National Health Service (Mandate Requirements) Regulations 2017
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare all my interests as a clinician. I worry that, if we keep on changing the way that we collect data, we have no way of monitoring what is happening. One thing about the figures as they are at the moment is that they are monitoring process. In addition to that, there must also be monitoring of outcomes—both clinical outcomes and outcomes in terms of the patient experience.
I worry that, if we start saying that the demography has changed and we have an elderly population, it makes it sound as if we are blaming people for living well and living longer, which we must not do. Actually, if people remain well, they are not a drain on the NHS at all. One of the most important predictors of poor outcomes is loneliness. If we have a population of people who are kept relatively well and mobile, they look after each other in communities. Good work on compassionate communities is happening around the UK already.
When we look at this question of targets and what the Government are doing, a worrying message is being sent. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine contacted me yesterday because its members are worried that they will not be able to cope with winter pressures. They are going into the winter with absolutely no wiggle room at all. They are at capacity. There has also been a change in the way that people behave. For an urgent appointment, they go through A&E, so the number of emergency department attendances has gone up as well.
In that group are those people who have been waiting for a time and during that time they have deteriorated. As they have deteriorated, something else has happened and they collapse—a bit like a stack of cards. Multiple problems arise and then those become more complex for the NHS. So it is not as if people are stable during their 18-week wait. If they have a disease that is progressing, they may well be deteriorating. Even worse for them, if the diagnosis in the original referral was wrong, they may need a complete review of their diagnosis. So simply talking about treating them is not correct.
My other concern is this: at what point does the clock start ticking? In some clinical commissioning groups, we are seeing groups being set up to look at the so-called appropriateness of the referral on paper. As a clinician, that worries me greatly, because I do not see how one can assess on paper. I know from many years of looking at referrals coming through on paper that they are only a very rough guide. Too often, I might see a referral that does not sound urgent and the patient in front of me should have been seen yesterday. Another one might sound urgent but actually is not. There is a real worry that, if we fiddle around with when the clock starts to tick, some people who really need to be seen urgently will be in a no-man’s zone before they are even properly referred because there have been delays. We hear about delays in access to primary care as well. The delay in being seen by a GP must be added on to any delays in being referred.
We also need to remember that, when we talk about 10 years ago, medicine has changed enormously. There are a large number of procedures now that, if they are done early, can be done in out-patients or as day cases. The days of needing to be admitted are not there, so that is all the more reason why we should be able to get more patients through more quickly if they are seen earlier.
I have a real worry that, as has been expressed very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, this flies in the face of reassurances that we were given during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill through this House. Also, this sends a message to the service out there that, actually, we cannot cope. I worry that it will also disincentivise finding ways of treating people more speedily—as day cases and so forth—which could, with a little more investment, help to address the problem.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the impact of the cuts which are being debated tonight—and here I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward his Motion—are not confined to the health service. They also stretch to social services departments and social care. The most rewarding period of my fairly lengthy political life was as the chairman of social services in Newcastle from 1973 to 1977 when we transformed social care in that city. Much of what we did in those days is now being undone as the result of pressures on the social care budget and a lack of adequate funding for the problems which many of us are becoming increasingly familiar with. What are the Government going to do about that impact of the decision, as it would appear to be, not to adhere to the 18-week period? What estimate have they made, if any, of the impact on social services and social care in a climate where local government budgets are extremely hard pressed? The two things are inseparable. It was a Health and Social Care Bill, now an Act, and we need to look at the social care implications of this extended period because, undoubtedly, it will put increasingly impossible pressure on local authority social services departments and other organisations involved in supporting people in the community.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am very grateful to the Government for this order, and I am glad to speak to it today. I thank the Government for the way in which this is happening because there has been a gentle transition that aims to enhance the experience of the public. When they are bereaved, people are incredibly vulnerable but there will now be a process that is kinder to them. If an investigation is required it can be conducted. If the investigation shows that it was a natural death, the coroner can simply register the death and the family will be spared the court process if it is not necessary. If, however, a hearing is required, the family will get an inquest and they will have the hearing that they may seek. That means that it meets the needs and expectations of the bereaved. I hope that having a process that is much clearer in its stages will also help with that group of deaths that are deaths by suicide. It has been particularly difficult even to ascertain the data on how many such deaths occur because of how they are often recorded. The term “verdict” is used, which is often seen as suggesting that there was some kind of criminal intent behind the suicide, when death by suicide is a very tragic event for everyone left behind.
This transition should also raise the overall standard of the experience of families from lower standards to the standards of the better and best. I have discussed the order with coroners, and there is an expectation that it will achieve what we have all wanted, which is to drive up the overall standard. I hope that the Government will encourage the chief coroner to have the courage to put pressure on those coroners that people have been concerned about.
My final point is to welcome the flexibility for Wales. We will have new transplant legislation before us in Wales fairly soon, and it will be particularly important that at all times of the day or night the coroner can be contacted in relation to organ retrieval. Having the ability to provide cross-cover should mean that we will have the service that is needed and that the coroners themselves will have a working life and home life that are compatible with enjoying living in Wales, rather than being exhausted. I am grateful to the Government.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have some second-hand acquaintance with the coroner system because I was articled to a coroner and subsequently became his partner. He was a part-time coroner in the north-east of England. I cannot resist the temptation—I rarely do—to recount a couple of incidents from that time. The first was the remarkable theory constructed by the coroner’s officer, who is a police officer attached to the coroner’s office, about a chap who was found drowned in the bath. The officer came up with the wonderful theory that this man had committed suicide by deliberately banging himself on the back of the head so that he would become unconscious and drown in the bath. My principal was not entirely convinced by this theory, and accidental death was recorded instead. On another occasion he had to show a bereaved widow the body of her husband for identification purposes. The body was produced from the cabinet and uncovered, and she acknowledged that this was indeed her husband. She turned to go away and my partner, as he then was, began to put the drawer back into the cupboard, but then she said, “Do you mind, Mr Henderson, if I have another look?”. “Oh yes, my dear”, he said, and pulled the thing out again and uncovered it. She looked down at her husband and said, “Well, there you are”—I will not repeat the expletives—“may you rot in hell”. So a coroner’s life can be quite an interesting one.
With regard to the order, my honourable friend Robert Flello raised a couple of points in the other place. The first was to regret the fact that it did indeed take something of a struggle to persuade the Government to retain the office of chief coroner. However, they did that, and I join the noble Baroness in commending that and, up to a point, the changes before us today. She and the Minister are right to refer to the continued availability of Section 13 of the 1988 Act and the possible process of obtaining an order from the Attorney-General. However, that is by no means a simple procedure; rather, it is convoluted and, given that the noble Baroness has reminded us of the state of mind of bereaved families, it is one that is difficult to pursue.
The point is that in the 2009 Act there was provision for an appeals procedure. My honourable friend asserted, and I agree with him, that it would have been better to have retained or implemented that provision, particularly as the alternative to the Attorney-General procedure, cumbersome and protracted as it is, will now be only to rely upon judicial review. Judicial review, of course, poses a question of cost and of course will largely be out of scope of legal aid. It will be yet another difficult process for someone, particularly in the circumstances of bereavement, to negotiate, both practically and emotionally. It is unsatisfactory that the Government have not retained—or, rather, implemented—that provision for an appeals process, and are leaving the potential applicant with an unsatisfactory choice between the Attorney-General process and JR, the access to which is highly questionable .
In replying to my noble friend, the Minister, Mrs Grant, said simply:
“The right answer is to raise standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 26/6/13; col. 7.]
As my noble friend pointed out, the two things are not incompatible. Of course it may well be, as both the Minister and the noble Baroness have said, that standards should indeed be raised, but that does not necessarily mean that there will not on occasion be the perceived necessity on the part of bereaved members of the family or others to challenge a decision. There ought to be a proper scope to facilitate that, and the concern is that that is not easily available under the order as it will stand.
The other aspect that the Minister might perhaps touch on is what is left to be done. Just last week we had a response to the consultation on other aspects of implementing the reform, and I assume that there will be further orders to come. I do not know if he is in a position to indicate when that might happen—I hope it will not be for a while so that some of us, the Minister included, can take a breath in the mean time from the tide of regulations and orders that we will be discussing over the next couple of weeks. One might have thought that it made sense for the whole thing to be brought together, but we have to deal with the order today. In the circumstances, we cannot object to it but we have regrets about the limited way in which the 2009 Act is being implemented. We look forward to seeing how the other aspects of it that remain to be dealt with emerge in due course.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 238A, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. I rather hope that the Government will take on board its spirit, if not its actual wording. The reason is that in creating a joint strategic needs assessment, there will be a requirement for those involved to begin to work in a completely new way. Human nature is such that people tend to repeat the patterns of things they have done before. In addition, they do not know what they do not know. When they feel insecure, they are less—not more—likely to consult, because it is quite threatening to have to consult and go beyond the boundaries of what you thought you knew and discover all the things that you did not know.
The beauty of the amendment is that it creates an obligation to,
“consult relevant health professionals and any other”
person, without specifying who they are. It leaves it very broad but it pushes forward the boundaries. We have already discussed the problem of children. The difficulty, if people do not consult widely, is that if children miss out at a developmental stage and one aspect of their development—for example, motor development, speech and language development or emotional development—does not occur, they never catch up. It is missed out for good; they always lag behind.
It is really important to make sure that the provisions are there right the way through the trajectory from birth onwards to make sure that the needs of children as they develop are met, that deficits are identified early and that interventions take place immediately.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 238H, as well as amendments moved by other noble Lords. I am pleased to confirm that the Opposition entirely support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Once again, I am pleased to say that Newcastle is united on the issue of the composition of health and well-being boards.
The only amendment about which I have not so much a reservation as a question is that to be moved by the Minister, Amendment 239, which refers to the possibility of a local authority giving permission to the health and well-being board to carry out,
“other functions of the authority”.
I wonder whether the Government have borne in mind the fact that there is now a general power of competence for local government, and whether it is the intention of this amendment to embrace not only the statutory functions of local government as things that may be delegated to the health and well-being boards but anything that the local authority is empowered to do. Given that there is now a general power of competence, that would be a very wide remit indeed. It is not necessarily a wrong line to take but it would be interesting to know whether the Government have considered that potential implication, and if they have not—and I would not blame the Minister if he had other, more pressing things on his mind—perhaps he might come back to us at Third Reading or before.
I particularly welcome the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because they raise the issue of children’s services and health, which has to a significant extent been overtaken in this Bill by other considerations around traditional health services and adult care. I very much welcome those points.
In relation to the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I join him in thinking that it would be very helpful for the Government to send a signal as to the representation of elected members— not merely one, who could be regarded as a token, but a significant number. I would have gone perhaps slightly higher than three, but three would be a working basis.
In Committee, the Minister said that it is up to councils to decide the composition of these boards. That is true, but I think a signal would be welcome in that respect. I am particularly glad to join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in returning to a theme which I am afraid I have sounded more than once in debates over this Bill about the necessity for district authorities to be represented. It is a very important point in relation to the shire county areas.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, some of the amendments in this group are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is unable to be in the House today because of ill health. They relate to the transition of care between different sectors and build around the principle of integrated working.
The problem that arises is that the responsibility for care of children will sit with different groups. There is a need to make sure that, when children make the transition from being the responsibility of social services to being the responsibility of the local authority and, in adult care, of the clinical commissioning groups, there is adequate provision for how that handover occurs. A clear date for it should be set and it should make explicit the duties for each party involved in handing on information. Without that, there is a concern that as these young people—many of whom will have mixed mental, physical and social care needs—transition across, information about those needs may not adequately pass from one agency to another. There is a concern that they may fall into a gap and that the responsibility at the time of transition will not be clear. We are also concerned that, without a clear, fixed date for the transition with a default time set in legislation, it will be easy for a young person’s care to drop out of sight, particularly if they are not supported by people well able to advocate on their behalf.
Also in this group is Amendment 174A, which concerns the general duties of Monitor and is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has asked me to speak to this amendment, which again emphasises the importance of integration of services. Her concern is about diabetes but goes far wider than that. Where there is a multiplicity of providers, how they work together will depend on how Monitor specifies service in the national tariff. Since patients with complex conditions require input from many different providers, there is a concern that, without a real emphasis in the Bill on provision being integrated, they may end up being told that their care is not the responsibility of one person or another. These amendments, which have been grouped together, seek clarity on the seamless provision of care. The principle behind them is to address those gaps that we have identified in that seamless provision of care.
I return to the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are well aware that it can be very difficult to differentiate between the social and mental health needs of young people. For that reason, we feel that it is important that transition is clarified. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we certainly support these amendments. I am particularly pleased by the reference in Amendment 171A to the transfer of information between child and adult social care authorities, which picks up a point that was raised in an earlier debate. These are sensible amendments, although there is an error in Amendment 238G, which refers to health and welfare boards, instead of health and well-being boards. On that not untypically pedantic note, I support the amendments and trust that the Minister will give them a favourable response.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
I would be loath to give a definitive answer, not even having the advantage of officials in the Box to support me on this matter. However, I would have thought that infectious diseases are more appropriately a matter for the director of public health at local level. Presumably, at national level the Chief Medical Officer would have overall responsibility. However, the noble Baroness is right to imply that there is a connection with other functions and services where environmental health could contribute. I suppose that overcrowding would be an example of that. I take it that that is what she is referring to in this context. It is precisely in that sort of area that environmental health officers and others would have a statutory responsibility. There is no direct relationship potentially between, for example, a chief environmental health officer and infectious disease, but it would be sensible to have somebody with responsibility and oversight of environmental health issues of the kind that we are discussing working alongside the Chief Medical Officer. Water quality could in certain circumstances be another example of these issues. That discipline should be at the table, as it were, in a sufficiently authoritative way to contribute to dealing with issues of that kind and, we hope, preventing them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, the question asked by my noble friend Lady Masham illustrates why we need to have a chief environmental health officer for England, as well as having that input in Wales, because by and large elements in the wider environment are determinants of health and play a much greater role in that regard than we recognise. Indeed, if the Marmot review and its aspirations are to have any effect on the health of the nation, we need to address environmental health much more closely.
I declare an interest in the specific areas of carbon monoxide poisoning and the problems contributing to that arising from the environment in which people live, and the link between the roads infrastructure and its air pollution and asthma and the underdevelopment of the lungs of children who live near major road junctions. The interplay between health and the environment in which people live is crucial. Health services on their own will not achieve improvements in health, particularly those outlined in the Marmot review. I hope that the Government will not tell us that the amendment is unnecessary, despite the initial typographical error in the reference to an “Evironmental Health Officer” rather than an environmental health officer. I fear that we will hear that the amendment is deemed to be unnecessary and that the relevant advice can be sought elsewhere. However, there is good evidence from other places that strong leadership from somebody who has a particular role in an area can bring about change and build the bridges to which I referred in the previous group of amendments.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I thank the noble Baroness. I am most grateful. That message had not reached me, although I may be a little deaf. I shall simply confine my remarks to the amendment in this group about Monitor reporting annually to the Secretary of State on how it discharges its duty to promote integration. I do not think that the comments that I made previously are annulled. They are relevant because, unless we have integrated services—however much they may be seen to be in competition with each other over different aspects—and attempt to have a seamless provision of care, at the end of the day it will be the patients who fall through the gaps.
Earlier today, we heard a lot about Monitor being light touch, not having a series of minimum criteria and being able to use its discretion in how it grants licences of all sorts. But I have a concern that there has to be a means by which the way in which Monitor functions is transparent and available to public scrutiny. That is why I have suggested that an annual report to the Secretary of State would allow such scrutiny to occur, particularly as regards promoting integration.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, in the first instance, I shall speak to Amendments 267ZDA and 269 in the names of my noble friend Lady Thornton and myself. Amendment 267ZDA refers to the need for integration. Indeed, there are a series of amendments on integration, with which I will try to deal as a group. Amendment 267ZDA gives an interpretation of integration which would,
“mean that health-related and social care services are provided in such a manner that individuals will experience services … as being independent of organisational barriers”—
which I suppose is the very definition of integration—and which offers patients,
“the most appropriate involvement in their care choices … which reduce … the need for separate assessments; and … which result in a care plan for the individual which covers all aspects of their care”.
Surely that aspiration would be shared by the Committee and widely within both the health and social care professions. It would seem to make sense to incorporate it in the Bill. However, Amendment 269 simply makes clear that it is unnecessary for a provision in the Bill to repeat a definition of anti-competitive behaviour since that already exists in existing legislation, although that is not a hugely important point.
In relation to other amendments in terms of integration, we certainly support Amendment 268B, which would provide the duty for Monitor to report annually as to how it has promoted integration. Amendment 274B seeks a requirement to publish a statement if conflicts between its functions arise which are likely to have a significant impact on integration of services. Amendments 278 and 278B impose requirements on the national Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups to extend the right of patients to make choices in respect of the integration of healthcare and to ensure the integration of services where that is in the public interest. Again, the aim is to drive the integration agenda. Then, as an overarching provision, Monitor would have under Amendment 278C the power to investigate whether the Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups are complying with those requirements. All of these seem to be perfectly sensible amendments to provide the right structure and one which Monitor could effectively supervise.
Still on the integration agenda, there are later amendments—Amendments 286A, 287 and 287B—which impact on integration. Amendment 286A allows a modification of Monitor’s powers to encourage integration, if that is in the interest of patients, as it usually will be, presumably. The amendments provide for modifications to licence conditions—again in the interest of integrated healthcare—to ensure that standing conditions of licences include requirements relating to or encouraging the integration of healthcare services. All that makes a sensible package to drive an important part of the underlying concept of the Bill and the too-long-deferred integration of services.
The other amendments in this group essentially relate to the issues of collaboration or competition. Here, it is slightly unfortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—I am sorry, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—did not move Amendment 265ZA, which stresses that Monitor must exercise its functions with a view to promoting collaboration and preventing competitive behaviour. I think that is the other side of the coin that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, put on the table previously when she was complaining, perhaps rightly, about anti-competitive practices within the NHS. A more positive way of looking at that agenda is to say that NHS bodies should collaborate on the provision of services, rather than take a negative stance. That is, I suppose, a necessary fallback position, but the prime objective must be to ensure collaboration within and across health service provision and—having regard to what has just been indicated in relation to integration—with social services as well. That is probably the right approach.
Other amendments in this group relating to competition raise some other issues. For example, under Amendment 265C, there is a suggestion that Monitor’s duty to prevent anti-competitive behaviour should be qualified by requiring it to aim to improve the quality of services and outcomes and the efficacy of provision and reduce inequalities. These are listed separately; I take it that all of them—rather than any alternative—are intended to be part of Monitor’s duty. If the Minister were minded to accept the thrust of that argument, he would do so in that sense.
Again, there is the provision under Amendment 266, tabled by my noble friend Lord Warner, for Monitor to conduct and publish a review of anti-competitive barriers and their impacts within a year of Royal Assent. There may well be some sense in that, particularly in regard to the way in which he moved the amendment. There are similar duties on Monitor to look at impact assessments under Amendment 275. Government Amendment 278D, to be moved by the Minister later, refers to non-disclosure of the “business interests” of parties. Does that extend to the interests of, say, trusts or voluntary sector providers? Does “business” relate to their activities or would it be confined to commercial providers? It seems to me that it would be invidious if only one part of the provider sector had the protection of confidentiality; it should be applicable to all or none. There is of course no issue with the amendment that requires individual circumstances not to be subject to disclosure.
I have a question about Amendment 278J, which requires the Competition Commission to review the “occurrence” rather than the “development” of competition in the provision of healthcare services. It is not clear to me what the significance of the word “occurrence” is. This is not a government amendment and I do not know whether those who originally tabled it want to clarify the position. I understand the amendment if it requires the Competition Commission to review the impact of competition in the provision of healthcare services, but I do not know how the occurrence of competition would be reviewed. It does not actually make much sense to use the word in this context.
The thrust of most of these amendments makes sense and sets out a sensible role for Monitor. In what would have been the next group but for the leapfrogging, we will come on to look at the issue of conflicts, and I am sure that there will be some further discussion about that. However, I hope that the Minister will feel able broadly to support the amendments in this group and recognise that they should contribute to meeting the shared objectives that have emerged from today’s debate.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I have my name on the amendments about setting up the authority. In his response to the questions posed, I hope that the Minister will address how exactly we are going to streamline the process, as has been outlined so eloquently, and whether mechanisms such as commencement orders could be used so that we do not delay the process of speeding up research, because some parts, such as the Human Tissue Authority and the HFEA, are not yet clarified. It would be very sad to go at the slowest pace rather than storm ahead. This Government have demonstrated an understanding of research as an important economic driver to the UK as a whole, but that infrastructure, as suggested in these amendments, has to be in place and cannot wait. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will also address the timetabling in detail when he replies.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I come to this debate unencumbered by any particular knowledge or experience of the issues addressed by the amendment, but it is apparent that today’s debate is but the latest instalment in a long-running saga, which in a sense reached its peak almost exactly seven months ago on Report of the Public Bodies Bill; many of the arguments that we have heard today were rehearsed on that occasion. It is not without significance that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, complained at that time that no full and impartial public review of the risks and benefits, including the financial risks, of the proposed abolition of the HTA and the HFEA had actually been undertaken. Members of this Committee are clearly of the same mind as most noble Lords have been.
At that time, the Minister set out his reflections on the points that had been made in that debate. He pointed out that there was a common theme: a desire for greater clarity on where the Government intended to transfer the functions of the HFEA and HTA, and concern that the dispersal of functions across a range of bodies would risk fragmenting regulation. Clearly, those matters are still in the air. The Minister said that he intended to consult in the late summer on the options for where certain functions would be most appropriately transferred, and intended to proceed on the basis that the preferred option was for the HFEA and HTA functions to be transferred to Care Quality Commission, except for certain research-related functions that would transfer to the health research regulatory agency. Consultation would therefore take place. It is now seven months since all that was said. The main justification for not proceeding with what was sought then, and indeed still is now, was that:
“We do not want to add to what is already a substantial Bill”.—[Official Report, 9/5/11; col. 699.]
It might be thought that there were matters of less importance in the Bill, and certainly matters that in many respects were more controversial, than the topic that we are addressing today.
Having said that, I have listened with interest to my noble friend Lady Warwick, who takes a somewhat different view of this. Without the in-depth knowledge that other noble Lords have exhibited on this I hesitate to disagree with her, but for my own part I am persuaded by the force of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and those distinguished noble Lords who have supported him. It is not good enough, particularly in the light of the Government’s clearly confirmed intention to press on with giving greater emphasis to the role of research, specifically in this field, that we should be told, as I anticipate—perhaps wrongly—that further consultations will take place and at some time there will be a conclusion and then a Bill. Given that legislation must already be piling up for the next Session, which, presumably, unless the rules have changed again, will be a year long, it is unlikely, with pressure from other departments, that this department will obtain the space for a Bill of this kind, so the uncertainty will continue. Uncertainty is almost the worst feature of the present situation; it cannot be good for anyone concerned with the problems of research, from the point of view of either pure research or, more particularly, its development into industry and production. Equally, the ethical side clearly cannot be allowed to drift.
I hope the Minister will, if he cannot commit tonight to reviewing the position, undertake seriously to discuss matters again with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and those who have supported him tonight, with a view to seeing whether, even at this stage, the Government can change their position and deal once and for all with a significant issue around which there seems to be a considerable degree of consensus in this Committee and in your Lordships’ House.
Health and Social Care Bill
Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Lord Beecham(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, my name is to Amendment 339. The other amendments have been spoken to most eloquently, having been introduced fully by my noble friend Lord Patel. One additional point, and the reason for having these directors of public health on a register, is that the person appointed may be fit to do the job today but they need to be fit to do the job tomorrow as well. By having them on a register, issues of revalidation, continuing professional development and so on would be maintained, and a level playing field would be maintained in an upward direction.
We have heard today about infection, but the greatest threat to public health may well come not from infection but from issues such as cyberterrorism around our major utilities and the havoc that that could cause. These directors of public health will have an enormous amount on their shoulders, and they need to be linked into the national and international disaster planning groups. Some of those aspects of their work will be ill understood by those in local authorities, who may feel that such things are remote and unlikely to happen. In the event of a disaster, those skills will have to be drawn on immediately, and the directors of public health have to be prepared and able to take the leadership role.
I urge the Government to consider carefully any good reason why not to register directors of public health. I cannot see any reason not to register these people who are trained specialists. You have to have a really good reason not to, in the face of all the evidence that they should be registered.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there is clearly a broad and deep consensus in the House that the general direction of the Government’s proposals for public health is on the right lines. We welcome in particular the restoration to local government of many public health functions.
There are still some areas of potential difficulty, though, which may well account for the recently published survey of the Faculty of Public Health, which showed great concern among 1,000 members of the profession who responded to a survey. Some 71 per cent of them disagreed that the new system would create a safer and more effective response to emergencies, and we will be looking at the situation regarding emergencies in a subsequent group. Eighty-one per cent disagreed with the proposition that the proposals would reduce inequalities in access to health; 83 per cent disagreed that the new structures would reduce bureaucracy; and 79 per cent feared that they would lead to fragmentation. I do not necessarily concur with those views—I think they are too pessimistic—but they disclose a degree of concern that some of the amendments that we are now discussing would allay.
Underpinning some of those concerns is the issue that is not part of the Bill: funding. We cannot ignore the real concerns about that—they have been voiced before and no doubt they will be again as we continue to debate the Bill—but in particular there is concern that, whereas the department apparently estimates the cost of public health services at £4 billion, which presumably is to be used as the basis for ring-fencing the grant that would go to local government, the BMA’s estimate is £5 billion. If that is right, it is a significant difference that would impact on local authorities. Of course, we are awaiting next year’s revenue support grant settlement. In addition, there are concerns about how the health premium would operate and how it might disadvantage areas that suffer from significant social and economic disadvantage. They would find it harder to improve the health of their communities than other, better placed authorities and might, therefore, lose out. In looking at the Bill, particularly the provisions that relate to public health, these concerns must be borne in mind.
Having said that, it is clear that many of the amendments that have been spoken to this afternoon address very serious issues. While I do not necessarily accept the entire burden of the criticisms made by the members of the Faculty of Public Health, I am sure Ministers in this House would not describe those with such concerns in the terms that Simon Burns used in another place when he described critics of the Bill as “zombies”. They are not zombies; they are dedicated public health professionals whose concerns have to be addressed. I am sure that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness would not descend to language of that kind.
The amendments that have been moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and supported by Members across the Committee, deal in particular with the position of directors within local government. They begin with the question of how they should be appointed in the first place. On appointments, Clause 27 refers to an authority,
“acting jointly with the Secretary of State”.
This is a slightly curious formulation. I suppose it should not be detached from the later provisions about Public Health England. In the words of Mr Burstow, the Minister of State for Health, Public Health England is deemed to be the Secretary of State. For the purposes of this clause, it may be that that is what is envisaged: Public Health England, as the Secretary of State, would be involved jointly in the appointment.
I am not convinced that it is necessary for an appointment to be made jointly but I concur with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that a procedure is needed for the approval of the Secretary of State of such appointments, and for the approval of any dismissal. I may be risking my status as an honorary vice- president of the Local Government Association when I dissent from its views on these matters. It takes the view that a director of public health should be treated in exactly the same way as any other chief officer of an authority. Respectfully, I disagree profoundly with that; they are not in an analogous position. Their position is much more analogous to that of a head of paid service, the chief finance officer or the monitoring officer, who have separate roles because they are not simply departmental officers; they have a wider responsibility, which impinges on the roles of other officers and other departments. A director of adult services or a planning officer does not have the same relationship with his colleagues. He is on level terms, as it were, and would not necessarily be expected to take the kind of stance that a director of public health might have to take in relation to failures of other parts of the authority. It is therefore essential that the position and independence of the director are protected. Therefore, I strongly support amendments to that effect.
What I am not clear about is how the appointment should be couched in terms of responsibility. Certainly, I agree with Amendment 229, which suggests that the director should be able to report directly to the local authority. However, to say that the director should be responsible to the chief executive is too narrow a definition. Not all authorities may choose to have chief executives. Fortunately, under the Localism Act, we have been spared the notion that the position of chief executive could be combined with that of the leader of a council or an elected mayor. Councils are not required to have a chief executive; they are required to have a head of paid service. The appropriate mechanism is that promoted by Amendment 229. That should be the line of accountability and the directors should certainly be part of the authority’s management team. They should have the status of a chief officer and the ability, if necessary, to report to the council. They ought also to be qualified.
The Opposition endorse entirely the proposals for a statutory registration system along the lines to which noble Lords have referred, not a voluntary system which I think is envisaged by the Bill. The statutory system should have external quality control, particularly of non-medical public health professionals. This would certainly strengthen the position and maintain the quality of the service. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to comparable status with NHS professionals and made a significant point in that respect. This could, of course, place directors on a higher salary level than other officers within a local authority. That might create some difficulties and might also be something of a new burden. I think that that is the phrase we use in local government. Therefore, it perhaps ought to be reflected in the way that grant is distributed. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to have a look at this. Perhaps some portion of the salary should be specifically contributed to by the department in making its allocations. This would facilitate an acceptance of a differential within local government. However, Amendment 259 talks about making terms and conditions,
“no less favourable than those of persons in equivalent employment in the National Health Service”.
I am bound to say that I am not entirely clear how to define that equivalence. That may need to be explored further. No doubt the Minister will want to look at that aspect.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to what might be described as public health emergency situations. One of the difficulties to which we will have to return in the next group of amendments is the absence of a fully fledged regional structure under the new system. As I say, we will no doubt return to this. However, there is concern about resilience and about how matters that transcend local authority boundaries—and public health problems do transcend local authority boundaries in many instances—will be managed and how these can be addressed, in particular under the proposals around the Health Protection Agency and the current local pattern of provision. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, about the desirability of the director of public health being a member of the commissioning groups and, indeed, of the national Commissioning Board. We have discussed this before. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated that the boards should be relatively small. However, there seemed to be a possibility of ensuring that if a director was not a member of the board, one could at least be appointed as an adviser to the board and, presumably, if it is the national Commissioning Board, also to the clinical commissioning group at local level. That would certainly be helpful.
However, there remains the issue of the position of directors in relation to district councils. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the responsibilities relating to public health are not confined to principal authorities at county, metropolitan district or London borough levels. There are housing issues and other significant issues around food safety and the rest which are district council responsibilities. It is not clear how directors of public health would operate in two-tier areas where district councils have those responsibilities. A mechanism might have to be developed to ensure that directors are able, for example, to report directly to those authorities where the exercise of the district council responsibilities may not be sufficiently addressed to public health issues. I am not inviting the Minister to give a definite indication at this moment but I would hope that this matter can be taken away and looked at further.
It is clear that there is considerable consensus around the House on the direction of government policy and the need to make improvements along the lines of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, invited the Minister to turn over a new leaf and asked for a different type of Earl Howe. For my part, I would be quite happy to settle for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we know and love from previous incarnations. I just hope that he is given scope by the Secretary of State to respond positively to this positive debate and to the positive suggestions that have emerged.