Care Bill [HL]

Lord Warner Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, although I am Lord Warner of Brockley in the London Borough of Lewisham, I do not intend to speak about the Lewisham case.

I am conscious that this is a topic which can rapidly cause eyes to glaze over as we go into some of the processes involved here. At the heart of this there is a fundamental problem which is much deeper and more serious than when the 2006 Act was passed. That was seven years ago. This procedure of trust special administrators was set up to deal with a relatively small number of cases that might come along. It was not a system set up to deal with major overhauls of acute hospitals up and down the country.

We are now in a very different financial situation from when this earlier legislation was going through Parliament. You pays your money and you takes your choice as to who you believe about the black hole that there will be in the NHS finances at the end of this decade. If you want to believe Sir David Nicholson, the outgoing chief executive of NHS England, it will be £30 billion. A number of noble Lords may be shaking their heads because they do not wish to believe him, but he says £30 billion. If you want to believe the Nuffield Trust, it will be somewhere north of £40 billion. If you want to consider the more measured estimate last week from the chief executive of Monitor, it will be £12 billion, but that assumes a level of efficiency savings which seem somewhat like fantasy football in terms of their deliverability. It is likely to be a lot more than £12 billion.

These are numbers which no one was even thinking about when the trust special administrator system was set up. I have some sympathy with the Government’s position because there is no doubt that we have a large and growing number of clinically and financially unsustainable acute trusts. The Government have a real problem that they are trying to tackle. However, I suggest that this particular way of tackling it is not the best way, because it is trying to adapt a system which was produced for a relatively small number of cases into a whole system set of arrangements. It has some curious quirks. It seems to treat clinical commissioning groups which are commissioning from foundation trusts differently from those commissioning from non-foundation trusts. I am not going to risk eyes glazing over by talking about this, but this set of proposals does not seem to treat different clinical commissioning groups in exactly the same way.

We must also start to engage the public in the scale of changes that will have to be made to the NHS in order to make it sustainable. It is not just that black hole issue; it is the clinical sustainability of some of its services. We are already finding difficulty in staffing A&E departments. There is a set of issues around whether the manpower would be sufficient to enable us to keep 24/7 acute specialist services on the same number of sites. I would suggest to the Minister as humbly as I can that you are not going to deal with the scale of the problem with this set of arrangements. For the sorts of reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, set out, even if you have this set of arrangements on the statute book, you are going to end up with many cases of Lewisham hospital writ large, dotted around the country. There is nothing in these provisions which really ensures that the wider public debate about the reshaping of these services takes place. They are a recipe for a very large number of one-off local rows on a major scale. The lawyers in this House must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of judicial review because a very likely outcome of all this is a large number of contested claims about the way the exercise has been done. There simply will not be the political cover for TSAs to be bold in their thinking.

The noble Earl said we want them to be able to give very effective consideration to the solutions that are needed. I suggest that if you are a trust special administrator and you think you will be kicked from Land’s End to the north-east because of the controversy around the proposals, that is not likely to produce whole-system changes. We now have to think about reviewing whether the TSA system is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the circumstances we now face. That is why, although I am not normally in favour of wrecking amendments, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt’s idea that we should have a pause and think again about the best way to reconfigure hospital services so that politicians and the public can engage with this issue and have the kinds of public debates that we badly need to have if we are to maintain the NHS in anything like the form it is today.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, in part, I support the Minister because, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, the Government have a problem. We know that for many years there have been attempts to close hospitals that need to be closed and it can take 15 years for that to happen. If the Government can come forward with a sensible, reasonable way of making those decisions, I will back it all the way. However, I find myself agreeing with the idea that a rather quick fix designed to achieve some solution to the Lewisham problem is not the way to do it. This is a national problem of considerable significance. I ask the Minister to take this away, think hard about it and come back with a good set of proposals to help this country close hospitals when they need to be closed. I would certainly be there behind him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 142, I shall speak to the other government amendments in this group, Amendments 143, 145, 146, 148, 149 and 150. This group relates to the ability of the Care Quality Commission to operate free from day-to-day intervention by Ministers. The amendments that I have tabled will place the CQC on a new footing of greater operational autonomy. They also clarify some of the arrangements for the new system of ratings to be operated by the CQC. I will outline the principle guiding the Government in tabling these amendments.

Last year we passed legislation that placed a duty on the Secretary of State to promote autonomy in the way that other bodies exercise their functions in relation to the health service. The changes that we are proposing build on this. They remove nine separate powers that the Secretary of State currently has to intervene in the day-to-day operation of the CQC. Additionally, they place the new chief inspector posts on a statutory footing, ensuring their longevity, with a specific duty to operate in a way that ensures the independence of the CQC’s judgments.

We are also introducing a new system of regular assessments of registered providers, which has no requirement for ministerial approval of the methodology. Each of these changes gives the CQC greater scope to get on with the day job without interference from Ministers. Why does this matter? The CQC has the key role in providing assurance of the quality of services provided to patients and service users. It needs to be able to inspect what it wants when it wants and to be free to report its findings as it wants. The proposed amendments and new clauses that I have tabled will see the Government relinquish a range of powers that intervene in the operational decisions of the CQC.

In addition to the amendments relating to the department’s powers to intervene in the work of the CQC and to place the chief inspectors on a statutory footing, I am also tabling a number of amendments relating to the performance assessment system operated by the CQC. The amendments clarify that the CQC will not undertake routine performance assessments of local authority commissioning but, rather, will be able to carry out special reviews of local authority commissioning under Section 48 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This will bring the position for commissioning by local authorities in line with that of NHS commissioning as put in place by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

I will briefly set out two areas where the CQC’s freedom is not being enhanced and explain why. The changes that we are making will give the CQC greater freedom in its day-to-day work, as I have explained. When it comes to the CQC’s strategic role and activities, outside of its routine functions, it is appropriate that the Government maintain oversight of the commission.

The first area to which this applies is investigations of commissioning. The amendments we are making to Section 48 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 make it clear that the CQC has the power to carry out a special review or investigation of commissioning—both of health commissioning by NHS England and NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups and of local authorities’ commissioning of adult social services. Such reviews will only be possible with the approval of the Secretary of State for Health, in the case of NHS commissioning, and the Secretaries of State for Health and Communities and Local Government in the case of local authority commissioning.

Secondly, I reassure noble Lords that we are maintaining the arrangements through which the commission is accountable to the Department of Health. We will retain a range of the conventional measures that exist to manage an arm’s-length body of the Government. The non-executive members of the CQC’s board will continue to be appointed by the Secretary of State, who will also maintain the power to intervene if the commission fails to properly discharge any of its functions. The department will also continue to hold the CQC to account for its financial and operational performance. I hope that these amendments will find favour with the House, and I beg to move.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I express my concern about the provisions of subsection (4) of the Government’s new clause on the independence of the CQC. My instincts are that this will do the absolute reverse of what the Government are seeking to do in terms of the CQC’s independence, which is why my Amendment 143A seeks to remove subsection (4). I do not disagree in any way with the other provisions in this set of government amendments and will explain my thinking. Subsection (4) effectively prevents the CQC investigating, of its own mere motion, the extent to which local authority commissioning practices and decisions on adult social care damage user interests and well-being.

In effect, if the CQC considers, after looking at the results of its work on providers of services, that there is a major stumbling block to good, sound provision of services that promote the well-being of users—the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill—it has to seek the approval of the Secretary of State before it can do any kind of generalised or thematic review of local authority commissioning of services. It has to seek the approval not only of the Health Secretary but of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. That seems a step backwards from the position we have now, where the CQC, as I understand it, could actually undertake these kinds of reviews. I do not see how the new subsection (4) helps the CQC to get to the root of a problem that may be affecting thousands of users of services. We have already seen that the providers were not the instigators of the policy of 15-minute home visits—it was the commissioners of services who instigated that policy. They required the providers to do that; they almost drove them along the path of not paying for the travel costs of the healthcare assistants who were making those visits. The institutional behaviour that has grown up and caused so much concern among the public and in Parliament has been driven by commissioners.

I suspect that we will have other kinds of such issues as we move through a decade of austerity in public services. It ought to be possible for the CQC to take the initiative and try to get to the bottom of those issues by carrying out a thematic review of the commissioning practices. That is why we need to take out subsection (4), which seems to be incompatible with the rest of the provisions in this set of government amendments, which I thoroughly welcome. All credit to the Government for removing these requirements on the CQC, but why are they spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar? Why are we pushing back on the ability of the CQC to decide that it wants to carry out a review of commissioning practices, when that is not in the best public interest? The Government should think again about this.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I will speak against government Amendments 145, 146 and 149, and speak at the same time to Amendment 147 in my name.

The government amendments would remove from the Bill a requirement for the CQC to conduct regular reviews of adult social care, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, indicated. The Bill gives us an important opportunity to ensure that local government commissioning is effectively regulated. Last year’s EHRC homecare inquiry evidence pointed to serious concerns about some commissioning practices, which were found to put the human rights of older people in particular at risk. Accordingly, the EHRC’s recent review of the inquiry recommendations welcomed the fact that the Government had signalled their intention that the CQC should conduct regular reviews of adult social care commissioning.

Unamended, Clause 83 would reframe Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to empower the CQC to conduct periodic reviews of adult social care providers and English local authorities which provide or commission adult social care. It was very disappointing to see that the Government intend to remove clauses requiring the CQC to conduct these reviews through Amendments 145, 146 and 149, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Taken together, these amendments would remove the proposed new requirements for the CQC to conduct regular performance assessments or periodic reviews of local authority social care commissioning, and amend existing provisions relating to special reviews and investigations by the CQC. That would leave it able to review providers and to ask the Secretary of State for permission to run special reviews when there has been a particular issue but unable to run ongoing reviews of how local authorities commission services. It seems counterproductive to be removing this power at the same time as committing to challenging bad commissioning from local authorities.

The proposals announced by Norman Lamb about CQC reviews the other day are very helpful. But, again, they seem to be focused solely on providers and what they are doing, not on the commissioners who have directed these providers. If the CQC is being made independent, should it be seeking approval for such reviews? I believe that the Government have tabled this amendment because they believe that the provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 will be sufficient to keep local authority adult social care commissioning under scrutiny. However, my analysis is that the human rights of people receiving care would be better protected by retaining the requirement under the Care Bill as currently drafted so that the CQC should conduct regular periodic reviews of local authorities’ commissioning of adult social care.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

143A: After Clause 82, line 10, leave out subsection (4)

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the points made in this debate, particularly those made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I find this brave new world that we are moving into—of which he painted such an attractive picture—a bit puzzling. In the previous debate on the trust special administrator, we heard that the trust special administrator comes into play when this wonderful piece of architecture around commissioning has failed to deal with the job. The CCGs, supervised by NHS England, have simply not been able to deliver the changes that are required through the commissioning arrangements. In that area, the fall-back position which the Government insist that we have, is a trust special administrator, often to make good the deficiencies of an unsatisfactory commissioning set-up. The Government do not seem to have quite as much confidence in their new architecture for commissioning as the noble Earl suggested.

I turn to my amendment, which in effect maintains the status quo and the ability of the CQC to decide, in the light of the evidence it has had from its reviews of performance by providers, that there is a systemic problem with commissioning, the making of arrangements for adult social services. It seems odd that we should just leave this, in effect, to all 152 local authorities and put in place another hurdle to be got over, which is the approval of two Secretaries of State, before the CQC can actually act in the area of commissioning. We have to bear in mind that in the good old days, when I was a director of social services in local government, I had to look over my shoulder at the Audit Commission as to how we were behaving and making our arrangements. The Audit Commission, however, has gone the way of all flesh, so that is the end of another watchdog that was there to make sure, without being too obtrusive, that there could be thematic reviews of the way local authorities carried out their commissioning behaviour. I do not think that this architecture is robust enough to safeguard patients, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I support both the amendments. They are not alternatives but complementary. I want to start briefly from where we are. The issue of staffing numbers, ratios and skill mixes is just a black box as far as the public are concerned. It is something that goes on within the NHS. This has some relationship to our earlier debate about failure. It is often very difficult for outsiders—and I include regulators as outsiders—to understand what is going on in institutions, particularly acute hospitals. This issue is not peculiar to hospitals; it is even more of an issue for community services, in some ways.

I would like briefly to share my experience as the chairman of the provider agency in London. If your Lordships think that things are bad in some hospital services, try the community services. When we started to poke around in the community services, we found huge variations in the staffing levels for populations with particular conditions. There were massive variations in the face time that clinical staff spent with their patients. We have issues in community services which are often probably more dangerous and less reassuring than we have in some of our hospitals. If we are to have such amendments to the Bill, it is clear that they must relate not just to acute hospital services.

We are not going to get public understanding about when hospitals are failing or unsustainable without a better sense of public education about what a safe level of staffing is to give the reassurance that you are going into a facility which is safe. I added my name to Amendment 159 because it opens up the issue of putting into the public arena some data and reassurance about what a safe level of staffing is for some of these services. It can then be prayed in aid by both commissioners and providers when there are issues about whether a unit is sustainable. We often talk about unsustainability as a financial issue, but it is often about staffing issues—the sheer inability to get a safe group of staff together to run the institution. One acid test of why a place is unsafe is the number of bank or agency staff in a unit, who come and go at ever-increasing frequencies. Public understanding of what is going on in these hospitals seems critical to public reassurance.

Nobody wants to put staff numbers into the Bill, but we need something better than we have now to give the public some idea about the staffing levels and skill mix in what are, at the end of the day, relatively closed institutions. It is difficult for the public to understand what is and is not safe without more data, and that would make it much easier to hold boards to account. Amendment 159 would make it clear that the boards of trusts need to come back continually to what they are providing to the public in the safety of their staffing levels. Amendments 144 and 159 certainly do no damage to the Bill. They strengthen it and it is much more in the interests of the public to have this data available locally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said, relating to specific establishments and institutions.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support both amendments. It seems to me, as a nurse, to be a self-evident proposition that having safe staffing levels and the correct skill mix, taking into account dependency and acuity, is the right thing do. Anyone who has listened to the debates in this House on various Bills dealing with health and social care over the past few months knows that it is an enormously complicated issue. However, we must bring it back to this level of patient safety and the duty of providers to provide safe staffing levels and the correct skill mix. If that is not done, all the other things we talk about will be in vain and we will end up with more reports, more inquiries and more problems.

As has already been said, it is incumbent on Governments to take account of all these things: the Francis report, the review into Winterbourne View and some of the recommendations in the excellent report produced a few months ago by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It is vital that we get this right. At a time when financial pressures will force authorities to look at diluting the numbers of trained nursing staff and trained staff in the community and replacing them with healthcare assistants or support workers with hugely varied levels of training and experience, it is absolutely right that we get the correct level. As has already been said, both of these amendments can only add to the Bill and take nothing away from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, on what evidence would the CQC base the answers to those questions?

[Lord Warner]

How easy will it be for members of the public to see this material when they are trying to be sure that they are going to a safe place?

[Earl Howe]

The answer to that question is the rating system, which the chief inspectors are planning to bring in. Proposals for that will be announced very shortly. We attach great importance to that kind of transparency, not only in the NHS but in the care sector. On my noble friend’s question about whether all this would cover the care sector as well as the NHS, as he will know, the CQC issues sector-specific guidance on how to meet staffing registration requirements. Obviously NHS England would only provide guidance that relates to the NHS. As I already said, the Chief Inspector of, say, Adult Social Care would inspect regularly against CQC guidance. The plan is to consult in April 2014 on the CQC guidance on social care.

My noble friend spoke about an emerging consensus on a minimum level of staffing below which care is unsafe. I understand his point, but I am sure he will acknowledge—and did, implicitly, in his remarks—that staffing is not simply about crude numbers; it is not just about nurses. Healthcare assistants and other members of the team all have a key role to play. My noble friend Lady Gardner was absolutely right to point out that the skill mix is relevant in these circumstances. Patient safety experts agree that safe staffing levels should be set locally. It is not for Whitehall to set one-size-fits-all staffing rules. That is exactly why we have asked NICE and other nursing experts to review the evidence, to help organisations to make the right decisions on staff numbers at a local level and then, essentially, to govern themselves. I make it absolutely clear that we fully agree that safe staffing should apply in all settings and that point will be taken into account as we develop our plans.

I hope noble Lords are reassured that action is already being undertaken in a combination of ways, through Compassion in Practice, the CQC registration process, and, shortly, through the role of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals. That will ensure that providers are open and transparent about their staffing numbers and that they assess these staffing levels, not just on the day of an inspection but on a regular basis, using evidence-based tools, and by taking into account local factors that relate to local patient needs and outcomes. I therefore hope that noble Lords will be content to take stock of what I have said and will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl the Minister for what he has said. I think I have probably been more of a pain than anybody on this subject. I thank the noble Earl very much for the assurances that he has given.

I have one or two very quick questions. He knows that I have a thing about Skills for Care and Skills for Health. Who is going to decide the membership of those groups? I am concerned that in teaching skills each individual care worker will want to have the background knowledge to support their skill. It is no good just teaching someone a simple skill without having the knowledge behind it. It reminded me that 63 years ago I was a St John Ambulance cadet. I did an elementary first-aid course where a doctor taught elementary anatomy, physiology and treatment of first aid. I then went on to home nursing and was taught by a registered nurse how to look after patients in the home, provide good nutrition and prevent bed sores. I think probably what I knew at the age of 11 is more than what some of our healthcare professionals know today. What will be the professional input into Skills for Health and Skills for Care? Who will do the syllabus, the curriculum and the teaching? Presumably Health Education England and the NMC will give the backing to that. If we could have that assurance, it would keep me quiet for a little longer.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his persistence within Whitehall in actually getting progress in this area. I think we all feel that he has put a lot of personal effort into it and deserves a great deal of credit.

If I may, I will ask a couple of slightly nerdy questions. I think that the issue of where this stands in the pecking order is vital. Is it down at NVQ levels 1 and 2? Is it up at level 3? How far away is it from the degree-level professional qualifications? In some ways, the title that has been given to this rather diminishes its standing up the food chain, so to speak. A certificate of fundamental care sounds a bit basic, and I am not quite sure what signals are given about the level that Health Education England should strive for in overseeing this particular work. A lot more work needs to be done on that.

Perhaps I may also pick up the point that my noble friend Lord Hunt hinted at. At the end of the day, if employers are to make this operate, they need some kind of register of who has the certificate. They also need to know what happens when they fire somebody and take disciplinary action against someone who has this certificate. Who do they tell? That seems a quite critical issue, because this is a very large workforce and it would be quite surprising if each year we did not get a steady flow of bad cases where an employer has fired someone for a breach of good practice of one kind or another. This would all be set to nought if there was no record of where these cases of disciplinary action have been taken, and people with a certificate were still floating around the system when they have actually been released by an employer for poor practice.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 158. I also thank the Minister for pulling a rabbit out of the hat, so to speak. However, I am not as gobsmacked as the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, because I have lost count of the number of times and days in this Chamber that we have debated the need for training healthcare support workers. I am at least glad that it has now paid some dividends.

I am also glad that the noble Earl said that Health Education England would take the lead on this, and will involve the NMC in devising the standardised training programmes, because it has the expertise to do it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others that this inevitably means there will need to be some sanctions for those who do not fulfil the requirements for training and therefore fail to be regulated. I am not sure whether that is for this Bill or subsequently, but it will inevitably lead to that. However, I thank the noble Earl for his amendment.