Health and Care Professions Council: Registration Fees

Mike Hill Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered registration fees at the Health and Care Professions Council.

You and I have known each other a long time, Mr McCabe, but I think that this is the first time I have led a debate under your chairmanship. I hope you will show a bit of leniency, particularly to some of my hon. Friends. I thank Mr Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means for making provision for the debate. In actual fact, we were granted the debate at short notice; I think somebody else pulled out. Hon. Members will have to excuse me—I have a heavy cold, to say the least. I hope they can all hear me.

The debate follows on from early-day motion 2069, which I tabled last month and which condemned the Health and Care Professions Council’s unfair rise in registration fees. To date, that early-day motion has been signed by a truly cross-party group of 118 MPs, which shows the real concern across the House; it is very hard to get such a number. I hope that the debate leads to a rethink from the HCPC and the Government.

The HCPC exists to regulate health and care professionals. It sets standards, investigates complaints and keeps a register of workers in 16 different professions. Members might be interested to know what those professions are: arts therapist; biomedical scientist; chiropodist and podiatrist; clinical scientist; dietician; hearing aid dispenser; occupational therapist; operating department practitioner; orthoptist; paramedic; physiotherapist; practitioner psychologist; prosthetist and orthotist—I do not know what those are-radiographer; social worker, in England; and speech and language therapist. That covers quite a wide range, to say the least. Notably, social workers in England are still covered, despite plans to change that from 2019. Altogether, the HCPC regulates more than 360,000 professionals, 90,000 of whom are social workers.

To register, professionals have to pay an annual registration fee, which is currently £90. In autumn last year, the HCPC announced plans to raise its registration fees from £90 to £106 per year—an 18% rise. That follows a 5% rise in 2014 and a further 12.5% rise in 2015, so with the new rise fees will have risen by 40% since 2014. The HCPC argues that the rise is necessary in order to secure its financial health, giving five main reasons for the fee increase.

First, it plans to increase efforts to prevent problems before they occur. Secondly, it wants to use innovation and technology to modernise and improve services. Thirdly, it needs to address a caseload that is growing in number and complexity. Fourthly, it needs to address the impact of inflation since its last fee increase. Finally, it needs to pre-empt the transfer of social workers to a new regulatory body. While the HCPC has faced higher expenditure since 2015, these reasons cannot possibly support an 18% rise. Expenditure increased by £2.8 million in 2017-18, but £400,000 went on redundancy packages for management staff and £1.2 million went on refurbishing the HCPC head office.

The HCPC put its plans for a fee increase to its members over the winter. Responses to the consultation were damning, with 90% of respondents opposing the increase. Despite the findings of the consultation, the HCPC decided last month to impose the 18% increase. It has defended the rise by saying that its fees are lower than those of any other health and care regulator. However, other regulators are not comparable. Some cover very few members, reducing their economies of scale.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Of course, this issue affects not only the HCPC’s but other registrants, such as nurses, who have to register with the National Midwifery Council. Does he agree that, along with other things, such as car parking charges, low pay and no automatic incremental progression in a lot of health-related occupations—particularly for nurses—these kind of registration fee increases are just another tax on healthcare workers’ wages?

[Mr Cunningham]

In considering that, we have to remember that a lot of those workers’ salaries—for want of a better term—have in some instances been frozen since 2010, while in some instances they may have increased by 1% or 2%. With inflation at about 2% over that period, that is roughly an 18% cut in wages. Add the increased fee, and those workers are carrying a heavy burden that they should not have to carry. Adequate funding should be provided, rather than finding it by using hidden taxation methods. We all know that nurses and so forth in some of our hospitals have to pay car park charges. Given all those hidden costs, these workers are quite frankly bearing the brunt of the recession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I was also registered with the HCPC and the preceding bodies. Although I am no longer registered, I recognise the impact this issue has on NHS staff.

There are nine different regulators in the NHS, regulating 32 different professions. They provide a very important function: this is about protecting not only the public, but health professionals themselves in the course of their practice. The regulators are there to set, maintain and raise standards and to give confidence to the public, as well as to hold a register and protect the title of a profession, so that other people cannot set up a business pretending that they hold the professional qualifications, which people across the NHS work hard for.

Increasingly, regulators also ensure continuing professional development. The most advanced programme of professional development has been put in place by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in recent times. The regulations around that ensure that registrants are compliant with continuing professional development. The function of regulators is to ensure that professionals who fail to uphold professional standards and their duty of care are called to account, so that sanction is applied where necessary and recourse is taken.

We have already heard that—thankfully—a miniscule number of professionals are taken through disciplinary processes. That is a tribute to the great professionalism across the NHS. However, such cases do occur, and it is appropriate that rigorous processes are in place so that individuals can defend their position and have recourse to justice before appropriate action is taken. To have someone practising who is not fit for practice risks the whole profession, so it is vital that that is put in place.

However, the cost of that process has escalated substantially, as hon. Members have mentioned. When I first registered as a physio, I had to pay only £17. In 2015, the last year that I was registered, there was a huge increase—from £80 to £90. The suggested increase to £106 is, quite frankly, unacceptable, particularly given the background, as set out by hon. Members, of a decade of pay regression, pension cuts and student loan repayments. In my time we had grants, so things have changed significantly.

More and more burdens are being placed on health professionals. That means that more risk is placed on health professionals. When we had adequate staffing in the NHS, mistakes were less frequent and caseloads were safer. Unfortunately, in many professions people’s caseloads are now too big. The pressure on those individuals increases.

I was formerly head of health at Unite. We focused on organisations’ duty of care. Managers in particular must say no to the organisation and argue the case for more staff, rather than increase the pressure on health professionals by making their caseloads unsafe—that would mean that managers were failing in their duty of care, in breach of their standards of professional conduct.

[Mike Hill]

I am also a former Unison official. In view of that, does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) rightly pointed out, the professional bodies cover not only full-time and part-time staff, but student social workers and student nurses? They are under the same constraints.

[Rachael Maskell]

Students do have responsibility, but the registered health professional is responsible for ensuring that they are safe under their practice while they are training in their profession. Training the future workforce is an incredibly important additional function of health professionals.

The Law Commission came forward with a set of recommendations for registrant bodies in 2012. In 2019, we still have not seen the implementation of those recommendations in full. I would like the Minister to explain why that is the case. Implementing a substantial piece of work about ensuring patient safety should surely be at the forefront of the Minister’s agenda. I am interested to hear the reasons for the delay, and what plans there are to put those recommendations in place. Training programmes for health professionals need to focus on the ethics, behaviour and conduct of health professionals, if we want to see a reduction in the number of cases. Managing that risk is really important.

I want to raise a number of points to move this case forward. First, as we have heard, 38,000 people signed a petition to register their discontent with the fee rise. That cannot be ignored. These are valuable NHS workers. Their call must be heard and reflected on. However, the HCPC hardly seems to have taken that into consideration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, the number of fitness-to-practise cases being taken forward—currently, 59% of them involve social workers—will disappear. Therefore, surely the registrant body’s costs will decrease. We want to hear how that will benefit health professionals.

This is a tax on professionals. Will the Minister consider funding that regulation fee through the NHS? It does not make sense for nurses, physios and speech therapists, for example, to pay a different amount. That is a tax on professionals who have put in the training and the hours, and go over and above the hours. Why can the Government not pay the amount for each health professional? More than a gesture, it is a responsibility of the NHS to ensure that its registrants, including part-time workers, have that support. I completely concur with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton that there should be a part-time rate.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Mike Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

A couple of weeks ago in the train station café in Hartlepool, a constituent told me that her husband had stood outside their local GP practice for two hours to get her an emergency appointment, only to be told that there were none that day. That is not an uncommon occurrence in Hartlepool, where it is becoming increasingly difficult to access a GP. That is not the fault of GPs or practices, but a consequence of placing too great a burden on GPs over running clinical commissioning groups, and a fall in GP numbers.

The Government are calling for a major expansion of primary care and community services, saying that that is central to reducing the burden on hospitals and that they intend to introduce new 24/7 rapid response teams. Although we are making great strides in Hartlepool in tackling community and primary care needs, with ambitious projects such as creating a centre of excellence in the pipeline, improving access to GPs is vital.

I welcome the pledges in the plan to improve cancer care and diagnosis, and the greater focus on childbirth. In 2017, there were only three deliveries in the midwifery unit at Hartlepool hospital, putting it under threat. Now there are positive plans to bring about a return of full maternity services, including the creation of a maternity hub, guaranteeing the right for future citizens to be born and registered in our town. A lot of cross-party and multi-agency work has gone into this, and I hope that the Government, under their 10-year plan, will pledge to support these initiatives.

Finally, I welcome the admission that we need improvements to mental health, which for far too long has been considered the Cinderella service. Particularly for people in crisis, I would like improvements to emergency and urgent care, including the creation of local walk-in centres. There is a growing need to tackle mental health problems for children and young people. The announcement of a new NHS mental health workforce dedicated to supporting children in schools has been welcomed by many, including Barnardo’s. However, the charity has concerns about early intervention and waiting times for assessment and treatment. Its chief executive, Javed Khan, has said that the Government

“does not show enough action on how as a society we are going to stop sleepwalking into a children’s mental health crisis.”

I completely agree with him.

NHS Long-term Plan

Mike Hill Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. She makes a strong and passionate case for breast feeding. I do not want to let the best be the enemy of the good. The proposal she cites is a proposal from the NHS. Of course, if other such services come forward, why should we be against it? I want to be clinically led in this area, but I very much support the thrust of her argument.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The people of Hartlepool lost their A&E several years ago, and there is a powerful argument for the return of those services. On the subject of urgent care, what measures does the Secretary of State intend to take to help our overstretched ambulance services?

[Matt Hancock]

There is extra support for ambulance services in the plan, which is incredibly important. The targets and accountability measures for ambulances were reviewed this time last year, and we now need to make sure that the whole ambulance service gets the support it needs.

Nursing: Higher Education Investment

Mike Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Eleanor Smith]

My hon. Friend is totally right. Again, I will address that point in my speech, but it is noted. I am glad that my hon. Friends are intervening, because it shows the importance of this debate on nursing and the lack of it. I am glad the nurses came to my hon. Friend and told her what it is like. The situation is beyond shocking. There are almost 42,000 vacant nursing posts in the national health service in England. Without policy and funding intervention, that will grow to almost 43,000 by 2023.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. On the current 42,000 shortfall, does she agree that with so many European Union nationals potentially leaving the health service, that figure could well be compounded in future?

[Eleanor Smith]

That is definitely so. My hon. Friend is completely right, and with the way Brexit is going, that is understandable. People working in the NHS understand that.

Without policies and funding intervention, as I have said, the shortfall will grow to almost 43,000 by 2023, and that number is on the low side. It does not account for the one third of nurses who are due to retire in the next 10 years. It does not include nursing shortages in social care or public health. Students are being forced to plug the gaps. They should be learning, but instead they are providing care before qualification, without supervision and before they are ready—all because we do not have enough nurses. That is deeply unfair to students. It is risky for qualified nurses and it is unsafe for patients, and all because no one wants to pay for the solution.

Poor workforce planning in health and care is not new. Even in my time, policy makers pursued a boom-to-bust approach, rather than ensuring that supply was available to meet demand. Six years on from the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it is fundamentally unclear who is accountable for workforce strategy. As a result, it is not being done by anyone. Earlier this year, Health Education England held a consultation, but Professor Ian Cumming has failed to deliver a workforce strategy. We are told that it will be dealt with in the new 10-year plan. Mr Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, has been handed an additional £20.5 billion a year for the NHS by 2023-24, and it is widely understood that his long-term plan must address the extreme gaps in our nursing workforce by fixing the supply issue and providing funding.

Autism and Learning Disability Training: Healthcare Professionals

Mike Hill Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady is very expert on such issues. I, too, am struck by that statistic. I do not know the answer, but it is the kind of thing we need to find out about.

To conclude Paula’s statement:

“Mencap’s Death by Indifference report, published ten years ago, set out many areas of concern behind avoidable deaths, and these findings have been built on by the detailed information now coming out of the national mortality review (LeDeR) process. Mencap’s Treat me well campaign report states that 1 in 4 doctors and nurses has never had any training on learning disability. This was our experience and is unacceptable, that’s why I launched this Government petition for all doctors and nurses to receive appropriate higher level mandatory training which could have saved Oliver’s life.

There needs to be a culture change in the way people with autism and a learning disability are treated by NHS doctors and nurses. This needs to be led from the top down by doctors and the GMC. It is not acceptable that people who have autism and learning disabilities die for no other reason than health professionals have not been properly trained on how to support them and work outside the limits of the medical model. We must do everything in our power to prevent future deaths like Oliver’s from happening again.”

That is Paula McGowan’s account. She started this petition to Parliament calling for mandatory autism and learning disability training for healthcare workers. The petition now has more than 50,000 signatures, and Paula is present in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings.

An inquest has found that the medication was not wrongly prescribed, but Oliver’s family and Mencap were very unhappy with the inquest’s conduct and conclusions. The family firmly believe that better understanding of Oliver’s autism could have prevented his death. Paula believes passionately that Oliver’s experiences should lead to change, so that a lack of understanding does not result in future deaths.

There have been other cases such as Oliver’s, and every premature death of young person who is autistic or has a learning disability is a tragedy that we should be able to avoid. When Connor Sparrowhawk—or LB, as he is known—passed away in Slade House in Oxford, his mother called for:

“An effective demonstration by the NHS to making provision for learning disabled people a complete and integral part of the health and care services provided rather than add on, ad hoc and (easily ignored) specialist provision.”

There are, sadly, many other cases. Only last week, for example, a high-profile case was in the media about Bethany, aged 17, who has autism and extreme anxiety. She, it seems, has been locked in a seclusion room for almost two years.

Last week, I met a local volunteer-led group, Caring for Cambridgeshire’s Homeless, who help homeless people in Cambridge. I was introduced to a 21-year-old man with autism and learning disabilities who is living on the streets. His safe place: behind a wheelie bin, at the back of a shop. His case is complex, but while volunteer interventions are a lifeline for that young man, he should be getting professional medical support from those trained to understand his needs.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent, John Hobbs, whose grandson is autistic, about the need for a national database for autism and associated conditions designed for the purposes of splitting the autism spectrum into subsets?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am not sure that I am sufficiently expert to answer that question straight off, because it is a complicated one, but it is certainly worth looking into further.

I shall explain some wider issues too. This weekend, I attended the excellent Volunteer for Cambridge event organised by Cambridge City Council and volunteer services, where I met Heather Lord from Cambridgeshire Healthwatch and Tara Forkin from Cambridgeshire Deaf Association. Tara told me, through the signer, about the experiences of deaf people in the health system. They, too, find that treatment is sometimes administered to them in ways they find baffling and frightening, too often with no one finding a way to listen to them. As Heather rightly asked, almost 25 years after the controversies around the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which some of us still remember, why are people continuing to have to fight the battle? Why is it not yet won?

This subject is clearly highly sensitive. The examples I have given highlight heartbreaking incidents. Clearly, we must work harder and put measures in place to ensure that other people are kept safe after we as a society have failed Oliver, LB and 1,200 other avoidable deaths each year, according to research by Mencap. Even more remains to be done, however.

We must go back to the very beginning, as access to healthcare from the start can be extremely difficult for those with autism or learning disabilities. Seemingly simple tasks—to most of us—such as making an appointment over the phone, are a barrier to many of them. If we cannot make an appointment, or if we feel anxious about doing so, we are less likely to seek healthcare, even if we are experiencing symptoms that others would immediately refer to a doctor.

Some autistic people and people with learning disabilities find expressing themselves difficult, especially if that includes discussing intimate personal health issues, whether physical or mental. Some learning disabilities or types of autism make it harder for people to work out the sensations that their bodies are feeling, which can make it more difficult for them to realise that they are ill or need support. In terms of mental health, the group therapy sessions, for example, which work so well for some people, are often inaccessible to those with autism, who can feel very socially anxious.

Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, of which I am a vice chair, published its review, “Progress of the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health: On the road to parity”, which underlined the mental health inequalities that I have been discussing. That report recommends:

“Health Education England should improve development and training of frontline care staff with a specific focus on mental health, learning disability and autism so the existing workforce is supported and equipped to deliver direct care and support to those groups.”

The report explains:

“We heard that people with learning disability or autism (or both) routinely have their referrals to mental health services turned down because some services ‘do not accept referrals from that group’. Mental illness presents very differently in people with a learning disability or autism. As a result, symptoms of mental illness can be wrongly attributed to a person’s learning disability or autism meaning that this group does not receive the treatment they need for their mental health problems.”

Also, according to the report, the esteemed Baroness Hollins, a leading member of the APPG inquiry, emphasised throughout that

“services are legally obliged to implement reasonable adjustments so people with learning disability or autism or both can engage with mental health services. This doesn’t appear to be happening.”

Many doctors and nurses of course strive to understand autism and learning disabilities, and to adapt their practice to better cater for those needs, but with increased pressures on staffing and endless demands on the time of medical professionals, alongside increased demand, that will inevitably not be the case for every single individual in the NHS. We must better equip and empower our healthcare workers.

With the right training, doctors and nurses can help autistic people and those with learning disabilities feel more comfortable and, ultimately, receive better, more focused healthcare. Everyone working in the NHS will see autistic and learning-disabled people, even if unaware of it. Some of those workers could have an inaccurate or narrow view of what someone with a learning disability looks like, or of the traits of an autistic person, due to inaccurate stereotypes or unhelpful media representation of such conditions. All frontline staff, therefore, from GP receptionists to consultants in accident and emergency, should receive some evidence-led training about autism. The development of that training should be informed by autistic people and their families.

Paula McGowan has called for doctors and nurses to receive advanced training—tier 2—in autism and learning disability as soon as is reasonably practicable. She expressed to me that it must cover legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983, focusing on key areas such as reasonable adjustments to care, consent and best-interests decision making. She would like it to be

“mandatory that Oliver’s story should be used as a case study in all training”,

and for the training to be named after him: the Oliver McGowan mandatory training. As Members present will agree, Oliver’s story carries huge weight, and attaching his name will exemplify the training’s deserved importance.

We need to focus on supporting the health professionals who see autistic people and people with learning disabilities most often to understand the nuances of their health. The community is diverse, and some of the physical and mental health problems those people experience require responses different from those required by non-autistic or non-disabled people.

NHS Whistleblowers

Mike Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whitford]

Obviously, I am unaware of the individual case and the rights and wrongs of it. However, a review of the cost of whistleblowing as it stands shows that having an effective system and effective law would save us money overall.

Sir Robert Francis envisaged “freedom to speak up” guardians in each trust, to whom whistleblowers could go informally to seek advice and support. Such guardians are in all trusts across England. They include a wide range of people, and the appointment system is not altogether clear or transparent. We will have to look at what kinds of staff work best, whether appointments have been appropriate, and whether whistleblower guardians can recognise, if they are clinicians—which many of them are—that there might be a conflict of interest, because the issue might be in their department. The national guardian has been in place since 2016, but her position is non-statutory and sits inside the Care Quality Commission. Her role is described on the website as “leading cultural change” rather than deciding individual cases.

Through all the publicity, there has been quite a change in atmosphere and tone. The whole issue has had a significant airing. In Scotland, we have an alert and advice line run by Public Concern at Work. It is interesting to see the changes from the second half of 2016 to the first half of 2017. The number of concerns that the hospital, or the health board as it is in Scotland, admitted immediately were valid—instead of their having to be proved, or their being put off—went from 0% to 14%. The number of those that were ignored or denied dropped by 30%, and those reported to a manager or a senior manager went up by 30%. That suggests quite a difference in practice. The numbers are quite small, but they suggest a pattern. The data showed that, naturally, the most common group to report is nurses—they are the biggest employed group within the NHS—and the most common reason was still patient safety.

The problem is that that is all still legally underpinned by the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which was passed in 1998. It was a private Member’s Bill very similar to one that had been introduced a few months before. It therefore did not have a Second Reading, and it had only one day in Committee. At the time, it definitely was ahead of what was going on elsewhere, and was a recognition of the importance of whistleblowers, but that was 20 years ago. It really is time for change.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that workers are still put off by responses to whistleblowing allegations and, under the legislation, the threat of disciplinary action if the complaint is perceived to be malicious?

[Dr Whitford]

I utterly agree. It is important to be clear that a disclosure in the NHS, which is what we are focusing on, regarding patient safety as opposed to employment issues, which are quite separate and dealt with differently, is in the public interest. The problem is that in cases where whistleblowers have been punished and have suffered detriment, what starts as reporting becomes a bullying and harassment issue that ends up in a normal employment tribunal setting, and the original concern is not dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to speak under your chairmanship.

I absolutely agree with the aspiration of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) to put in place a separate level of protection. My experience of whistleblowing comes from my experience of many years as a full-time trade union official for Unison. I remember the original PIDA being enacted, and that immediately afterwards employers were scurrying about to design internal policies to make it hard for whistleblowers even to come forward, let alone to proceed with a complaint in comfort and with protection. Many of those policies emphasised that, if the complaint were malicious, it could end with disciplinary proceedings. Certainly the policies were not favourable to the spirit of the legislation.

I agree with everything that has been said, but I must underpin my opinion that employment law must sit alongside the matter in question—there must be protections for workers. Yes, we have had the Francis review, but let us not forget the recent Gosport War Memorial Hospital inquiry, which shows that PIDA is clearly not working as a self-policing device within big employers such as the NHS.

I remember the Winterbourne View scandal. The investigation originated with a different kind of whistle- blowing, through “Panorama”, but it came out of staff concerns. The scandal not only affected how mental health patients were treated in their communities from thereon in—it exposed the difficulties of working in such an environment—but had a knock-on effect for NHS employees. From my time with the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust in Hartlepool, I remember the movement of workers, with patients, into localities. That was disruptive to their jobs and lives; sometimes it led to job losses, so there are consequences.

There are also difficulties with whistleblowing. Often, whistleblowers will blow the whistle at inappropriate times. For example, they might be subject to internal inquiry or a disciplinary, and if the whistleblowing comes at that point it can be seen as disruptive, even when it is not deliberately so. However, that should not deter any important review of the basis of that whistleblowing.

I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that local proceedings should be dealt with separately, with whistleblowing dealt with centrally from an independent perspective. We are not just talking about the NHS; there has also been whistleblowing in the civil service, for example.

I hate to see victims. As a trade union activist, I have seen too many victims. Equally, I have seen too many patients let down in mental and core health. Whistleblowers can be young or old. Young people are often concerned about peer pressure. They learn about whistleblowing on the job, and they might see obvious things that more experienced people do not. People at the older end of the shift also whistleblow, for whatever reason, about important issues that are stark-staringly obvious to them. Such things must be taken seriously. We cannot go on and have more and more patient deaths on our hands because we do not have a proper structure.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). I was interested in the APPG, but I was unable to get there. I have always been keen on the issue. We cannot have a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty situation. We have to have protections for workers, whistleblowers and patients. We cannot live our lives through television investigations, or organisations such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council saying they have fit-for-purpose policies to deal internally with such issues. Whistleblowing is a global matter of protection for all. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend rightly points to the key issue of how we bring down the £2.5 billion of agency spend. That goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday. Up-front investment in our workforce will allow us to reduce that agency cost.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

21. Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent High Court decision on universal credit, which determined that one of my constituents with severe mental health issues was discriminated against financially for moving from one area to another, was correct? Does he agree that people with disabilities should not be penalised in such a way? Will he commit to increasing mental health budgets to ensure that such people get the support that they need in their communities post-Winterbourne?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question should relate to the workforce, which is the matter we are dealing with now, but never mind. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is interested in hearing about the workforce situation.

ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment

Mike Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD.

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. A few months ago the enormousness of the struggles and barriers that those with attention deficit hyperactive disorder face on a daily basis was brought to my attention by an inspirational woman who approached me in the hope that we could establish an all-party parliamentary group for ADHD. Seven months later, I proudly chair that APPG, along with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). We have held our launch and our first meeting, which was on the economic impact of ADHD, and today we have our first parliamentary debate on the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD.

That inspirational woman is Michelle Beckett, the founder and CEO of ADHD Action, an incredible charity set up to support and offer advice to people struggling with their condition. Everyone on the APPG, some of whom are here today, would agree that we would not be here today without Michelle’s work and dedication to the issue. I would therefore like to place on the record my thanks, and those of the APPG, to Michelle for the incredible work she does.

In the months since we created the APPG, I have become ever more shocked by the stories and experiences shared with us about the diagnosis and treatment process that has been letting people down. It has been doing so in three ways. The first is stigma and attitudes. That is true of mental health more generally, and I am pleased that this debate is during Mental Health Awareness Week, which is a yearly reminder of the progress yet to be made in treating mental health in parity with physical health.

Looking at societal attitudes to ADHD in particular, we see a variety of misconceptions and stigmas. ADHD is often seen as a condition that only affects boys. It is sometimes interpreted as the product of poor parenting or just excused as naughty children playing up. All those ideas are false, but the impact of those misconceptions is enormous. Children may not be offered the correct support, and adults with the condition are often undiagnosed or even unaware that they might have ADHD.

An undiagnosed child in school, without the support they need, will in all likelihood fall behind their classmates and struggle to obtain top grades. Almost half of all school exclusions involve pupils with special educational needs. That is a truly shocking statistic, and it underlines the importance of exploring further ADHD-specific policies, perhaps in the mental health Green Paper or as part of the special educational needs and disability code of practice.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows, ADHD can continue into adulthood. A constituent of mine is lobbying for it to be given the recognition it deserves. Does my hon. Friend agree that ADHD should be classed as a disability for the purposes of the law, including accessing benefits?

Social Care

Mike Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. In my years of working particularly as a breast cancer surgeon, where I was involved in the palliative care of my own patients, we often met that as a barrier. We started to have the fast response teams who could get hold of hospital beds and commodes and get the changes done, particularly for somebody who actually might not have very long to live.

Since 2015, those who are defined by their medical care team as being in the terminal phase of an illness, whether it is cancer, motor neurone disease or another condition, have not been charged for personal care or nursing care at home. This means that they are not delayed by means-testing, which is another thing that can end up keeping a terminal patient stuck in hospital for weeks and weeks that frankly they just cannot spare.

Younger people with disability have been mentioned. In England, approximately half of local authority spend, and in Scotland approximately 40%, is for the working-age disabled. However, Scope, a charity involved with those with disability, says that two thirds of those who applied to local authorities for care were offered no help and were simply signposted to other charities. The 83% who were given some care felt that they did not get enough hours for it to support them sufficiently.

When we discussed social care in October, I mentioned that in Scotland we were hoping to pass Frank’s law, which is in honour of Frank Kopel—a footballer who played for Man Utd and Dundee Utd and who, possibly related to heading the ball, developed dementia at a very young age. I am glad to report that this law has now been passed. Starting from April next year, those under 65 with degenerative, chronic and eventually terminal illnesses will also be able to have personal care, and this will simply be needs-based, as it is for those over 65. I pay tribute to his widow, Amanda, who fought for a very long time to raise the issue of people who are being excluded from care based on precisely when their date of birth is. However, the Scottish Government are trying to clarify with the Department for Work and Pensions whether providing this additional free personal care to someone under 65 will not result in cuts to their disability benefits, because to give with one hand and have it taken away with the other would be tragic.

The UK Government’s Green Paper provides a chance to step back and rethink care. Obviously, the aim is to achieve sustainable care—as I say, perhaps to look at more radical considerations such as combining it with health and not having it as an utterly separate system.

On those who are younger with disability, the Minister talked about a parallel workstream for the under-65s. What are the terms of reference for that? What can people with disability expect?

After the complete shambles of the 2017 manifesto, it is crucial that there are no sudden changes or things that catch people out, with no notice to prepare for what they might have to pay for care. This is something that will affect people in the future. We have all debated the WASPI women in this place. Let us not create a new tragedy of people who are trapped by some sudden change in how social care works.

As the Minister said, the workforce are absolutely key to the care service. This is a service that is utterly delivered by people. It is not high-technology or machines, and by and large, it is not hospitals. In Scotland, the homecare workforce has risen by 11% over the last three years, but all care providers are reporting that they are struggling to recruit, and all of them see that Brexit will make that much worse, because colleagues who have come from Europe, and particularly eastern Europe, make up a significant proportion of our social care workforce.

We need to value carers. They have often been treated far too much as a cheap workforce, and that says to people, “This is not a profession or a job to stay in long term. This is until you get something better.”

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

There are of course also carers who are not employed. I came across kinship carers in Hartlepool. Does the hon. Lady agree that kinship carers, and in particular those who receive no benefits, should also feature in this debate?

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are all sorts of aspects to the provision of care, for whichever age group or needs, and the Green Paper will fail if it does not result in us stepping back and taking a wider view.

It is important to pay the real living wage, which the Scottish Government already support and fund, and not the national living wage. All hours should be paid—that commitment is being consulted on in Scotland at the moment—and that should include travel as well as overnight care.

For local authorities that have social care within their service, this is the biggest driver of the gender pay gap. Men who empty the bins are paid considerably more than the women who are caring for our grandparents. We should think of job satisfaction and give them the time to care, not 15 minutes. We should think of continuity for both the patient and the carer, but particularly we need to think of the career structure and the training. Caring needs to be a profession, and a profession that is respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a regressive form of taxation. Every time the precept or local council tax is raised, people pay twice: they see less of a service, but they are still paying through their income tax and through council tax.

I want to talk about the people who are the backbone of our care system: those who work in the care sector. In my local authority area, just over 170 social care staff are employed to support about 5,750 people. That is an average of 33 to 34 cases per member of staff, with all the challenges and safeguarding issues that come with that. The more experienced staff often deal with many more cases than that. As people live longer, with multiple and increasingly complex health conditions, the time and effort required from staff becomes greater. Currently, about 22% of residents in Redcar and Cleveland are over the age of 65. That is expected to increase to 27% by 2030. There are also many working-age disabled or vulnerable adults who have long-term care needs.

The needs of the individuals who need care vary hugely, from those who are frail and need physical support to those with learning disabilities or mental health problems. Mental health poses a particularly difficult challenge, with one in 14 people over the age of 65 developing symptoms of dementia in their lifetime. The care demands required of staff to support these people are ever more complex.

[Mike Hill]

I praise Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council for being the first council in the north-east to adopt Unison’s ethical care charter, which promotes staff training and pay and quality care. It has also been adopted in Hartlepool. Will my hon. Friend join me in supporting the further ambition to establish local care academies to guarantee that such training and care packages are written into employment contracts?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Much has been said today about the prestige of the sector and that suggestion would go a long way to addressing that.

Privatisation of NHS Services

Mike Hill Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 205106 relating to the privatisation of NHS services.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I pay tribute to a young constituent of mine, Connor McDade, whose father, John, is a friend and a former work colleague. Connor was run over in Newcastle last weekend, but despite the most excellent care provided by NHS staff in the critical care unit at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, his life support was switched off yesterday. On 14 May, he would have been 22. He passed in the early hours of this morning. The standard of care delivered by staff at the RVI was second to none, so it is fitting that I pay tribute to them and all hard-working NHS staff at the beginning of my speech.

Privatisation in the NHS is not new. When the NHS was founded in 1948, agreements had to be thrashed out with GPs, doctors and consultants to allow private practice to continue and sit alongside the new national health service. Private healthcare insurance has been around for longer than the NHS. The British United Provident Association—BUPA—was founded in 1947, and it currently has about 15.5 million health insurance customers and 14.5 million people in its private clinics and hospitals.

The NHS itself has always had a private treatment offer, although between 1974 and 1976, Barbara Castle, the Labour Secretary of State for Social Services, campaigned to abolish pay beds in the NHS. That was achieved after her tenure in 1977, but the Tories repealed it three years later in the Health Services Act 1980. On abolishing pay beds and separating out private and NHS facilities, Mrs Castle said:

“The existence of pay beds, with the opportunity it gives to a few senior doctors to make private gain and the opportunity it gives to patients with money to jump the queue, is seen as a bitter affront to those thousands of other staff who are dedicated to the principle of a free Health Service.”—[Official Report, 21 November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 355.]

Tens of thousands of health workers, citizens and patients would echo that opinion today. It is also the opinion of the British Medical Association, which believes that the NHS should always be free at the point of use and has campaigned for many years to halt the spread of privatisation. Its focus is not just on private practice, but on private provision—the privatisation of services, commissioning and procurement.

It is worth noting that, on private practice or healthcare provision, an update to the BMA’s 2016 report entitled “Privatisation and independent sector provision in the NHS” shows that in recent years, the number of NHS patients treated in private hospitals has increased substantially. In 2015-16 alone there were 557,200 admissions—an increase of 8%—and in the same period 5% of NHS-funded elective surgical admissions were to independent sector facilities.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

We are witnessing the fundamental dismantling of the NHS and creeping privatisation, which is undermining its dedicated, hard-working staff. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to halt all privatisation and legislate against the selling-off of our world-renowned health service?

[Mike Hill]

As a member of the Petitions Committee, I am independent; as a Labour MP, I agree. I will come to that point later.

Private practice is only one aspect of the worrying trend towards the increased privatisation of NHS services. As the BMA points out, the recent legal action that Virgin Care brought against several clinical commissioning groups should serve as a stark reminder of what can happen when the relationship between the NHS and the private sector sours.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Many Members know that I worked in the NHS for more than 10 years. That service was privatised and taken on by Virgin Care, which destroyed it. What concerns me is that I have given Conservative Health Ministers, including the Secretary of State, the opportunity to talk to me on a number of occasions about Virgin Care’s many failings, some of which were very dangerous, but they have never taken up that opportunity. Does my hon. Friend share my concern?

[Mike Hill]

I certainly do share my hon. Friend’s concern. Ironically, in my patch, sexual health services are delivered by Virgin doctors.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is it not the case, as the two previous examples show, that we are not comparing like with like? The supposed savings are actually achieved by an immediate reduction in service or by the service becoming unviable, which means that the Government have to pick up the pieces. If anything goes wrong with a private healthcare operation, the patient has to go into the national health service, which has to bear the burden.

[Mike Hill]

I entirely agree. The forecasts for the next three years indicate that £10 billion-worth of NHS work will go to the private sector.

A settlement reported to be in the region of £330,000 was paid to Virgin Care in December 2017, following a procurement process in which an alliance between a foundation trust and local social enterprises won a contract to provide children’s services across Surrey. Such interventions and the ability of private companies to challenge NHS procurement provisions are precisely why there are fears about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership—a proposed trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. Many fear that our separate post-Brexit trade agreements with the United States will mean that NHS services will be exposed to the competition and might of the American private care market.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Hundreds of my constituents in Crewe and Nantwich signed this petition because they want their Government to put people before profit. Fourteen hospital trusts have had to trigger emergency contingency plans and delay hospital building because of the collapse of Carillion earlier this year. Given that Capita’s annual losses are rocketing, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s response shows that they remain dangerously obsessed with privatisation in our NHS?

[Mike Hill]

I agree. As I said, it is estimated that, over the next three years, up to £10 billion-worth of NHS contracts will go to the private sector, including the provider that my hon. Friend mentions.

Are such fears irrational or are people right to be concerned about the privatisation of NHS services, given the fact that the influence of private healthcare providers has risen sharply in recent decades? The use of the private sector has been progressed by successive Governments over many years. The present Government blame Labour for introducing private finance initiatives, which they say have burdened the NHS with eye-watering debts, but the Government compounded the problem through PF2. They also blame Labour for opening up the NHS to marketisation by splitting primary care trusts into commissioning and provider arms, and introducing the concept of “any preferred provider” in its transforming community services programme, even though the Secretary of State at the time, Andy Burnham, expressly stated that the NHS would always be the preferred provider of services. Yet from 2010 onwards this Government extended that model, creating clinical commissioning groups and pursuing competition and commercialisation with renewed vigour. Today, therefore, many traditional public health services are run by private providers such as Virgin Care and GP consortiums in their own right—services such as out-of-hours urgent care, sexual health and mental health residential care.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 was designed to bring in a far greater private sector element to the NHS through expansion of the internal market. Since then, the privatisation picture has been more mixed than had been feared, not only as a result of campaigns by Unison, the GMB and others, but because various Government initiatives to boost privatisation fell flat. However, there is still significant evidence of increasing privatisation, with companies such as Virgin, Serco and Spire continuing to prosper.

[John Spellar]

My hon. Friend mentioned the care sector. Is there not a fundamental flaw in that sector, because it is based on offshore location of ownership of the assets and on heavy leveraging and gearing of the companies? That has meant that many of them are on the brink of bankruptcy, and they seek either to be bailed out or to throw many thousands of very vulnerable and elderly people straight back to the Department of Health and Social Care. The Government have no real plan, as far as we can see, to deal with such a contingency.

[Mike Hill]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about social care. In fact, some private providers have drifted away from healthcare contracts because of the losses that they might make on them.

[Paula Sherriff]

Will my hon. Friend give way one more time?

[Mike Hill]

One more time.

[Paula Sherriff]

I want to be clear about some of the dangers of privatisation. When Virgin Care took over our dermatology service, it would not subscribe to the SystmOne computer system, so we had to use another system, which was not operable for more than a year. Patients were coming in, but we had no idea what they were coming in for—we had to ask them questions such as, “Is the lesion on your left or right arm, or on your leg?” That is particularly difficult with patients who have dementia or learning difficulties, for example, and it represents a significant hazard to patient safety.

[Mike Hill]

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned such issues, and dementia in particular—mental health care needs to be looked at for investment.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way? I know he has just said, “One more time”, but perhaps he will make it two.

[Mike Hill]

I am on my last two paragraphs, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made a powerful case for how it is wrong in principle to privatise the national health service, and he has alluded to comparisons with the social care sector. Is not one of the major risks the fact that private sector provision sometimes fails—the business fails—so there is a complete and, in the short term, irreplaceable loss of capacity in the healthcare categories catered for by such a company?

[Mike Hill]

I cannot disagree with such a well made point.

The impact of austerity has been a double-edged sword, according to the union Unison. On one hand, less money can be made from the NHS, so some firms have shrunk away. On the other hand, the NHS has opted increasingly for short-term fixes as it struggles with insufficient funding, and that has created opportunities for the private sector. For example, the Carter review includes the threat that hospitals that cannot make sufficient savings in their support services or pathology functions might have to use outsourcing instead. Most recently, the development of wholly owned subsidiary companies has brought a whole new set of fears for the NHS, and for health staff in particular.

The old fears from the 1980s and 1990s are beginning to resurface. When we add social care into the mix, those fears multiply. The NHS is one of our proudest achievements, and we need to protect it, not privatise it. To do so, we need to revoke section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Hill]

I thank all hon. Members for their powerful contributions, and I thank the petitioners, whose numbers helped to secure this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 205106 relating to the privatisation of NHS services.

Sitting adjourned.