the other place alone—and it is unacceptable that elected Members in this House have been given so little time to debate amendments that will affect patients and the public in every constituency in England.

It is essential that we reach the second group of amendments, on parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, which deal with Monitor, foundation trusts and the Government’s plans to raise to 49% the private patient cap in foundation trusts, but I want to start with the Lords amendments to the Secretary of State’s duty to ensure a comprehensive service in the NHS. I will remind hon. Members where this all began.

On 10 February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) challenged the Secretary of State, in his evidence to the Commons Bill Committee, over why he was removing the Secretary of State’s responsibility to provide a comprehensive service in the NHS. He said:

“I have not... It is in the original language. It is reproduced the same way.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 166, Q402 and 404.]

On 15 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) challenged the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) about the removal of the Secretary of State’s duty to provide comprehensive NHS services. Again, this was categorically denied. The Minister said:

“Clause 1 retains the overarching…duty which dates from the original 1946 Act”.––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 15 February 2011; c. 178.]

He also said that any amendments to the clause were “unnecessary”. Today the Government are being forced to eat their words.

For the record, it was the determination of Labour Members in the other place, not Liberal Democrat Members, that forced the Government to place the clauses relating to the Secretary of State’ duties on promoting a comprehensive service and on autonomy within the remit of the Lords Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness Jay of Paddington. The result of the Committee’s deliberations are the amendments before us today. The amendments do not deliver exactly the same duty as the National Health Service Act 2006, but they are a significant improvement. Pressed on this issue by Labour Members in both Houses and at every stage of the Bill, the Government have been forced to concede.

A similar thing has happened on education and training, which is the subject of Lords amendments 7, 21, 26, 35 and 42.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend. For the record in this House, I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Lords for their achievements and their efforts in securing some of the protections for the NHS that we are debating today.

There was absolutely no mention of education and training in the original Bill, despite the fact that the Bill abolishes strategic health authorities, which play a vital role in education and training—for example, by hosting deaneries. Labour Members raised this issue in the first Commons Committee stage. We also tabled an amendment on Report to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure a comprehensive education and training system for all professions in the NHS, which would have included continuing professional development. Labour Members in the other place then tabled amendments to address the issue. I should note, again for the record, that it was Labour and Cross-Bench Lords, not Liberal Democrat Lords, who argued for those important amendments and who forced the Government to introduce substantive new clauses placing duties in respect of education and training on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups.

However, the critical issue that I want to focus on is how to deal with conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups. Clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for spending around £65 billion of taxpayers’ money. They will be made up of a majority of GPs—professionals who run businesses that are largely, and in many cases wholly, dependent on the NHS for their income. Clinical commissioning groups will commission NHS services, some of which will be provided by GPs who are members of the group, or—as is increasingly envisaged by the Government—by companies in which GP members may have a financial interest. The public must have confidence that clinical commissioning groups are making decisions based on patients’ and taxpayers’ best interests, not the financial interests of GPs.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

I will finish this point.

However, under the Bill, clinical commissioning groups—the newest bodies in the NHS, and with the least experience—will have the weakest corporate governance of any public body in the country. They are required to have only two lay members. However, there has been no reassurance in this House or another place that those members will be independently appointed. The Government have not even given a reassurance that the chairs of clinical commissioning groups will be lay members. The Government have also failed, at every faltering stage of this Bill, to ensure robust protections against actual or perceived conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups.

[Chris Skidmore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Liz Kendall]

No, I am going to proceed.

Let me remind hon. Members that the Bill started out without any requirement for GP consortia—as they were then called—even to have a board to govern their work, let alone any measures to deal with potential conflicts of interest. On 3 March last year, in the first Commons Committee stage, Labour Members called for effective corporate governance and robust measures to deal with conflicts of interests in clinical commissioning groups.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

I am going to finish this point.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), said that all and any changes to those provisions were “unnecessary”, and denied that there was any lack of effective governance. I would remind Liberal Democrat Members that the Minister argued that putting a board in place or dealing with conflicts of interest would mean that clinical commissioning groups would fail to be “liberated”. Those criticisms were among the many issues that were supposed to be dealt with when the Government embarked on their now infamous “pause” in the Bill’s progress last spring, but they were not. The Government were therefore forced to return to the issue in the other place. However, the amendments before us are still weak, incomplete and ineffective.

The Government say that clinical commissioning groups will have to include in their constitutions how they intend to manage conflicts of interest. However, I am afraid the Government are deluded if they think that the national NHS Commissioning Board will be able adequately to scrutinise whether hundreds of clinical commissioning groups are properly implementing the measures in thousands of contracts, particularly when the board has already taken on so many other huge responsibilities for managing the Government’s new system. Giving Monitor powers to scrutinise clinical commissioning groups is inadequate for the same reason. Saying that Monitor can deem a clinical commissioning group’s contract to be ineffective, if it thinks that conflicts of interest have not been dealt with, will in effect mean closing the stable door once the horse has bolted. Indeed, there could be huge problems on the ground, as a provider may have already started delivering services to NHS patients by the time Monitor takes its decision.

Labour’s Front-Bench team in the other place tabled a comprehensive amendment to deal with conflicts of interest in clinical commissioning groups. It would have ensured a code of conduct for how clinical commissioning groups register, manage and report on conflicts of interests among its members and employees, and imposed a duty on CCG members to abide by the code. The amendment would have ensured that no member of a clinical commissioning group could take part in discussion or decisions concerning any provider of services with which that person had a registrable interest, and allowed the Secretary of State to appoint an adjudicator to investigate complaints about any breaches of the code, with a range of financial and other sanctions available, including the ability to suspend or remove a person from the clinical commissioning group. However, the Government rejected that comprehensive amendment, saying that such sanctions were unnecessary.

The Government have agreed to Lords amendment 31, which at least says that there must be a register of interests for a group, along with its governing body, sub-committee and employees, and that the register must be kept up to date, with information updated within 28 days. That change is welcome, but it does not go anywhere near far enough in ensuring that conflicts of interest are robustly dealt with. That is why our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 31 would ensure that members of a clinical commissioning group would not be able to take part in discussions or decisions about services in which they had declared a registered interest, which is the same format as in local government.

[Andrew George]

Although we welcome Lords amendment 31, which was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Barker in another place, the hon. Lady’s amendment (a) proposes to go a stage further. I personally welcome that, but did she notice that the Minister, in justifying the Government’s position that it would not practically be applicable, gave the example of a CCG commissioning from all its membership? Does that not fundamentally undermine the argument that clinical commissioning groups cannot be conflicted per se?

[Liz Kendall]

I am simply arguing in amendment (a) that the same robust mechanisms that exist in local government should apply in this case. The hon. Gentleman will have to have a conversation with his own Ministers about what they have said in response.

The potential for conflicts of interest under the Bill is so great, and the amount of public money being spent by clinical commissioning groups so substantial, that the Government should have put in place far tougher provisions to deal with conflicts of interest. The Deputy Prime Minister has failed to guarantee the integrity of clinical commissioning groups, as he claimed in his joint letter with the noble Baroness Williams to Liberal Democrat Members. The integrity of clinical commissioning groups cannot be guaranteed by having only two lay members who will not even be independently appointed, nor can it be guaranteed through guidance for GPs, which the General Medical Council is currently developing. Indeed, I would argue that the GMC’s role should be to ensure professional integrity in the treatment of individual patients, not with regard to organisational misconduct, which would be a complete change in its current role. Nor can the integrity of clinical commissioning groups be guaranteed by national bodies such as the NHS Commissioning Board and Monitor, which will be too distant, too remote and too busy dealing with the fallout from other aspects of the Government’s Bill to be able effectively to address the potential conflicts of interest that clinical commissioning groups will face every day.

This issue might not have received as much public or media attention as other aspects of the Bill, but it will become significant in future, as patients and taxpayers struggle to determine whether their best interests—not the financial interests of GPs—are at the heart of the NHS. Examples of that have already come to light. In October last year, the Haxby practice in York wrote to its patients to say that a range of minor treatments would no longer be available on the NHS, but that they could be carried out privately at a number of clinics, including one owned by the practice itself. Those treatments included the removal of skin tags, at a cost of £56.30, and the treatment of benign tumours at a charge of £243.20.

Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, has rightly said that

“the direction of travel in NHS policy, particularly combined with the financial situation, does increase the risk of conflicts of interest for GPs which is one of the reasons the BMA is so concerned about the Health and Social Care Bill.”

Similarly, the NHS Confederation and the Royal College of General Practitioners have felt forced to issue guidance to GPs on how they should manage conflicts of interest, because they believe that the arrangements will become more complex under the Government’s plans. The Lords amendments before us are not robust enough to deal with this. It is a real concern for GPs that they will be unable to deal with conflicts of interest. That is what they are saying, and they need to be protected. The Government should support our amendment, because that would enable that to happen.

[Andrew George]

I congratulate my noble Friends Baroness Jolly, Baroness Barker, Lord Marks, Baroness Williams, Baroness Tyler and Baroness Northover on putting in a tremendous amount of work during the Bill’s various stages to negotiate and table amendments to advance the arguments that my Liberal Democrat Friends and I have expressed concern about. I have already put on record the fact that, although some of those amendments represent important strides towards making the Bill less bad, the changes still do not satisfy me to the extent that I feel that the Bill should be entitled to go forward from this, the elected House, as a piece of legislation. Unfortunately, that is not an argument that I am going to win, but I wanted to put the point on record.

Lords amendment 31 represents an important step forward, but it will merely provide a sticking plaster in what will be a fundamentally challenging scenario. The clinical commissioning groups represent a crumbling pillar in the edifice of the legislation. The big weakness at the centre of the CCGs is the fact that their members will, collectively and individually, be conflicted in almost all circumstances, and they will be unable to escape from that.

The Minister emphasised that point further when he told the House why he could not accept the amendment tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench. He told us that members of a CCG should not take part in certain discussions and decisions, even though they had declared an interest, because the groups would, on occasion, be commissioning for all their members. In those circumstances, a CCG would be incapable of making a decision because none of its board members or general members could be brought in to help because they would all be conflicted. That demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the legislation. My noble Friend Baroness Barker tabled an excellently drafted amendment to deal with that problem, but she was working within very limited parameters. The amendment would simply provide a sticking plaster for a crumbling edifice that will be unable to hold up this policy. I have a fundamental concern about the way in which the legislation will work in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

The fundamental difference is that under the Bill only two lay people will be appointed as members of clinical commissioning groups, and no independence will be involved. Under the old system, lay members of primary care trusts were independently appointed. The degree of independence that provided checks and balances has gone.

[Mr Simon Burns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

Despite the noises off, the fact is that there is considerable scope for that sort of public shaping.

Let me talk my right hon. Friend through some of those changes. We are establishing local health and wellbeing boards, which are made up of clinical commissioning groups, elected local authority members, the various directors to which I just referred, and, importantly, local healthwatch organisations. They have the statutory responsibility for identifying population need for their area and for then framing the strategy to meet those needs. The local commissioner must evidence that the strategies for delivering that—the local commissioning plans—reflect the commissioning strategy that has been produced by the health and wellbeing board. That is the first opportunity to intervene and to help shape the nature of services that are being commissioned for a local population. Indeed, we made amendments that make it clear that health and wellbeing boards must involve their population in that work.

The next stage when people can be involved is when the clinical commissioning group produces its commissioning intentions and plan. CCGs have obligations to consult on their plans and to involve the public in their formulation. That is a further opportunity, but beyond it there is a role in commissioning decisions, or decisions to change or reconfigure a service, for the local authority’s health and overview scrutiny committee, which we are retaining and enhancing, so that, for the first time, NHS providers in the public sector or private providers providing NHS-contracted services can be held accountable for their decisions. That is a change from the arrangements under the previous Administration.

Those are just a few of the steps, but ultimately we have retained the provisions for a reference by the local authority to the Secretary of State to make decisions regarding major reconfigurations. There are a number of steps. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend and gives the lie to those who suggest that the provisions have been watered down—the contrary is the case.

We have committed to use the Secretary of State’s powers to specify the criteria that local healthwatch organisations must satisfy when it comes to strong involvement by volunteers and lay members, including in their governance and leadership. We want to ensure that local healthwatch organisations break out of existing models and find ways of reaching and involving far wider and more representative populations than hitherto.

I can confirm that there are a number of amendments, the majority of which are technical in nature, relating to the Health and Care Professions Council, NICE, and the NHS Information Centre. Part 7 of the Bill relates to the regulation of health and social care workers. The Government have made a technical alteration to the provisions amending article 12 of the Health Professions Order 2001 to enable the Health Professions Council to recognise training undertaken in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as sufficient for admission to its register as a social worker. The amendments also give the council the power to assess training or professional expertise and experience in social work gained outside England but within the UK.

Part 8 of the Bill establishes the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—I emphasise the word “care”—and extends its remit to adults’ and children’s social care. NICE will play a central role in driving quality improvement through the production of robust, evidence-based quality standards and other guidance across the NHS, social care and public health. That is yet another measure in the Bill that supports and drives greater integration of health and social care than has existed in the past. The Government have made minor and technical amendments to part 8 to avoid the potential for misinterpretation and to ensure that NICE’s functions can be exercised effectively in practice.

It is important that patients continue to have access to NICE-approved drugs and treatments in line with the NHS constitution and accompanying handbook, whether those fall within the future responsibilities of the NHS or of local authorities. We have therefore amended the regulation-making power in clause 234 of part 8 so that the provision in regulations to replicate the effect of the current funding direction for NICE technology appraisal recommendations may also be applied to local authorities in respect of the drugs and treatments that they may prescribe for public health purposes, such as smoking cessation aids.

Part 9 establishes for the first time the NHS Information Centre in primary legislation, setting out its powers in relation to the collection, analysis, publication or dissemination of information. The Government have made a number of amendments—to clauses 255 and 257—and inserted new clauses after clauses 252 and 257 that further strengthen the protection of individuals’ confidential personal information while ensuring that the wider benefits of safely and securely sharing information, which include improvements in the quality of services and treatments, can be realised.

The amendments will, for example, restrict the people who can require the centre to collect confidential, personal, identifiable information; clarify the circumstances in which the centre may require others to provide it with confidential, personal, identifiable information; and require a code of practice to be published, setting out how confidential information must be handled. That provides an essential safe haven that can provide a powerful driver to support research and quality improvement in the NHS.

To support these amendments, we have made a number of minor and technical amendments to part 9 and to schedule 19. Finally, we made a minor and technical amendment in part 11 relating to the transfer scheme, which is set out in clause 294. That provision allows for flexibility in how the Secretary of State holds his shares in any property company. That is normal for company structures and is in a form already used by the Secretary of State with his other companies.

I urge hon. Members to support these amendments, including amendment 181.

[Liz Kendall]

I start by sharing with hon. Members a letter to the Prime Minister on 13 March from Malcolm Alexander, who is the chair of the National Association of LINks Members, the national body representing 150 statutory independent local involvement networks that promote the public and patient voice in health and social care. The letter is about the amendments to HealthWatch that were made in the other place and are before us now. He wrote to register his

“strong objections to the government’s major policy change on Healthwatch—specifically your decision to abandon plans to establish statutory Local Healthwatch bodies…Instead of creating independent statutory bodies led by local people who can monitor, influence, involve the public, hold the local authority and NHS to account; the government plan to create weak bodies that will not be independent, but will be funded by and accountable to the local authority they are monitoring. There will be no genuine accountability to the public.”

He then makes this rather perceptive comment:

“Plans for a statutory Healthwatch body were probably the only part of the Health and Social Care Bill that had any public support.”

He continues:

“Your government’s ambition”—

not your Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the Prime Minister’s—

“to establish independent, statutory Healthwatch organisations that would help achieve equity and empowerment in relation to access to NHS and social care services, has been diminished to such a degree, that Healthwatch will have little impact…The aspiration to achieve equity and excellence in public involvement in health and social care, especially for the most vulnerable people, has been replaced by a model that has lost its central purpose of building effective patient and user led bodies that can influence the planning of health and social care.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s arguments about the structure and funding of local healthwatch bodies and HealthWatch England. I ask this question not to be deliberately mischievous, but in view of her comments and criticisms: what is the preferred option of the Labour party for those scrutiny bodies?

[Liz Kendall]

I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the Opposition Front Bench amendment tabled in the House of Lords, which set out how we could have a separate independent, body with clear lines of accountability to local healthwatch organisations. That is the policy of the Opposition. Unfortunately, however, that amendment was not accepted.

National Voices represents 150 patient groups. I was interested that the Minister said that the Richmond Group of charities somehow supported everything that the Government were doing in this area. However, I should remind the House that National Voices includes groups such as Asthma UK, Arthritis Care, the British Heart Foundation, Breast Cancer Care, Carers UK, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, Dementia UK, Mencap, Mind, Macmillan Cancer Support, Rethink Mental Illness, the Stroke Association and many others. Those groups are saying that the Government are setting HealthWatch up to fail, because it will not provide a strong enough voice for patients and the public.

Interestingly, officials within the Government’s own Department are saying the same thing. Hon. Members will know that the Government have refused to publish the transition risk register, but today I have been passed the risk register from the Department of Health’s programme board for HealthWatch. It is marked “Restricted”, and it sets out clearly what the Department’s officials see as the risks involved in the Government’s proposals on HealthWatch. It deals with high risk in terms of impact, as well as with likelihood, so it does involve prediction.

The risk register says that there is a high risk that

“existing LINks members and volunteers become disenchanted about the new arrangements for local HealthWatch and leave the system”

because of “insufficient consultation”. It goes on to say that there is a high risk that local authorities

“will not invest in establishing effective relationships with existing LINks and other community organisations”

because the process has been poorly managed. It states that there is a high risk that there will be a “narrow engagement group” and that HealthWatch

“doesn’t work effectively with providers and commissioners. HW is not fully representative.”

It identifies the cause for that as the engagement process having been “insufficiently inclusive”. It sees a further high risk in relation to HealthWatch England:

“The establishment of the HWE committee within CQC is either too isolated or too prescribed by DH/CQC plans.”

The cause is identified:

“Early design processes for establishing HWE do not engage broad range of partners resulting to ineffective regulations being laid.”

Those ineffective regulations are being laid by this Government, according to the risk register of the Department of Health’s own HealthWatch programme board.

Some of the Lords amendments in this group would make minor improvements to the Bill in relation to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and to the functioning of the information centre. I want to return to the Minister’s earlier claim that huge improvements would be seen in public health. Some amendments relate to the employment of public health professionals by local authorities. The trouble is that the Faculty of Public Health, the body that represents those people, opposes the Bill and wants it to be dropped. It has stated that the Bill will widen inequalities, increase health care costs and reduce the quality of care. It says that there are significant risks—[Interruption.] If hon. Members are making claims that their Bill will improve public health and that the amendments will improve arrangements for public health professionals, perhaps they should listen to the views of those public health professionals. The Faculty of Public Health has identified

“significant risks associated with the NHS structures, the new health system and environment that the Bill will enact.”

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was, perhaps courageously, trying to get the Minister to set out what powers local authorities would have under the new system. He will know, however, that health and wellbeing boards will not have the final say over GP commissioning plans. They will not be able to stop them. The only course left to them will be to appeal to the NHS Commissioning Board. I would respectfully point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that the NHS Commissioning Board will automatically agree to complaints from local authorities, his experience of the NHS is very different from mine. We need to be clear that there will be no sign-off by health and wellbeing boards.

[Simon Hughes]

These are important issues, but I hope the hon. Lady recognises that on the public health agenda, which Labour Members regularly say is so important, there is now—I think for the first time—written into legislation an obligation on the Secretary of State, and therefore on the NHS, to secure

“continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to individuals for or in connection with…the protection or improvement of public health.”

That must be reflected all the way down the tree; it will not stay only in the Department of Health office.

[Liz Kendall]

The right hon. Gentleman might think that that on its own will protect the system, but as he well knows, I am pointing out what public health professionals are saying. [Interruption.] What I am saying is that the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the Bill is not shared by those who work in public health who think that there are huge risks in it. I was also making the point that when it comes to the fundamental issue of the control or powers of the health and wellbeing boards, we should be very clear that they do not have sign-off. That was my point.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I was unfairly chuntering from a sedentary position a minute ago, and I thought I would like to place something on the record. The hon. Lady refers to the Faculty of Public Health, and I have obviously heard its public comments about the Bill. However, it is right there in new section 1B in clause 3 that the Secretary of State has a duty “to reduce inequalities”. I heard an Opposition Member chuntering from a sedentary position earlier, too, to the effect that this is a matter of faith and trust, but this House’s job is to scrutinise and enact legislation. There it is in the Bill in black and white—on green —[Interruption.] Yes, for the first time in 13 years, as I do not recall seeing it in any national health Bill before.

[Liz Kendall]

The point is that the rest of the Bill absolutely trumps that. That is the concern of others—[Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but people who work in the system say that the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)has not stumped me. He said that one phrase in a Bill is supposedly going to outweigh the rest of the implications in the Bill, which the Faculty of Public Health says will increase the postcode lottery and widen inequalities, without providing value for money or improving the quality of services. Conservative Members should listen to the concerns of the people who work in the system.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

She will, you know. Does she agree that it is apparent over the years that it is one thing to see an intention built into a Bill, but quite another to see it implemented on the ground? It is the contention of Opposition Members that, worthwhile as the statements in the Bill are, in the context of this particular car crash of a Bill, some of those intentions around public health will be dead on arrival.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her, as always, powerful and eloquent description of the realities of the Bill.

[Mr Burns]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Liz Kendall]

No, I am not giving way to the Minister.

Although I have said that a number of amendments in the group make minor improvements regarding NICE and the functioning of the information centre, they are overwhelmingly—

[Mr Burns]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Liz Kendall]

I have told the Minister that I am not giving way to him.

These amendments are overwhelmingly outweighed by the huge change put forward by the Government in abolishing an effective statutory model for healthwatch bodies locally, which was supposed to give patients and the public a strong and independent voice in the NHS. Labour Members cannot accept the Government’s removal of that statutory body, which they promised and have now betrayed. The amendments make a mockery of the Deputy Prime Minister’s claim in the letter he wrote with Baroness Williams to Liberal Democrat Members that the Bill will ensure “proper accountability” to the public. It makes a mockery, too, of the claims made by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that this Bill will put real power into the hands of patients and the public, and that there will be “No decision about me without me.” And, as the national body that represents patients and public involvement in the NHS has said, it is

“a betrayal of public trust”.

This is what has happened throughout the proceedings on a Bill for which the Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—have no mandate, and for which they know they have no mandate. They promised that there would be no top-down reorganisation, but did not present any proposals for an independent regulator on the basis of the system that exists in the privatised utilities because they were worried about what people would say. Above all, on this fundamental issue, which concerns the say that the public and patients have in the NHS, the Government have—as the National Association of LINks Members said—betrayed people’s trust in what they promised, and for that reason we will not support the amendments.

[Simon Hughes]

These amendments—the last group that we shall consider tonight—contain important issues, including that of local community involvement, which was raised by the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). Like other Members, I have an interest in the subject, and have had throughout my time in politics. I happen to know Malcolm Alexander—who was cited by the hon. Lady—very well, because he was once secretary of Southwark community health council.

Let me present my honest opinion of the Bill to my friends on the Government Front Bench. It is not the Bill that I would have presented to Parliament. I think that it has gone much too far in its efforts to introduce top-down reorganisation, which is not what we told the public we would give them; and although there was a fine balance between the arguments in favour of primary care trusts and those in favour of the new structure that we have created, I believe that by changing what we said we would do we have caused more uncertainty, not least among health professionals.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that the process to which the Bill has been subjected has improved it hugely. I am convinced that a year ago my party colleagues performed a public service by setting out an agenda for change, and that we have helped to persuade the Government to amend the Bill in 2,000 different ways. That is not my figure, but one given by the Library in a note with which it provided us before the debate. Since the Bill returned to Committee about a year ago, 2,000 amendments have been tabled, many of them in the House of Commons after the Future Forum had done its work. Today we are considering—technically—374 amendments, all of which are going in the right direction.

It is interesting to observe that only three Labour amendments have been tabled today to the changes proposed by the House of Lords, and that two of them dealt with the same issue. Effectively, that means that the Labour Front Bench has sought to change only three of the many proposals made by the Lords. Of course the 374 amendments are not all substantive—some are consequential, and some are small—but we should not undermine or understate the substantive changes that have been made since the Bill left this place.

Many outside the House believe that there is an opportunity for Members of Parliament to vote on every Bill at the end of all its proceedings, and to deliver a final yes or no decision. There is not, although I think that there should be. I hope to persuade colleagues that we can change our procedure so that all public legislation, whether it starts in the Lords or the Commons, ends up in the Commons for Third Reading. I think that that would make for more democratically accountable decisions. We could then examine the Bill as amended by the Lords, and take a final view. However, we are not there yet; tonight we are considering all these amendments, and with them I thoroughly concur.

I have listened to the debate about accountability, and I accept that there is real disagreement on whether the new system proposed by the Government, at short notice, is an adequate substitute for the statutory HealthWatch. I remember a time—the hon. Member for Leicester West was not in the House then—when, from the Opposition Benches, I ferociously opposed the Labour Government’s proposal to abolish community health councils. I thought that it was a move in the wrong direction, as did my constituents. I still believe that any measure that does not empower my constituents— and the hon. Lady’s in Leicester—and enable them to become involved in decisions, consultations and processes will not be a good thing.

Ministers have been asked some perfectly proper questions today, and I am not 100% persuaded that their answers suggest that we will have the best possible system. Let me be absolutely honest: I believe that although, by and large, the amendments contain huge improvements, there is a great deal of unfinished business. Some will be dealt with in regulations, which will enable us to return to these matters, while some will be judged on the basis of experience.

I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to put on record the way in which the public can be more involved, because I am clear that there are significant additional opportunities for the public to become involved. That is why, in those areas, it is a good Bill. I am clear that local councils should have more involvement. He may remember that, as my party’s representative when the Bill setting up the Greater London authority was introduced, I argued that the GLA should have the power of the London strategic health authority, so that there would be a democratically accountable strategic health authority. I have always believed in more accountable local health services and in local councillors and councils having more say.

[Liz Kendall]

The right hon. Gentleman says that there is more to do and that that can be done in regulations, but that is not the case on the amendment that we are being asked to agree, which will abolish local healthwatch organisations as statutory bodies. That cannot be changed in regulations. Will he vote against that?

[Simon Hughes]

I understand that. I was not pretending that everything could be dealt with in regulations. I said to the hon. Lady, I hope fairly—I am trying to be fair—that I thought she made a good point that the proposal has come late in the day and does not have the support of the people leading the community involvement at the moment, one of whom she cited and whom I have known for many years. I do not think that the Government have yet given a full explanation of why the new proposals are better than the old ones. I understand why they have suggested that there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach, but I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will explain, because I think that Ministers have a case to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend hits right at the heart of the flaws in the arrangements proposed tonight, which I was going to move on to. I am sure that Who Cares has its ear to the ground, good local connections and strong representation, and I want to see that continue, as I am sure he does. The real question is whether those organisations can go beyond hard-hitting reports, and who then will be accountable for the action that might need to be taken to follow them up. Where are the enforcement powers that could ensure that any problems they identify on behalf of patients are properly dealt with? I will move on to that point in a moment.

In a sense, that links to the point I wish to put to Ministers now. In the arrangements before us it seems that if a local healthwatch organisation is not up to standard, is not doing the job and is somehow failing patients in an area or falling short of what is expected, we will be offered a new provision, a new power introduced by the Government through an amendment in the other place, for HealthWatch England to write a letter to the local authority, telling it that it must do better. Thinking of the two local authority leaders in the area that I am privileged to represent—Steve Houghton, the leader of Barnsley metropolitan borough council, and Roger Stone, the leader of Rotherham metropolitan borough council—I could not use language in this House that is likely to reflect their reaction. If I think of them, as elected local government leaders, receiving a letter from a sub-committee of a national quango responsible for regulating things that their local authorities have little or no responsibility for, telling them that they are not doing their job properly, I can just imagine their reaction. Quite frankly, “You’re having a laugh.” That is simply not a serious power of, or provision for, redress on behalf of patients when a local patients’ representative organisation is failing to do the job properly. So, no enforcement powers and no intervention powers, only the power to write a letter to the local authority.

In the end, that brings us to the point. At this stage, in the final hour, at the end of this extraordinary Bill’s passage through Parliament, we can see very clearly the truths at the heart of it. There is provision for an independent national commissioning board, an independent market regulator and independent hospital foundation trusts, but there is no provision for an independent patients’ organisation.

In this Bill there are powers to ensure strong action to guarantee competition, strong action to guarantee financial efficiency and strong action to guarantee professional concerns, but there are no powers to guarantee any sort of action, let alone strong action, on behalf of patients.

I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who made a very good speech from our Front Bench. When she notes that the representative body, National Voices, says on behalf of patients and interests groups, “You’re setting us up to fail,” and reads the letter from Malcolm Alexander, the chair of the National Association of LINks Members, who says, “You’re creating weak bodies that will not be independent,” I think that we in this House should be worried. Such action is, to borrow a phrase, pennywise, pound foolish. The Government are cutting what to Ministers and civil servants might seem to be small corners, but there could be big consequences for patients.

I see a link—a common characteristic—between this debate and our earlier debate on the risk register. The Government will live to regret at length poor judgments and decisions made in haste and under pressure now. The Secretary of State will face the question of whether to release the transition risk register. If he insists on remaining resolute in refusing to disclose, and if he insists on keeping it secret, patients will ask, “What are they hiding from us?” In the future, in the months ahead, long after the Bill has received Royal Assent and is on the statute book, patients will rightly ask when things go wrong, “Did they know these risks were there, and why didn’t they tell us?”

The same applies to HealthWatch. When things go wrong, patients will find that they do not have the recourse and the representation that they may need to act and intervene on their behalf, and they may well find that the arrangements that we are invited to pass tonight are too weak to help them. I say to the Health Secretary, who is now on his own on the Front Bench, that this is likely to reinforce that lack of confidence and lack of trust in the notion that the Government’s huge upheaval in our NHS, and this huge piece of legislation before the House, really is in the best interests of the NHS and NHS patients.

[Liz Kendall]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister who moved these particularly important amendments, which will abolish a statutory organisation, HealthWatch, to be absent from the debate? If it is in order, is it not a huge discourtesy to Members on both sides of the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is in order for the Minister not to be here at this moment in time, and it is up to each Member’s judgment as to what to make of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I shall sidestep that question at present and return to it later, because I first want to listen to the Minister’s winding-up speech. As I want to ensure that he has adequate time, I shall conclude my remarks as swiftly as possible.

I could, however, initiate a brief yah-boo interlude, such as by saying that the previous Government got rid of community health councils. Many people look back at the era of CHCs as the halcyon days of independent scrutiny of local provision. In creating local healthwatch, we should as far as possible mirror, and learn from, the excellent services provided by the CHCs.

[Liz Kendall]

On 26 October 2006, when the Secretary of State was the shadow Secretary of State, he set out his policies on HealthWatch. He said:

“I envisage it as an independent body with a separate funding stream and the right to decide its own agenda of work.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that has been completely changed under this Bill?

[Andrew George]

Earlier, I asked a question about the rationale behind the last-minute change from having independent bodies to the situation now, under which, as a result of both a proposal we are debating this evening and an amendment tabled in the Lords, we are allowing local authorities to commission community interest companies or others to provide the healthwatch function in their areas. That ties the local healthwatch into the local authority. I believe we should devolve and localise, and empower local communities as far as possible, but this change does not achieve that. Instead, it empowers the local authority. If there is a genuine intention to ensure that we have integrated health and social care, then there is a problem here. If the local authority provides both the social care and the local scrutiny, I fear we may not have effective scrutiny of the work of the local authority in this regard.

Liberal Democrats in the Lords have done excellent work in advancing a large number of amendments to improve the Bill, and I am perplexed that the proposal before us tonight appears, in effect, to backpedal from that progress made in other areas. That is why I hope the Minister will reassure us on the rationale for this proposal, and assure us that the new body will be genuinely independent and genuinely effective. I shall therefore reserve judgment on the question of which way to vote tonight.

NHS Risk Register

Liz Kendall Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Today’s debate has shown that we have a Government who refuse to be open about the risks of their health Bill and arrogantly reject the widespread concerns of patients, the public, and NHS staff. Instead of providing the leadership that the NHS needs, Ministers have left staff struggling to cope with the effects of their damaging Bill.

Unlike the Government, the NHS is facing up to its responsibilities by publishing local risk registers to try to mitigate the effects of the Government’s plans. NHS North of England warns that the Government’s reorganisation has a high risk of compromising patient safety, as knowledge about how to deal with mistakes and adverse patient events is lost. NHS Midlands and East says that there is a high risk that waiting times will suffer, primary care will be neglected, and joint working with councils will be undermined. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) said, NHS London warns that there is a high risk that clinical commissioning groups will not have the skills they need, and that the NHS will fail to deliver either the best outcomes for patients or the best value for taxpayers’ money. NHS Milton Keynes warns that there is a high risk of failure to deliver its statutory requirements, leading to significant harm or fatalities of children and vulnerable adults. That point was raised by several of my hon. Friends, and particularly eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).

However, the Government are not concerned about the risks that the Bill poses to patients, only to their own political prospects. In the past few weeks, we have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of Conservative Ministers scrambling to distance themselves from the wreckage of their Bill and desperately pointing the finger of blame. An anonymous source in No. 10 told The Times that the Health Secretary

“should be taken out and shot.”

Anonymous Cabinet Ministers have told ConservativeHome that the Bill is as bad as the poll tax, that it must be dropped and that the Secretary of State must be replaced. The Financial Times has said that the Chancellor is worried that the Bill will retoxify the Conservative brand. Apparently, the Deputy Prime Minister is furious that the Tory in-fighting is ruining his attempts to get his party and MPs on board. The Secretary of State accuses the British Medical Association of being “politically poisoned” in opposing the Bill; I say that the source of the poison is all on his own side.

[Mr Lansley]

Just so that the record is clear, when I referred to the phrase “politically poisoned”, I was not saying it myself, but quoting Aneurin Bevan’s description of the BMA.

[Liz Kendall]

I notice that the Secretary of State does not deny that members of his own Cabinet and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers are concerned about the Bill.

Instead of fighting among themselves, the Government should be relentlessly focused on ensuring that the NHS meets the challenges of the future. Our ageing population, the increase in long-term conditions, and the huge medical and technical advances mean that the NHS must continue to change to improve patient care and deliver better value for taxpayers’ money. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, that means shifting the focus of services into the community and more towards prevention, so that people stay fit and healthy for longer. It means centralising some health services in specialist centres so that patients benefit from medical advances and get the best standards of care. It also means ensuring that local NHS and council services work together so that older and disabled people can stay living independently in their own home.

The NHS needs service reform, not structural reform. The Bill will make the changes impossibly hard to achieve. The recent Health Committee report on social care states that the best examples of integrated services have been achieved by care trusts, which were set up under the Labour Government, and yet those are being swept away by the Bill. In 2009, NHS London centralised stroke services into eight hyper-acute units. That decision was very controversial at the time, but within six months it had more than tripled the number of patients getting vital clot-busting drugs to the highest rate of any large city in the world. The Bill will put strategic service changes such as that at risk.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

What about the risk register?

[Liz Kendall]

I have outlined what local NHS services have said about the risk register. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the debate earlier, he would have heard Government Members saying that we are not focusing on patient care or setting out how the NHS needs to change. The point that I am making is that the Bill will prevent the strategic changes that the NHS needs.

There is no evidence that smaller, GP-led commissioning groups can deliver major changes to hospital services. The organisations that have done so, such as NHS London, are being abolished. The real risk is that the full, free and unfettered market that will be introduced by part 3 of the Bill will stop the NHS from making the changes that patients desperately need. It risks preventing hospitals from working together to centralise stroke or trauma care; it risks preventing hospitals from running local community services or working with GPs and local councils to better integrate care, for fear that they will fall foul of UK and EU competition law; and it risks putting power into the hands not of patients and clinicians, but of lawyers and the courts.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am delighted by the conversion of the Opposition to more transparency now that they are out of office. Can they show the Government how to do it by publishing the internal documents that are critical of their leader’s strategy for change in the Labour party?

[Liz Kendall]

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I will not waste my time on that point when we have important issues about the future of the NHS to discuss.

Government Members should realise that GPs, nurses, midwives, health visitors, public health professionals, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, radiologists and Opposition Members are against the Bill, not because we are against change, but because it will prevent the changes that the NHS needs.

Government Members do not want to talk about part 3 of the Bill, because they know that people do not want their NHS run like any other market. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister claim that their Bill is all about cutting bureaucracy and putting patients and clinicians in control, yet the Department of Health now admits in its fascinating document, “Design of the NHS Commissioning Board”, that there will be five layers of management in the Government’s new NHS, except in the performance and operations directorate, in which

“an additional layer (or layers) will be required”.

In place of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, we will now have the NHS Commissioning Board, four commissioning sectors, 50 local offices, commissioning support units, clinical senates and clinical commissioning groups, as well as Public Health England and the health and wellbeing boards. Patients and staff have been left completely confused about who is responsible for running different services and how they will be held to account.

The Government say that the new structure will cost £492 million a year.

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

Let me continue to explain this point. I have given way to the Secretary of State already and I want to finish my point.

According to the Government’s own document, the cost of running commissioning support units and commissioning for Public Health England is not included in the costs that have been given. Indeed, it states:

“The costs of providing clinical advice to the wider system will be separately funded.”

That prompts the question, what are all those different organisations doing if they are not helping to improve clinical care? The Government are not cutting red tape, they are increasing it, and they are not liberating clinicians but suffocating them—not my words but those of the NHS Alliance and the National Association of Primary Care, which used to champion the Bill.

Perhaps the Secretary of State should listen to the advice of Dr Peter Bailey, a GP and former chair of a commissioning group in his own constituency. He recently told Pulse magazine that GPs have

“been duped…set up to fail…We stand baffled in the wreckage…put down the sledgehammer. Get rid of the Bill.”

The Secretary of State should listen to the good doctor’s advice. He should grant the freedom of information request submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and publish the risk register. He should listen to the 78 Opposition Members and 15 Liberal Democrat Members who have signed the early-day motion tabled by my admirable hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) calling for the register to be published.

Even today, as this debate has taken place, the Information Commissioner has told the Evening Standard that he thinks the Government should publish the risk register while peers are still debating the Bill. He has said:

“Where proposals are particularly contentious and with far-reaching consequences, it’s better for more information to be available for a broader discussion about the pros and cons before everything’s decided. By enabling people to express their views on proposals, the final decision will be better informed and better understood.”

I say to Liberal Democrat Members that voting for the motion will show that they really support the early-day motion that they have already signed. It will show their constituents that on this issue, they mean what they say and are different from Conservative Members.

Parliament has a right to know the risks of the legislation that it is debating, and the public have a right to understand the true risks of the Government’s reckless NHS plans. I commend the motion to the House.