NHS England: Major Incidents
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, and I echo her thanks to the staff of the NHS and other agencies who are coping with such pressure at the moment. The noble Baroness said that there is no definition of a major incident. Can she tell me why there is no national definition of a major incident, given that the NHS is a national service and that we need comparators between different areas of the country? Can she also tell me why a head of operations at a major trust who received the NHS England guidance said it was designed,
“to effectively stop trusts from calling a major incident”,
and that consultants’,
“hands will be tied in most cases if they wish to call a major incident for capacity reasons”?
That sounds rather like news management by NHS England. Finally, can she confirm that, when the previous Government left office, the 98% target was being met?
Baroness Jolly
I shall take the noble Lord’s questions in reverse order. The 98% target was being met—up until probably the middle of November, we were hitting our target—but, from the middle of November through the cold Christmas and New Year season, demand was really very high. In 2013, NHS England produced guidance on such issues that would, clearly, have gone to all CCGs, trusts and interested organisations. It is up to local trusts, following the guidance, to make their own decisions about how appropriate it is to call an emergency. The noble Lord has an advantage over me; I have not seen the West Midlands document, so I am not sure exactly how that trust interpreted the guidance. I have not seen the document, so I cannot follow the trust’s interpretation, but from the Secretary of State’s Statement, he probably finds it difficult to follow.
Care: Budget
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness seriously saying that the Government are not responsible for the funding cuts to local government and the consequent impact of a reduction in social care services? On the better care fund that she referred to for the next financial year, I refer her back to the King’s Fund quarterly monitoring report, which we discussed yesterday, which showed that 83% of NHS trust finance directors were not confident that the fund will be able to reduce pressure on A&E services. The better care fund is destined to fail.
Baroness Jolly
I think the noble Lord will expect me to disagree with him on that issue. A lot of work has gone in with local authorities, with the CCGs and with NHS trusts to try to ensure that that work succeeds.
NHS: Finances and Services
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly (LD)
We agree with the King’s Fund that very real financial and operational challenges face our health and care services. However, we are committed to a sustainable future for our NHS. This is demonstrated by our protection of NHS funding and our further funding commitment for 2015-16. This will begin to deliver the vision for transformation set out in the NHS Five Year Forward View.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the King’s Fund quarterly monitoring report of NHS finance directors shows a worrying picture of 42% of NHS trusts facing a financial deficit this year, services under pressure, operations cancelled and a 50% increase in the wait for packages of care by patients in hospitals. Finance directors describe the situation as critical. What specific action are the Government taking to respond to this crisis? Are the Minister and her Liberal Democrat colleagues now prepared to say that they regret their role in helping the passage of the 2012 Act, which has caused so much damage and fragmentation?
Baroness Jolly
To take the last point first, I do not regret that. I do not regret parity of esteem for mental health. I do not regret health and well-being boards in local authorities. On the noble Lord’s first set of points, we have seen rising demand in emergency and waiting lists, a reduction in unplanned financial support, and focus on safer staffing ratio guidance. Various things are happening. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, one of the noble Lord’s noble friends, is looking at procurement within hospitals. Right across the piece, local NHS and foundation trust boards are concentrating on how they can restructure services to improve the situation.
General Practitioners: Hippocratic Oath
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, going back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will the noble Baroness repeat the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when this issue was raised a couple of weeks ago—namely, that the core part of the 2004 contract that the noble Lord complained about was negotiated in the 1990s by the previous Conservative Government? Will she confirm that?
As far as the oath is concerned, the noble Baroness will be aware that part of it states:
“Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient”.
Would Hippocrates be surprised by how few home visits are now done by doctors?
Baroness Jolly
I cannot say whether or not Hippocrates would be surprised. However, doctors—certainly, those in the out-of-hours service—are committed to home visits where it is decided that they are clinically appropriate.
Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank my noble friend for bringing us back to a very important part of our debate during the passage of the then Care Bill some months ago. We need to remind ourselves of the fanfare with which the Government introduced that Bill. As my noble friend said, there was an explicit statement that older people would no longer have to sell their homes to pay for their care. As he has carefully outlined, that is strictly true even within the provisions of the deferred payment regulations. But as he said, it is not in the spirit with which the Government actually announced this policy. Instead of a scheme that would have brought comfort to thousands of people, they have produced a very mean-spirited scheme that will clearly exclude many people who one would have thought should have taken advantage of its provisions.
As these are regulations, we tend to ask technical questions. I have two questions for the noble Baroness, on which she may want to write to me. On the impact of the relevant figure on pensions, how will a pension pot be treated in relation to the calculation of the non-housing asset? Do the Government expect the new flexibility in assessing pension savings contained in the Taxation of Pensions Bill to have any effect on this policy? Will those savings be counted towards the £23,250 cap? I would be very happy for the noble Baroness to write to me on those points.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey came to the crunch of the matter when he said that he did not expect a scheme to be available to the wealthy and the very asset-rich. I endorse that. My noble friend Lord Warner wrote to the right honourable Norman Lamb a year or so ago. My noble friend was a member of the Dilnot commission but is unable to be here tonight. He wrote:
“As a commission we accepted there had to be some eligibility criteria because this was never intended as a scheme that was available to the wealthy and asset rich”.
However, as he said, and as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, being required to spend down to assets of £23,250 seems far too restrictive to deliver a viable scheme or to reflect what the Dilnot commission recommended.
Surely, even at this stage, the Government need to reconsider this scheme. It is very disappointing that the consultation has taken place, we had a very good debate on it and yet the Government have moved not one inch on this policy. If it goes ahead, it will be very disappointing for many thousands of people who had every reason to expect that they would take advantage of the scheme. The noble Baroness may say that we should not worry because local authorities will be able to offer schemes above the threshold of their own volition. However, I very much doubt whether many local authorities will take advantage of that. Therefore, I support my noble friend. I am delighted that he will push this measure to a Division tonight. We are very happy to support him.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I shall also have to take exception to the noble Lord’s second Motion today on the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are not, as he has suggested, at odds with the overarching policy intention that people should not be forced to sell their home within their lifetime to pay for their care. Indeed, they ensure that protection and support is available to those who need it.
Noble Lords will recall that in my earlier speech I made reference to the conclusions of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, chaired by Sir Andrew Dilnot. As I said, the commission supported the extension of deferred payments. More specifically, it recommended:
“Anyone who would be unable to afford care charges without selling their home should be able to take out a deferred payment”.
The deferred payment scheme that each local authority will be required to implement will achieve precisely this—it will provide protection to those at risk of having to sell their home to pay for their care.
It has been suggested that the eligibility threshold, which requires a person to have less than £23,250 in savings and assets on top of the value of their house to qualify for a deferred payment, has been set too low and will not achieve this aim. It has even been suggested that this policy would leave people unable to afford their basic living expenses. So allow me to shed some light on this debate by informing noble Lords that setting the threshold at this level means that 80% of people who develop a residential care need will qualify for either help from their local authority in paying for their care or a deferred payment agreement. This means that only the wealthiest 20% of people entering residential care—those who have savings and assets above £23,250 on top of the value of their property—will be asked to initially meet their own care costs before they receive local authority support. Crucially, anyone in this wealthiest 20% bracket would subsequently qualify for a deferred payment if their savings and non-housing assets fell below the £23,250 threshold. So if a person has a change of circumstances or has to spend down their savings to below £23,250, they would be eligible for the support and protection provided by a deferred payment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, can the Minister clarify this? Taking the case raised by my noble friend of an individual with £30,000 of non-housing assets, under her definition these classify this individual as being in the wealthiest 20%. Is that so?
Baroness Jolly
That is what has been assessed as wealthy. The £23,250 was set as a level below which you would be eligible for assistance.
While we want as many people as possible to benefit from the reforms, the eligibility threshold was set at this level because we wanted to focus the funding available for the scheme on providing protection to those at most risk of losing their homes. If we extended automatic eligibility for deferred payments to the wealthiest 20%, who can afford care without having to sell their home, it would mean having to take funding from elsewhere in the care and support system, where it could surely provide greater benefit. That is why the regulations that were laid before the House do not mandate that a local authority must offer a deferred payment to someone with assets of more than £23,250. This is necessary to ensure value for public money by targeting resources where they are most needed.
We have set these criteria so that people will be entitled to a deferred payment when they would be at risk of being forced to sell their home to pay for care. The criteria are also to ensure good value for public money and minimise the risk of bad debt. I trust that noble Lords agree that it is only right and proper that we should prioritise first, and help and support those most in need. There has also been some suggestion this evening that the Government have not been open about the £23,250 threshold, or that my noble friend Lord Howe, who is not in his place, was somehow disingenuous when he spoke on this matter in your Lordships’ House previously. The £23,250 asset threshold, discussed frequently during the passage of the Care Act, has been the subject of not one but two public consultations. First, it was discussed in the consultation on funding reform in July 2013; secondly, it featured in the draft regulations and statutory guidance published for consultation this summer.
These consultations have involved officials from the Department of Health proactively engaging with people, and travelling the length and breadth of the country to consult the full range of stakeholders, including service users, local authorities, members of the general public and the Care and Support Alliance. The policy has been developed in close consultation with an expert body, called the Paying for Care Transformation Group, whose membership includes a range of charities and third-sector organisations, including Age UK, Carers UK, the Care and Support Alliance, and Sense. Through this group we have ensured that the development of the universal payment scheme has been guided by the expertise and insight of those key organisations. It is hardly fair to say that we did not take a full range of views into account, or that the asset threshold is in any way a surprise.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about whether the pension pot should be included, that is covered in the statutory guidance on charging, but I am more than happy to write to him and place a letter in the Library.
The introduction of the universal deferred payment scheme will extend protection to those most at risk of having to face selling their home to pay for their care and support. The scheme will help provide reassurance and peace of mind to thousands of care recipients and their families who would otherwise be faced with making extremely challenging decisions at a most vulnerable time in their lives.
I hope that I have been able to provide assurance about the great benefits of the deferred payment scheme and how it will work from April next year. I hope that I have also convinced your Lordships’ House that these regulations should be allowed to come into force without further delay or hindrance.
Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has done a singular service in bringing these two Motions before your Lordships’ House. I take this opportunity to welcome back my noble friend Lady Wilkins, who is in her place. It is great to see her back in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend made some very telling points about the scheme and the puzzle about the differentiation in numbers relating to the date of its introduction. I was particularly struck by his comments and concerns about the impact on local authorities, on financial advisers, and, of course, on old people themselves. I hope the Minister is in a position to answer my noble friend. He referred to the National Audit Office’s study of the state of readiness of local authorities. I had the opportunity of meeting with the Local Government Association yesterday. It is fair to say that it seems prepared for the introduction. However, its own report has pointed out some of the issues it faces: concern about an increase in total costs; measures around IT, workforce, information and advice, and market shaping; and feedback through direct conversations with its own members that suggests that other pressures on councils, including funding shortfalls and work on the better care fund, compounded with uncertainty on key advice and information, has delayed or otherwise impacted on its preparations in a number of areas.
We debate the introduction of the Care Act’s provisions by local authorities in the context of a huge squeeze on local authority funding. Remember that, since adult social care is probably local authorities’ biggest area of discretionary spend, there have inevitably been huge reductions in their resources. I remind the Minister that, as we have seen from the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor has said that he wants to keep the state permanently at the size it was in the 1930s—around 35% of GDP. If the Government are re-elected at the next general election, that is bound to have a huge impact on local authorities’ capacity to introduce and run the provisions in the Care Act.
I particularly want to talk about one issue relating to implementation. The Minister knows that local authorities will be liable to assess people’s eligibility as self-funders from 2016 onwards. That will then start the clock running to reach the 72,000 cap, at which point those self-funders will be eligible for local authority support. However, picking up my noble friend’s comment, it is clear that local authorities will not be able to assess all current self-funders in April 2016. In fact, I think some self-funders will not be aware of the provisions and therefore will not apply on the first date that they could. Others will apply, but the local authority will not be able to get round to assess them.
The question that I want to put to the Minister is this: will the introduction of the cap on individuals be retrospective? In other words, if I am a resident in a care home, it takes the local authority a year to come round and assess me because of lack of capacity, so will the Government backdate the assessment to the beginning of the introduction of the provisions in April 2016, or will the clock start to run only when the assessment has been made? The question also applies to those self-funders who did not apply on the first potential date when they could have done but were in a care home at that date. That is crucial. There is a risk, if it is not completely retrospective, that local authorities will ration people’s eligibility for this new system by simply delaying the assessments that take place. That is entirely consistent with the point raised by my noble friend. At the heart of his argument are the issues of capacity and the state of readiness of local authorities to undertake the considerable responsibilities that they have been given. It would really be helpful if the Government were able to state with confidence their assessment of the state of readiness of local authorities. What will happen to the thousands of individuals who, in my understanding of what these provisions mean, would be eligible right from the start of the new scheme? Will they have to wait until the clock starts for their assessment to take place?
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the Government have made a clear commitment to introduce a universal deferred payment scheme from April 2015. The fulfilment of this pledge directly addresses the long-standing problem in the care system whereby people who have gone into residential care have often had to sell their homes at short notice in order to pay for care. This has often happened at a time when people need space to adjust to a change in lifestyle and circumstances and to make important decisions about their care and finances. This has been a well known source of distress to people—I am sure we would all identify with that—as well as making it harder for them to plan. The introduction of the universal deferred payment scheme directly addresses this issue and that is why we are proud to announce the new scheme from April 2015.
The first Motion that we are to debate calls for the regulations bringing the universal deferred payment scheme into force to be annulled on the grounds that the reforms are coming into force a year before other changes to social care funding. There are two compelling reasons why the Motion is misguided and any delay must be resisted. First, many thousands of people stand to benefit from deferred payments in the first year of the scheme alone. These people would otherwise be at risk of having to sell their homes to pay for care. Secondly, local authorities are confident that they will be ready to implement the scheme in full from April next year so there is no sensible reason why these people should not benefit.
The need to reform deferred payments without delay has been accepted for many years. The Commission on Funding of Care and Support, chaired by Sir Andrew Dilnot, supported extending deferred payments in part due to its finding that,
“the availability and use of deferred payment schemes is patchy”.
At the moment, offering deferred payments is voluntary for local authorities, with no common eligibility criteria. As a result, not everyone who wants and needs a deferred payment can get one. The Dilnot commission identified that one of the key reasons for this patchy provision across the country was the fact that local authorities were not able to charge interest on deferred payments and were thus forced to run the scheme at a cost to them. By allowing local authorities to charge a low rate of interest that will help them run the scheme on a cost-neutral basis, we are removing one of the clear disincentives of the old scheme. From April next year, local authorities will be able to charge up to 2.65% interest, which helps to keep the scheme financially sustainable and compares very favourably with equity release products, which can charge in the region of 7% to 8% interest. Through the regulations being debated today, all local authorities will be required to have a deferred payment scheme from April next year. There will be a universal offer across the country, ensuring that those most at risk of losing their home can benefit from the support they need to meet their care costs, wherever they live.
It has been suggested by the noble Lord that the universal deferred payment scheme should be delayed by a year and not come into force until 2016. We are sympathetic to concerns that local authorities could have found the implementation of the scheme challenging, but I can reassure your Lordships’ House that the timetable that we have planned is realistic, necessary and achievable. The Department of Health has worked closely with local government colleagues through the LGA and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure that the sector is ready to implement the Care Act from April 2015. To pick up on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we recognise that there will be a need for additional capacity to assess people and we are prioritising £335 million in 2015-16 to support implementation, including early assessments towards the cap. The latest survey of local authority readiness shows that progress towards implementing Part 1 of the Care Act from April 2015 is on track and that confidence is high and improving in almost all areas, including deferred payments.
It is important to note that the introduction of the universal deferred payment scheme from April 2015 will mean that an extra 7,600 people will be able to benefit from the protection of a deferred payment. This is in addition to the 3,900 people who would have benefited in the current regime anyway. This means that when the new scheme comes into force, we project a total of 11,500 new deferred payment agreements in the first year alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, questioned the uptake assumptions in the impact assessment. The figures used in the impact assessment are based on a local authority with a well established scheme. All who qualify for deferred payment would also qualify for the 12-week property disregard so will come to their local authority anyway. Noble Lords will surely agree that, bearing in mind the confidence of local authorities in being able to implement the scheme, it would be hugely unfair to these people to wait any longer than is necessary to introduce this historic reform.
Health: Care Homes
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
Certainly. I cannot give chapter and verse on the particular instances the noble Baroness outlines but we are more than aware that proper care in care homes actually helps to drive down inappropriate hospital admissions. Out-of-hospital care can also be applied. That is an enhanced service under the new GP contract.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. There appear to be two different issues from the work by Care England. First, some GPs are charging nursing homes for work that ought to be provided free at the point of use. Secondly, other GPs are calling services “enhanced services” when they are no more than the normal services that should be provided free of charge. Will the noble Baroness say a little more about what action should be taken? As this appears to be fraud, as my noble friend has stated, should this not be a matter for referral to the police?
Baroness Jolly
In the first instance, rather than referring it to the police, NHS England needs to find out exactly the extent of what is going on. The whole business of enhanced services is slightly confused because under the new GP contract there are several enhanced services that would be appropriate within a care home which should not be paid for. Also, “enhanced services” is used as a generic term to imply some sort of value added. Maybe we need to think about how we use language to better differentiate.
Mental Health: Spending
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
We stopped commissioning the national surveys of investment in mental health services in 2012 to reduce bureaucracy in NHS organisations and local authorities. NHS England will publish data on mental health spending in 2012-13 this year. We are currently working with NHS England, NHS stakeholders and partner organisations to review how mental health data are collected and presented to make them more useful and meaningful for commissioners, including in how to identify priority areas such as IAPT and dementia specifically.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness to her first Oral Question on health. Is it not a fact, however, that the annual survey showed that, far from parity of esteem, the proportion of money going to mental health services has reduced in the past two financial years? Is that not why the survey has been discontinued? Will she give orders to NHS England to start producing the survey again to ensure that there is, in fact, parity of esteem for mental health services?
Baroness Jolly
The noble Lord is absolutely right: parity of esteem is critical. The Government are very intent on holding NHS England completely to account on parity, which is woven into the NHS outcomes framework and the mandate. As I said in my Answer, the Department of Health is working very carefully and closely with NHS England to determine what the most appropriate data are to ensure that patient care is maximised.
Health: Birth Defects
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am telling noble Lords what I have been briefed. I am more than happy to write to noble Lords and, if they are happy for me to do so, leave the letter in the Library for everyone to check. I will also need to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his question regarding terminations.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about the risks and benefits, and assessing impacts, of fortification, giving due consideration to the implications of additional recommendations by SACN. We will take into account the views of the Chief Medical Officer, who raised the issue in her annual report, and of the devolved Administrations. The other point raised by the noble Countess was on ensuring that NTDs are avoided in pregnancy and on preventing vitamin B12 masking. We need to get this right. SACN considered the amount of folic acid to recommend and also recommended developing guidance on supplement use for particular population groups, along with implementing measures to monitor evidence of long-term exposure to intakes of folic acid. We are carefully weighing the benefits and risks of SACN’s recommendations and will take account of all views.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked what foods would be considered for fortification. Currently, breakfast cereals are voluntarily fortified with folic acid in the UK. The FSA considered other foods, including soft drinks, fruit juice, milk and chewing gum, when it made that recommendation, but the consumption rate of these products is not considered to be universal across women of child-bearing age and would therefore not be suitable for fortification. Other foods were also considered. Bread was finally decided upon as the universal food as—to answer a point raised by both noble Baronesses—it is universally consumed across the population and all socioeconomic groups: more than 90% of households eat bread. Fortification of wheat flour would also include other wheat-based products such as pizzas, pastries and biscuits.
I think I have replied to several points that were raised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, will the Minister write to noble Lords—clearly the Government will have to consider this—and set out a timetable on when they will come back to Parliament with an answer?
Baroness Jolly
That sounds eminently sensible. I am happy to write to noble Lords to give them that information. I hope that I have provided reassurance—I am not convinced that I have—that the Government are committed to reaching the right decision on the fortification of flour with folic acid, doing proper justice to the work of SACN and others and ensuring that, while seeking to deliver the benefits, we minimise the potential risks. In the mean time the Government will continue to raise awareness of the need to take folic acid supplements and are supportive of all those who are raising awareness of this issue. I thank the noble Lord for securing the debate.
National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups—Disapplication of Responsibility) Regulations 2012
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I shall be brief. The main purpose of this secondary legislation is to transfer responsibilities for patient care and commissioning from the PCTs and SHAs of the old world on to the CCGs and the National Commissioning Board of the new. It seems complicated, but it is relatively straightforward. I note as well that some individuals are actually covered by the board, and I welcome developments such as the board’s responsibility to fund fertility treatment for members of the Armed Forces. I shall be asking the Minister for assurance and clarification in a few areas.
I note that care needs to be taken at the borders of Wales and Scotland as far as residence is concerned so that the appropriate arrangements are made with the NHS bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I note that my noble friend said that the commissioning groups would be responsible for commissioning ambulance services and accident and emergency services. If there is a major disaster in a CCG area, how is that covered? It would certainly be a big, unexpected hit on a CCG’s budget so I would assume that the board might pick that up. I would welcome clarification on this.
I note, too, that the board has responsibility for those in immigration removal centres, secure training centres and young offender institutions. My noble friend also indicated that some services might actually be commissioned by the Home Office. Can she give the Committee some assurance that in all these areas the mandate will be adhered to and reported, that health inequalities will be addressed and that governance will be transparent, so that reporting would be available on an annual basis as to what is commissioned in each of these establishments, and the outcomes?
In Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill, and elsewhere, we were all very concerned to ensure that everybody was going to be covered by CCGs. There was a lot of debate about people who are at the margins: Gypsies and Travellers; those who are homeless; people with chaotic lifestyles, substance dependence, mental health issues, and so on. I am sure that these groups are now swept up into these regulations.
I welcome the clarification on temporary patients. In Cornwall, our population rises by several hundred thousand during the summer and it is welcome news that it is really clear how that is going to be commissioned.
In conclusion, clearly much work has been done in this piece of secondary legislation to ensure that everybody is covered. The way that it is laid out is very complex. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain who is the arbiter in future should either a category of person or a certain individual not fall into any of the areas covered in this secondary legislation. Who should decide who should commission these services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the two statutory instruments that are covered in the Explanatory Memorandum that we have received. I particularly noted her reassurance in relation to temporary arrangements, which is very helpful, as I do not think the instrument itself is particularly easy to follow.
As far as the affirmative instrument is concerned, perhaps I could ask the noble Baroness about the situation with regard to patients from Northern Ireland. Indeed, some of my remarks would apply to patients from Scotland and Wales as well. Regulation 2(2)(a) refers to,
“a person usually resident in Northern Ireland who is provided with primary medical services by a member of the CCG”,
and says that for such a person,
“a CCG does not have responsibility in relation to its duty to commission services”.
But what if the person who comes from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales needs services that a GP cannot give—for example, in a hospital—and this is regarded as secondary care? Who has responsibility for commissioning secondary care services in such circumstances?
I would like to ask the Minister about abortion services, because I have asked a number of questions recently about the eligibility for abortion services in England of people normally resident in Northern Ireland. On 8 January, I received a response from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which referred to the fact that the Secretary of State,
“has a duty under Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to provide a variety of secondary care services to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements. This duty is delegated to primary care trusts … in Regulation 3(2) of, and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to, the National Health Service (Functions of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts and administration arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002”.
The noble Earl went on to say:
“Regulation 3(7) of the regulations sets out who a PCT is responsible for exercising functions (including the Section 3 duty) in respect of. Under Regulation 3(7), there are two sets of limited circumstances in which PCTs would be able to exercise their delegated functions to provide abortion services to women resident in Northern Ireland. The first is set out in Regulation 3(7)(a)(iii), which provides that a PCT shall exercise its delegated functions in so far as those functions consist of the provision (or securing the provision) of certain services to ‘qualifying patients’ resident in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland who are present in its area and do not fall under the responsibility of another PCT. This essentially covers persons resident in the above countries with serious mental illness who are present in a PCT’s area. The second is set out in Regulation 3(7)(b)(i), which provides that a PCT must exercise its delegated functions in so far as those functions consist of the provision (or securing the provision) of accident and emergency services for the benefit of all persons resident in its area”.
He then said:
“A PCT’s functions under Regulation 3(7)(a)(iii) will clearly be exercisable only in respect of the limited number of women who fall within that provision. A PCT’s functions under Regulation 3(7)(b)(i) will be exercisable in respect of any person present in the PCT’s area”.
He then went on to say, I think rather controversially:
“There is no absolute right for a patient to receive particular treatment under the NHS. A PCT has delegated powers to provide abortion services to a woman who is ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland but present in the PCT’s area in so far as that provision falls within Regulation 3(7)(a)(iii) or (b)(i) and is considered by the PCT to be necessary to meet all reasonable requirements”.—[Official Report, 8/1/13; cols. WA 1-2.]
I am well aware that of course the noble Earl was referring to the current legislation and that the 2012 Act made amendments to the 2006 Act, including changing the words around “reasonable requirements”. However, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to reassure me that women coming to England from Northern Ireland for an abortion service will continue to be able to be eligible to receive that service. I would be very grateful for any reassurance she can give me on that.
I now want to come on to the standing rules. The noble Baroness said we were not debating these this afternoon but I must confess to being a little surprised, because the two had been put together in one Explanatory Memorandum and the noble Baroness has referred to them, so I had assumed we would be able to discuss them. I will ask four questions and see how we go.
First, there is the issue of consultation. Paragraph 18 of the standing rules says that the board “must consult” persons specified, including Healthwatch England. The noble Baroness will probably know what is coming. She will know that, in a week or so, we are debating the NHS bodies and local authorities partnership arrangements. This relates to the issue of whether local Healthwatch organisations can campaign. There has been some controversy. Healthwatch England has not made any public comment on the regulations. Did it respond to them? If so, why did it not publish its response? The noble Baroness responded for the Government and said that there was a great deal of debate. She assured us that Healthwatch England, despite coming under the CQC, would be independent. So far, we have seen very little sign of that independence. Will the Minister reassure me that when the board consults the CQC, CCGs, Healthwatch England, Monitor, the Secretary of State and such other persons as the board considers it appropriate to consult, those submissions will be published?
My second question relates to the issue of commissioning and relevant bodies in paragraph 34. This concerns the duty of any relevant body in respect of the funding of the commissioning of drugs and other treatments. The noble Baroness will know that this can often be a controversial area. She will also know that there is continuing concern about the local accountability—or lack of it—of clinical commissioning groups. They can, in accordance with the Act, make judgments about whether a treatment will be available to local people. Will the Minister consider amending the rules to make sure that when a member of the public wishes to appeal against a decision of the commissioning body, a panel must be convened to hear the appeal? I noted from paragraph 23(3) of the standing rules, which relates to decisions about continuing healthcare that are equally controversial, that panels must be established to hear appeals by people who do not agree with the decision reached about their eligibility. Why is it not considered necessary that a similar arrangement should be put in place when it comes to commissioning decisions either by the CCG or by the NHS Commissioning Board?
CCGs are about to start work formally. In Birmingham, I have been very impressed with the leadership of the two CCGs with which I am in contact. However, nationally I do not think that the public have heard very much about them. I do not get any sense that clinical commissioning groups feel that they are accountable to the local population when it comes to making commissioning decisions. If a CCG turns down a request for a certain drug or treatment to be given to a patient, surely there ought to be a way in which that member of the public can challenge the decision.
My fourth question relates to paragraph 39, which covers the important issue of patient choice. Can the Minister say anything about how that choice is to be exercised? In particular, what information needs to be given to any member of the public to make a choice, and who will be available to offer advice to that patient? It is all very well talking about patient choice, but we all know that that is very difficult to exercise unless there is a mechanism by which a member of the public can obtain help and advice in exercising it.
My final question relates to Schedule 5, which I am sure all noble Lords have studied with great care. It relates to the panels that must be established to review decisions about continuing healthcare. Schedule 5(1) disqualifies a number of persons from being a chair, CCG member or social services authority member of a review panel, including a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament and a member of the London Assembly. Can the noble Baroness tell me why that is so? Why is it deemed okay for Members of the House of Lords to serve on such a panel while Members of Parliament may not? I would be grateful for a response to that.
Care Quality Commission (Registration and Membership) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(11 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, we all want the CQC to be effective and efficient. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has laid out a clear description of its history and where it is now. It has a difficult task: it has to balance registration complexity for those providing both health and social care and ensure safety and quality of services. Of course, since the Act of 2012, all providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors are involved and it has to extend its remit to include dentists and GPs. It has a huge task. There have clearly been failings in the past, but the organisation as a whole has faced up to them and has made many strides forward.
We have this SI as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is in two parts—registration, and governance and membership—and it throws up more questions than answers. I was reminded of a long time ago when I was a CHI reviewer. The training was superb; the teams went in and the inspection was intensive and penetrated every corner. Perhaps there would be some mileage in looking back at that model to see whether it could be incorporated into what currently exists.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I was interested in the noble Baroness’s comments about the CHI training process. Does she agree that one of the great advantages of the CHI approach was that, when a team went in, it had respect because the people in the team were the equals, if you like, of the people whom they were inspecting and, although it was an inspection and allowed people to work with an inspection team, it was almost a development opportunity for the organisation as well?
Baroness Jolly
Certainly that was my experience. Although there were instances where we had uncomfortable inspections, afterwards an awful lot of work was put in to try to remedy issues that had been raised. The team went in as a team and worked as a team. Everyone on the team had experience of working within the NHS in one format or another and, although we may not have carried out identical roles to those that we were inspecting, there was a clear awareness that we knew what we were about. I shall not carry on at great length because of the time.
The amendments to the registration are a tidying-up exercise. All that we are doing is replacing the National Patient Safety Agency with the NHS Commissioning Board Authority, so it is a cut-and-paste job, if you like. Will the Minister confirm that in due course this will subsequently transfer to the board when the board becomes the board and not just the authority? Will the Minister clarify the situations where deaths and other incidents in these situations involving service users—vulnerable people—are reported and say why they might be reported to the board and not to the CQC? If we are to learn anything from this information, it is critical that the board commits to publishing it on a regular basis. It also needs to be part of the board’s regular agenda.
On a related issue, will the Minister update the Committee on deaths of service users and untoward incidents, which cause difficulty for carers and, in the case of untoward incidents, the patients themselves? During the consideration of the 2012 Bill, there was much debate about the duty of candour. Will the Minister give us some sort of update on where things are? I remind him of his comment on 27 February:
“I reiterate the commitment that I have given today that the Government intend to use the ‘standing rules’ regulations to specify that the contractual duty of candour must be included in the NHS standard contract”.—[Official Report, 27/2/12; col. 1055.]
That was a welcome move but I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on where we are. I appreciate that this will not happen overnight; it will require training and a large amount of cultural change.
I move on to the governance and board membership issue. Today we had the interesting interim report on the Winterbourne View Hospital. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister reflect on whether he believes that the new governance arrangements proposed in these regulations will minimise or even avoid a repetition of this level of behaviour or such an appalling lack of dignity for those with learning disabilities? Does he believe that adequate funding is available for the CQC? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave us a long list with numbers relating to its remit—it is really broad and deep. The Committee would probably feel comfortable if it felt that the CQC was being ably supported with adequate resources. It has had a difficult role in changing times and it can use its registration requirements to drive up quality. To that end, the Government must work with it. I think that we would all agree that service users and carers deserve no less.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I have supported the idea of coterminosity from when I first saw the Bill in January. It struck me as being straightforward and sensible that if health and social care were put together, the health boundaries would be aligned with the social care boundaries. That clearly happened in the middle of the last decade, when PCTs were grouped together to be coterminous with social care boundaries. There are all sorts of issues. If you have a large clinical commissioning group, then there is a capacity issue in that you have one clinical commissioning group that might need to work with several local authorities’ health and well-being boards, directors of public health, healthwatches or whatever. If you have a small group, then you have many CCGs working with all those bodies. It struck me that if there were a direct fit, everything would look quite neat and hunky-dory. I parked the thought in my mind that everything was fine.
Then I started to look at what was happening around me locally in the south-west. Torbay has been mentioned many times in your Lordships’ House. It provided a care trust—health and social care together. One of the areas they are really anxious about is that if they become part of Devon, an awful lot might get lost. So there are special circumstances around that integration. They know that they are small and they are trying to look at making themselves bigger by working with other parts of Devon, all of which take their acute services from one DGH. The same sort of thing is happening in Plymouth. Noble Lords will remember from the Bill about constituency boundaries in January that there was a huge big deal about Cornwall being all on its own. Cornish patients, believe it or not, actually do cross the Tamar in order to go to hospital in Plymouth. A fifth of Cornish hospital patients actually do that, so a whole group of Cornish GPs who face that way, along with some in south-west Devon who face that way, along with Plymouth, have discussed the possibility of working together as a group, simply because they all face one DGH. It was a common bond, if you like.
Therefore, we have a county or a district or a borough seen as one possible common bond. We have an idea that commissioning groups who commission from a particular hospital, trying to work together in a pathfinder mode, is not peculiar to the south-west; a lot people seem to think it would be a good idea. There are lots of issues, so how do we solve this? I still think that, for an awful lot of situations, co-terminosity is the right answer. The test really has to be: what actually can be deemed to be in the interest of the patient? The whole thing has to be taken in the round; it has to include care providers and health providers and there has to be an element of size capacity. My head—and my heart—say coterminosity, but then I look at certain other areas where there are groups that have—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Would the noble Baroness give way? She has raised an interesting point. Could I describe the situation in Birmingham? My understanding is that although there will be more than one clinical commissioning group, there will clearly be one HWB group and the membership has now reached 25. There is one place for providers on it. One gets the feeling that there is a risk that it will become a talking shop. Secondly—and I declare my interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust in Birmingham—if you exclude the providers from those key discussions, you will not get a buy-in. Think of patient discharge and the relationship between reducing length of stay, preventing admissions and the support that social services needs to give packages of care. One worries that you reach a situation where the whole thing is so unwieldy that it will not really work.
Baroness Jolly
I have lost my thread. We are talking about Birmingham, which is humongous, and presumably any large city would have exactly the same sort of issues. Is the noble Lord arguing for coterminous clinical commissioning groups?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My point is that my amendment was a probing amendment to get some information from the Government about their intent regarding boundaries. Clearly, one of the problems that we are discussing is size and the larger you make clinical commissioning groups, the less influence GPs will have on their deliberations. The whole point about clinical commissioning groups was to put GPs in the driving seat. I do not know if Ministers know how much pressure within the system is being put upon potential clinical commissioning groups, but they are being told that they have to get large. The numbers who put themselves forward at the beginning were basically told that there was no way that they would get approval, so they have been forced into big marriages.
I simply point out that even if you take Birmingham, where there will be very big clinical commissioning groups, you will still end up with an unwieldy health and well-being board. One has to think through the implications of this if you are then trying to get a cohesive strategy on public health and on joint commissioning that pulls all of the players together—while still excluding the providers from those discussions. We started from an original prospectus that was going to give GPs real control over commissioning. That is gone. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I do not think that there is now any chance in the system that is being forced upon the service, that individual GPs will have any influence. As with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, it is clear that GPs are realising this now, and that the prospectus is a false one.
Baroness Jolly
I think that the noble Lord’s point is well made. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, however, talked about the element of size and back office, which needs to be quite large. Small CCGs will need to share a back office, simply because that is the way it is. There will need to be shared commissioning arrangements. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Warner, was saying much the same thing: these things will not work if they are tiny but might if they are larger. I remember primary care groups, which became primary care trusts, which became bigger primary care trusts. What is a reasonable size to make all those linkages work? What we do not want is for all of these organisations to spend their days going to meetings. If we are not careful and clinical commissioning groups go over local authority boundaries then they will have to serve more than one health and well-being board.
The ideal would be to have some co-terminosity but clearly it will not work in really enormous situations. My background and experience is in rural areas, where it strikes me as the most obvious way forward. Even if that is not how it starts, that is how it probably should end up. As for the Torbay example, the PCTs are very small. However, they are also perfectly formed and have done a really good job. They are desperate to keep what they did, and did well, but they are being pressured to join a Devon PCT—which also has pressure on Plymouth, which is also part of the Devon PCT. So it is not a straightforward picture. When clinical commissioning groups put their case to the board, there needs to be some sort of nuancing in application.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that he anticipated the remarks of his noble friend Lord Walton remarkably well.
Having argued against bureaucracy in the previous group of amendments, I am now about to argue in favour of putting senates on a statutory basis. I shall explain why. First, this was a very good outcome of the listening exercise. I think that because I am concerned at the Government’s decision to abolish the strategic health authorities. It is what I call the Hagley Road issue. In 1948, the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board was established; its offices were in Hagley Road and throughout 60 years there has always been something there. It may have been a regional health authority, a regional hospital board, a strategic health authority—call it what you will—but there has always been a regional outpost of the department acting essentially as a leader, with a positive role in looking at the region as a whole, ensuring that its services were cohesive and had proper direction and that, by and large, it was self-sufficient. That is to be removed and we are going to get large SHA clusters which will cover a much larger part of the country. Although we do not know the size of the clinical commissioning groups, they will clearly cover much smaller population areas.
I believe that there is still a need for a mechanism whereby strategic leadership can be given over a region, and I see the clinical senates as being the best approach to that. Noble Lords have spent at least two days debating reconfiguration and are concerned that these difficult decisions often have intervention from the centre. Clinical commissioning groups will be too small to take on the kind of strategic leadership that is required. When you are trying to establish in a region where the super specialty and tertiary services should be and trying to come to a view about how many A&E and emergency departments you need, you require a body that can take a strategic overview. The clinical commissioning groups are too small to do that. They could, of course, possibly come together in a kind of federated meeting to try to resolve those kinds of issues, but that could prove to be very difficult. Therefore, the senates could have an important role in setting some of the parameters and giving strategic leadership to a region.
However, as the Government intend them at the moment, these will be informal groups of people who could easily be ignored by the clinical commissioning groups, by the health and well-being boards, by the deaneries and by all the organisations that have an influence on the way in which the health service is going. My amendment is designed to set out a more structured approach to ensure that clinical senates are created as bodies corporate, that they are properly accountable to the national Commissioning Board and that they have the ability to give strategic leadership and have some oversight of the work of clinical commissioning groups.
I suspect that my amendment will not find favour with the noble Earl but the point about the need for strategic leadership in a region is important. I fear that the super SHA clusters will be too large to do that and the clinical commissioning groups will be too small.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 51 and 84, but before I do, I have an interest to declare. I am chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, an organisation campaigning for those with rare and complex conditions. The move to commissioned services for this particular group of patients by the NHS board is really welcome. It is the first time that there will be a common standard across England under the auspices of the board. However, we are not totally clear about the composition of the senates or their roles. I am not sure that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton—who is not in his place at the moment—actually gets to the meat of this. There is concern that specialised services within senates might get lost. If a specialised senate with expertise and integration were set up, that might be useful to this group of patients, but more often than not networks are where the specialised services go to for the expertise. We welcome the commitment to ensure that networks stay as they are and possibly expand. Maybe a network could set up a task and finish group to look at the problems around specific conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister would make the role of the senates clear. Would they have a role in specialised commissioning? Similarly, I would be grateful if he would shed some light on the ways in which the board will commission specialised services in general.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Jolly(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
Apparently there was a Persian poet who got there even before him, but whether Donald Rumsfeld was a reader of Persian poetry, I know not. The point is that you do not know what you do not know. Both those voices would bring to the board serious added value.
I have another four or five amendments in this group which relate not to the composition of the board but to its work. Every year, the board is tasked with producing a three-year business plan on how it is going to discharge its functions. We have a Secretary of State who produces a mandate for the board. We are all in total agreement that the board has huge powers to shape the NHS. New Section 13S of the 1996 Act indicates that there should be an ability to revise the plan. It talks about a “revised plan” but says nothing about the process of revision. The Bill is silent also on the operational plans of the board. I am slightly curious as to which comes first—the mandate or the plan.
How might a conversation with patients and other stakeholders be managed to revise the draft plan? Clearly, we have to start with a draft and then it will be revised. To what extent does the Minister envisage the plan being amended? Might the details on board membership and business plan consultation be included in guidance to the board? One half of my amendments is about board composition; the others are about business planning. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the latter because it will give us some indication of the way that the board plans to work or it is planned that it should work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have a series of amendments in this group concerning membership of the national Commissioning Board and its cost. There is common consent that getting the board’s membership right is important.
My Amendment 52A would ensure that the chair could be appointed only with the consent of the Health Select Committee. I fully acknowledge that Professor Grant, the chair of the NCB, went before the Health Select Committee; I have already referred to the transcript. It is clear that the process ensured proper and effective scrutiny. However, I should just like to put the matter beyond doubt and make sure that the procedure will always be followed in future, and I hope that the Minister will agree to my amendment. I should say that I followed the legislation which established the Office for Budget Responsibility, so we have a precedent for ensuring that a Select Committee of the other place has an important role to play in such appointments in the future.
My Amendment 52B is simply a matter of good governance to ensure that a lay vice-chair is appointed, which I am sure I am right to assume is the Government’s intention.
On the composition of the board, my Amendments 54 and 56 are intended partly to probe and partly to make a point. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of the likely make-up of the board, both executive and non-executive, and perhaps some details about how non-executives are to be appointed. My specific point is to encourage the Minister to ensure that, on the executive side, a medical director, a nursing director and a finance director are always appointed. To be frank, my main focus is in relation to a nursing director. I have no doubt that there will always be a finance director and a medical director; I want to ensure, and I want the Minister to give an absolute assurance, that there will always be a nursing director on the national Commissioning Board. I go back to 1991, when NHS trusts were first appointed. Some noble Lords here will recall that some rather foolish chairs of those trusts did not want to appoint a nurse to their board. They were forced to do so, I am glad to say, through the intervention of a Secretary of State at the time. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that there is a director of nursing on the board, but I should like to make sure that it always happens.
I understand that getting a range of expertise on the non-executive side will always be difficult. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, the risk is that Parliament will always seek to legislate for a list of backgrounds, which we know is not a practical way to ensure that a fairly small board is appointed. My amendments seek to ensure that there are at least some non-executives on the NCB who have some experience of the National Health Service. While the temptation will always be to appoint people from other sectors because of the experience that they can bring, there is something unique about the National Health Service. I think that non-executives find it helpful if, among their number, they have people who know the business and help them to challenge the executives. One of the risks of the fashion—my own Government were as guilty of it as any other—of thinking that what the health service most needs is outside business expertise is that, when it comes to issues of safety and quality, you do not have anyone on the non-executive side who can effectively challenge the executives. I urge the Government to ensure that there are non-executives on the board who have real experience of the National Health Service and how it works in order to enable a proper challenge to be put to the executive directors.
Amendments 52D and 54A are probing amendments, designed to tease out the place of public health on the national Commissioning Board. I support the comments already made by noble Lords. On my proposal that the Chief Medical Officer be a member of the board, the Minister may say that he thinks it more appropriate for the Government’s chief medical adviser to be seen purely as part of the department than to be on the national Commissioning Board. I sympathise with that point. I suspect that the answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in relation to HealthWatch is that there is always a problem if people are appointed because of their other positions. The problem is that they then have to take responsibility for the corporate decision-making of the NCB. I can therefore assure the Minister that my amendment to place the CMO on the NCB is probing, designed to enable us to hear how the public health function will be given sufficient prominence within the national Commissioning Board.
My Amendment 55 would remove the requirement for the appointment of the chief executive to be approved by the Secretary of State. I have no problem with paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1, which provides for the first chief executive to be appointed by the Secretary of State. This is normal practice and is entirely sensible in view of the need to get the national Commissioning Board up and running. However, my question is why the Secretary of State needs those powers in relation to subsequent appointments. After all, the Minister has waxed lyrical about the need for there to be distance and for the Secretary of State no longer to intervene, so why on earth does he have to approve the appointment of a chief executive? Surely that is for the board to do. Surely it is for the Secretary of State to nominate the chairman of the board to go through the necessary parliamentary scrutiny. For the Secretary of State to actually have to approve the appointment of the chief executive is ambiguous. The department has not sorted out the real relationship between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board. On the one hand, there is the desire to give the NCB as much freedom as possible; on the other hand, one knows that in these clauses there is a desire to control it. I should have thought that the fact that the Secretary of State has a veto over the chief executive appointment is an example of that. I hope that we can see that go between now and the conclusion of our proceedings on the Bill.