Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Ribeiro Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ribeiro]

My Lords, I am very pleased to—I am sorry; I know how difficult it is for my noble friend. Would he like to go ahead?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I am sorry but I am really quite slow in standing up, as noble Lords will observe.

I do not want to take a huge amount of time. I am not a member of the Alderdice-Patel-Hollins club and I will therefore not attempt to go down their professional path. I am, however, for the moment at least, a member of another club in that I chair a mental health trust—the Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust—so I have an interest to declare. I want to express my strong general support for the basic thrust of these amendments, whatever the wording: to emphasise, in the words of the Government’s White Paper, “No health without mental health”. We need to ensure that mental illness is treated with parity in these matters, so far as we can.

I will make only another couple of observations. First, it is worth remembering that one of the notorious pressures on A&E departments at the moment is people turning up with mental illness problems, in effect, and needing the attention of mental illness specialists. This spills over and crosses the boundaries. I still think it right that there should be separate mental health trusts, but we need to recognise these linkages. Secondly, we need to recognise that this is an area in which integration with social services is particularly important. Integration is key because of the extent to which mental illness services are provided not in hospital but in the community and on a combined operation. As an aside which we will return to, the CQC needs to improve its act in terms of assessing community services for the mentally ill, which in my view it is not at present sufficiently equipped to do. That is a point we shall come back to. My main point is strong support for the principal thrust of these amendments, which I hope my noble friend will feel able to accede to.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, briefly but warmly, I support Amendment 11, which seems to me to be desirably explicit and logical in the structure of the opening clauses of the Bill. It is desirably explicit because, while I am sure that the Minister actually wants continuous improvement in the quality of service in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of physical and mental health, those words do not appear in Clause 2. There remains in the wider public some feeling that mental health has a lower priority than physical health. I believe that there has been a huge improvement in the priority given to mental health—I have a lot of experience of that because of my family circumstances—but the feeling I have referred to exists. Therefore, to be explicit on mental health in this clause is good.

The amendment is logical in the Bill because under subsection (1) of the new clause in Clause 1:

“The Secretary of State must continue”,

to promote,

“a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England”,

yet we do not have that phrase in Clause 2, where we come on to,

“improvement in the quality of services … in connection with … the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness”.

That directly contributes to what is expressed in Clause 1, so we need to carry over that phrase and avoid its omission in Clause 2. That is why I support this amendment.

[Lord Ribeiro]

My Lords, I will be brief on this. I strongly support the amendment because it is important to recognise that mental health and acute clinical health go hand in hand. Most hospitals throughout the country started with psychiatric services outwith the main hospital buildings. Over many years we have tried desperately to integrate the service. We no longer have the concept of the psychiatric Bedlam that was the case in the past.

For the last five years or so of my clinical practice, a rotation of junior doctors came to work for me. They would spend four months on general medicine, four months on surgery and four months on psychiatry. As a consequence, I learnt quite a bit about psychiatry, although I am not sure that they learnt an awful lot about surgery. That was an example of integrated care. The importance of it is that a lot of the acute psychotic and suicidal admissions to hospital come through the accident and emergency department. They do not come through the separate door of a psychiatric unit at the other end of the hospital or in a different block. They come to the acute part of the hospital.

I am not saying that the Bill team necessarily overlooked this but, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, if proposed new subsection (1)(a) is to refer to the Secretary of State’s duty to and responsibility for “physical and mental health”, it stands to reason that, as is currently the case, the Secretary of State delegates responsibility for the provision of the health service to the strategic health authorities and PCTs. Their successor bodies will be the national Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups, so it stands to reason that those two bodies must also have responsibility for mental and physical health. It is vital that the three major groups who have responsibility for the health service in this country—the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups—should all have a responsibility to deal with these two areas of healthcare, because they form part of an integrated service.

[Lord Layard]

My Lords, some years ago I had a meeting with a newly appointed Secretary of State for Health, although he was not that newly appointed—he had been there for three weeks. At the end of our conversation about mental health, he said, “You know, I’ve just realised something. I’ve been in this job for three weeks, I’ve had about 50 meetings and this is the first time I’ve heard the words ‘mental health’”. That says it all. That is how our health service is run and, unfortunately, how the priorities are set. I should just like to review four key facts to show why this is not at all satisfactory.

First, according to the official survey, one in six adults suffers from mental illness, mainly clinical depression or crippling anxiety disorders. These are serious conditions, as has been said. For example, a very good WHO study compared the debilitating effect of depression with that of angina, arthritis, asthma and diabetes. Depression is at least 50 per cent more debilitating than those conditions. That is why half of all the disabled people of working age in our country are disabled by mental illness. It is not a small segment but a massive chunk. It is the largest illness among people of working age.

However, coming to my second point, only a quarter of those who are mentally ill are in treatment, compared with more than 80 per cent of those with the kind of physical illnesses that I mentioned. Last year the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners wrote to his members with the question: if you have a patient who needs psychological treatment, can you get it normally, sometimes or rarely? Only 15 per cent said “normally”. That is the situation that we are in, which is shocking. The treatments that are available are good. They are recommended by NICE but simply not delivered on a proper scale, even though they are meant to be delivered according to the NICE guidelines.

Thirdly, what is even more extraordinary is that these are cheap treatments. It is quite easy to show from the experience of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapy programme, for example, that they completely pay for themselves through savings on out-of-work benefits, lost taxes, unnecessary visits to the GP and unnecessary references to secondary care. However, if we ask what commissioners’ priorities are, these treatments are of lower priority than many of those for physical conditions that are often much less disabling.

Finally, what is so extraordinary about this, as other speakers have said, is that the problems of people with mental health difficulties also rebound on their physical condition. We also know that many physical conditions rebound on mental conditions. Many physically ill people—those suffering from angina, lung disease or a stroke, for example—suffer from depression. Several proper clinical trials show that, with proper psychological treatment of these mental conditions, the physical condition will improve to the extent that all the money is, again, repaid in savings in physical care. Therefore, we should give much more priority to these conditions.

We also see cases where people are referred with physical conditions that have no physical explanation. Something like half of all referrals to the secondary sector fall into that category of medically unexplained symptoms. Again, many of those will respond to psychological treatments.

Despite all this, we all know where mental health stands in the priorities of commissioners. It counts if there is a serious risk of homicide or suicide. Then they really get to it. However, if not, it is, unfortunately, the easiest area to cut, which is happening on quite a scale at the moment. Two years ago the regulator, Monitor, recorded the fact that mental health services are cut by more than physical health services whenever there is a shortage of money. Monitor recorded this in its advice to trusts on how to budget in the future; it was part of its guidance. It is invariably the case that mental health is cut more than physical health when there is a shortage of money. It is just extraordinary. That guidance was eventually recanted but it is the reflex throughout the commissioning world. I am making the point that this is not only important but a very big thing. That is why it is important that we include the phrase “physical and mental illness”, and do so from the beginning of the Bill. If we do not, people will tend to forget mental health, as the department did for three weeks when it was briefing the then Secretary of State. I urge the noble Earl to take this amendment very seriously.