Learning Disabilities: Transforming Care

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, progress since the horrendous events at Winterbourne View some five years ago has not been as fast as we would like. Under the Building the Right Support programme, NHS England is putting in an extra £30 million, which will be match-funded by CCGs, and another £20 million for capital investment. That is a very significant commitment of extra resource, but the proof will be in the eating.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, it is five years since “Panorama” exposed the scandals in Winterbourne View. Ministers’ responses at the time and since have been admirable in their expressions of concern and the action they require in the NHS. The problem is that very little has happened. Is the Minister satisfied that NHS England, which has been consistently charged with implementing the changes, understands what it is required to do by Ministers? So far there is very little evidence that it does.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

It is very clear in the NHS mandate that it knows exactly what it has to do. It was NHS England that produced Building the Right Support. There is a lot more governance around the programme now. Every month we will see the numbers of patients in in-patient care settings. The noble Lord will be interested to know that over the last year 185 people who had been in hospital for more than five years have now left hospital and gone into the community. There are signs that things are happening, but I would advise the noble Lord that what is needed is constant scrutiny.

National Clinical Director of Adult Neurology

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I do not want in any way to diminish the huge clinical importance of this and the suffering of many people with long-term neurological conditions. They are among some of the worst illnesses that anyone can have and I am delighted that my noble friend recovered from his. From everything that I have been told by NHS England and Bruce Keogh, I do not believe that the lack of a national clinical director will in any way detract from the resources that we are making available to neurology.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for Sir Bruce Keogh but, as my noble friend Lady Gale said, NHS England has essentially set out to decimate the influence of clinical advisers at the level of senior decision-making teams. When we set up national clinical directors, they were based in the Department of Health, had direct access to Ministers and were hugely influential. The current situation in NHS England is that they are often part-time appointments with virtually no support and limited influence. Is it not time that Ministers started to reassert control over services for which they are accountable to Parliament?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I do not think I agree with the last part of the question. We have set up NHS England as an arm’s-length body, and a key part of the reforms—the bit that probably everyone supported in the 2012 Act—was to get politicians more out of the day-to-day running of the NHS and to give more power to clinicians. It is better that clinicians rather than politicians should make these decisions. On what the noble Lord said about decimating the influence of clinical advice in NHS England, I just do not think that that is the case. In so far as he has raised it with me, I will have a meeting with Bruce Keogh and put that point to him and get his response.

Dental Health: Children

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My noble friend will be aware that a part—only a part—of the obesity strategy includes a levy on fizzy drinks. That will be a levy on the manufacturer not the consumer. That is a very important part of trying to improve the diet of young children.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I should remind the House of my presidency of the British Fluoridation Society. I come back to the issue of fluoridation. The noble Lord has been rightly positive about its impact. The real problem is that the law gives responsibility to local authorities but local authority boundaries do not always fit with the way that water is produced by the water companies. Given that, does the noble Lord agree that there is a role for the Government, working in partnership with those local authorities, to give impetus to water fluoridation? Will he also pick up the point raised by his noble friend and work with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to see whether Manchester could be brought up to the level of the health of people in the West Midlands?

NHS England: Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for People at Risk of HIV

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister but this decision by NHS England not to commission and fund PrEP is a matter of great regret. In the UK there are more people living with HIV than ever before. Without any need for an evidence review, it is absolutely clear, without any uncertainty whatever, that PrEP has the potential to be a game-changer. It is proven to be effective in stopping HIV transmission in almost every single case. There is no need for an evidence review. It is simply a delaying tactic because of this absolutely disgraceful decision not to fund this drug. The Minister mentioned our record in relation to other countries. It is a matter of shame that this drug is being used extensively in other countries but is being denied to NHS patients without any justification whatever.

At some point the Minister will pray in aid the cost of new drugs. On a number of occasions I have asked him this question but he will never answer it—because, I suspect, the answer is too embarrassing. He knows that he is in the middle of a five-year agreement with the branded drug industry through which, if the cost of drugs goes over the base level plus a small allowance for inflation, the department receives a refund every three months. That agreement should enable new drugs to be funded, but that money is not being used to invest in those new drugs. If he says that this cannot be done because of cost, that is simply not true. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider this decision. It is utterly indefensible.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I am not going to proffer the argument that it is too expensive, because that is not the issue today. The issue today is that NHS England feels that it does not have the power to commission this particular drug. Whether or not it has that power may well be judicially reviewed, so I cannot comment on the outcome of that judicial review.

The PROUD study produced strong evidence of the effectiveness of Truvada as a preventive drug. The work that NICE is going to do, and the pilot scheme to look at the effectiveness of this drug—it will cost £2 million and will be funded by NHS England and PHE—will ensure that when the question whether NHS England has the power to commission this drug is resolved, there will be the evidence on which to make that decision.

NHS: Diabetes

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

As the noble Baroness will know, the Government will produce their childhood obesity strategy later in the summer. I am sure that advertising, particularly before the 9 pm watershed, will be addressed in that strategy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that “Bake Off” will not be removed from our screens as a result of the strategy. The Minister said that the strategy has now moved from being published in the summer to later in the summer. Will he say a little more about when we can expect to see it? Also, will it answer my noble friend’s original point? Will he crackdown on clinical commissioning groups that are making arbitrary decisions to cut foot care services, which are a short-term saving but a long-term disinvestment?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, on the first point, I think we can say that “later in the summer” means before the parliamentary Recess. I do not mean the Recess starting tomorrow, but the main Recess later in the summer. On foot care services, this goes back to the unconscionable variations we have across the country. These are being addressed in part by the diabetes audit and in part by the improvement and assessment frameworks that have been developed for CCGs, so that we can see the results of different CCGs around the country and take action accordingly.

NHS: Bursaries

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to halt plans to withdraw National Health Service bursaries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do not intend to halt plans to withdraw National Health Service bursaries for nursing, midwifery and allied health students undertaking pre-registration training at university. The Government are currently running a public consultation on how to most successfully implement those reforms. The changes will affect only new students commencing courses on or after 1 August 2017.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

But, my Lords, has the Minister seen the PAC analysis which says that, because of the loss of the bursary and the introduction of loans, there is a real risk that many people, particularly older people with children, will be dissuaded from applying to train as nurses and in allied health professions? Given that, and given the desperate shortage of nurses and other professionals, should not the Government take a little time to examine whether their original decision was justified rather than simply consulting on the way that it is going to be implemented?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, all the evidence is—not just from nursing but from other university courses—that loans have not reduced the numbers of people wishing to go to university: indeed, quite the contrary. The number of people going to university has gone up since student loans were introduced. The demand from young men and women who wish to go into nursing is very strong. The noble Lord will know that 57,000 people apply every year to become nurses and there are only 20,000 places, so we are confident that this will result in more, not fewer nurses.

Health: Alcohol

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister on his courtesy in answering Questions in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps one or two of his colleagues might learn from that example. The logic of the Chief Medical Officer’s position is that essentially all alcohol is harmful. Is that the position of the Government?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

Thinking very quickly, my Lords, our position is that alcohol is not safe but it is low risk depending on how you drink. It is a low-risk activity at a level of about 14 units spread evenly across the week. I am sure that the noble Lord will adhere strictly to that guideline.

National Health Service Trust Development Authority (Directions and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) Regulations 2016.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the National Health Service Trust Development Authority (Directions and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) Regulations 2016 (2016/214).

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I should make it clear that, in raising issues around the governance of NHS Improvement, I make no criticism of the relatively newly appointed chairman and chief executive of that body, both of whom have outstanding records and have, I know, much to contribute to the National Health Service. I want to raise two sets of issues: the governance arrangements for NHS Improvement; and, linked to that, the future of NHS foundation trusts.

The Motion and the order relate to the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, which was established, as a result of a special health authority order in 2012, to manage the performance of English NHS trusts with the objective of assisting them to become foundation trusts. In contrast, NHS foundation trusts are regulated by Monitor under a number of pieces of legislation, including the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Therefore, both the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor are responsible for overseeing and, where necessary, helping to improve the performance of their respective cohorts of providers —NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.

The Government have argued that, in recent years, both the NHS TDA and Monitor have been working more closely together and are increasingly utilising similar interventions with their respective cohorts. Last summer, the Government announced that NHS TDA and Monitor would come together under a single leadership and operating model. As part of these arrangements, they would share a single leadership team—comprising the chief exec, chair and a joint board—with the organisations to be known as NHS Improvement. In addition, safety and quality would be key components of the new arrangements, with the national safety function previously exercised by NHS England being transferred essentially to NHS Improvement but formally exercised by the NHS Trust Development Authority.

This seems to be a complex governance arrangement, and no one should underestimate the challenge for NHS Improvement, which has to manage a complex range of functions and accountabilities. Monitor’s duties, as economic sector regulator and its role in ensuring the regulation of foundation trusts, remain risk based and proportionate, in line with the “earned freedoms and autonomy” accorded to the foundation trust model. Alongside that, the function of the NHS TDA in supporting and offering oversight for NHS trusts is equally important in the current, challenging financial climate. Then there are NHS Improvement’s new duties to improve trusts and integrate the safety function formerly hosted by NHS England.

The governance structure is therefore complex. NHS TDA and Monitor remain separate institutions—one a special health authority and the other an organisation established in statute and subject to extensive provision in primary legislation. Indeed, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 contains no less than 85 clauses relating directly to Monitor and about 85 days were spent in your Lordships’ House debating them. There is no clause relating to the NHS Trust Development Authority because it is a special health authority, yet it seems to be the principal vehicle by which functions are to be transferred to NHS Improvement.

NHS Improvement is itself subject to no legislation, but a board using its name as a banner will oversee both the NHS TDA and Monitor with the same executive team and operating procedures. My understanding from what has been said is that, in statute, Monitor and the TDA will continue to have their own boards but these will have identical membership and meet as one NHS Improvement board. They will also continue to publish separate annual reports alongside an aggregate report from NHS Improvement. To all intents and purposes, NHS Improvement will operate as one board, with one set of staff and operating procedures, but the legislative provisions under which it operates will be quite separate for NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts.

I ask the Minister how realistic it is to expect staff to work under a single operating procedure, given the hugely different legislative provisions relating to foundation and non-foundation trusts, unless the market and competition provisions in the 2012 Act are effectively ignored. The King’s Fund, in its analysis of the planning guidance for 2016-17, has said that it effectively spells the end of the emphasis on competition and the principle of autonomy.

Linked to this is the question of the future of NHS foundation trusts. In effect, if FTs and non-FTs are treated in the same way, overseen by the same board, the same members of staff and the same operating procedures, what on earth is the point of being a foundation trust? What will happen to non-FTs that were in the pipeline to gain FT status—what is the point of them applying? I raise this question as an unashamed supporter of the concept of NHS foundation trusts. I think they were the right approach and I am convinced that their governance model, whereby the board is accountable through the governing body to local members, has many advantages.

The noble Lord, Lord Prior, was a distinguished chairman of a very successful foundation trust, and I had a similar experience. While, having been the chairman of a board, I can say that meetings of the governing body were not always comfortable, I thought it was a strength that the board had to account to local people for its performance. Of course, that is not the situation for non-foundation trusts but, if I were now the chairman of a non-foundation trust, I could not see what advantage there would be to me in becoming a foundation trust, because essentially the economic regulator would manage my trust in the same way as it would a foundation trust. At least, that seems to be the implication of the regulations and the changes made to NHS Improvement.

I have seen an intimation that, following these regulations, there will be no further pieces of legislation in relation to operating procedures. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Prior, why that is and whether he can assure me that, with the same group of staff and the same board, the autonomy and independence of foundation trusts, as opposed to NHS trusts, will be respected. I also ask him how this then relates to the development of the strategic transformation plans at local level, which on any reading also signals to me that we are moving back to a planning model of the health service. Again, it would be very interesting to get the Minister’s comments on that. Above all else, I hope that he can reassure me that the Government are still committed to the model of foundation trusts, particularly regarding the strength that it brings to local autonomy and governance. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have no intention of detaining the Committee, as I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I am particularly concerned that a very complex system of governance will not produce transparency and accountability, and I look forward to reassurance on that score.

--- Later in debate ---

Speaking more generally, we see NHS Improvement more as being essentially an improvement agency holding trusts to account and giving them help and support to achieve high levels of performance rather than being purely a regulator, which is I think how Monitor was originally established. Clearly, the role of the foundation trust that the noble Lord mentioned in his speech is going to change over time, but I can assure him that the benefits of foundation trusts, through the clearer accountability and earned autonomy, will still be very much a part of the future.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for his response. I certainly understand the need for speed and the erosion over time of the distinction between foundation trusts and non-foundation trusts. I also agree with the Minister on the issue of competition. The past years have shown that while it can play a role, that role should be limited, and I have no objection to that, nor, indeed, to the extended remit of improvement. That is something which has been missing from the regulatory apparatus and it is to be welcomed.

I would like to make a couple of points. First, the Minister said that we are moving locally to system-level leadership and development. I am sure that that is right, but I hope that local accountability will be borne in mind. I have just had responses to a number of Questions for Written Answer that I tabled about accountability in the sustainability and transformation plans. As the Minister knows, they have to be in by 30 June. We know that they will all say that the acute care footprint will be reduced by so many hundreds of beds—to be honest, this has all been done before—and they will then say that there is going to be heroic demand management and, somehow or other, there will be miraculous developments in the community. But they will not have ownership locally because, essentially, they are being top-down led. At some point, they will have to go through formal consultation procedures and I believe that, unless there are some powerful forms of local accountability, they will run into trouble.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I think that the noble Lord has put his finger on it. If the STP process is just another top-down-led system redesign, it will not have any teeth to it. But what has happened in Manchester, for example, is that there is clear local leadership and accountability, which mean that some of the really difficult decisions that have not been taken for generations are now being addressed. There must be effective local accountability and governance around the STPs.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The other area, which I have raised with the Minister before, is in relation to clinical commissioning groups. First, the creation of federations of GPs makes the model unsustainable in the long term, because in some parts of the country the electoral body for the GP members of CCGs will be almost coterminous with the federations. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest in that. Secondly, there is still an issue about the accountability of CCGs. If ever one needed a governance structure that made them somehow locally accountable, the foundation trust model would provide some answers which I hope that the Government will look at.

My final point is on what legislation will be in the Queen’s Speech. Clearly, from all that the Minister has said, much of the 2012 Act is defunct in practice. We are moving to a planning model, and the Act is very different from that. The longer that this goes on, the more need there will be at some point for some legislative change, because at the moment people in the health service are at risk. They are essentially being asked to develop a system-led planning model, but that is challengeable because the Act is very different from that. I believe that at some point it will be challenged. The Government may not want to have core health legislation debated, but at some point that will have to be done. I also remind him that we still have a draft Law Commission Bill and I am hoping that, at the very least, we will see a short form of that announced in the Queen’s Speech.

This has been an excellent debate and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Prior.

Motion agreed.

Care Quality Commission (Fees) (Reviews and Performance Assessments) Regulations 2016

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Care Quality Commission (Fees) (Reviews and Performance Assessments) Regulations 2016 (2016/249).

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this is rather like the previous debate in the sense that it is important that this matter is at least discussed and given some form of parliamentary scrutiny, given that the CQC is going to impose very large increases on NHS and private care providers at a time of great financial challenge. I am someone who is impressed with the way that the CQC has developed, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who was the chair of the CQC. It clearly performs a vital role.

At the same time as Ministers have increased the responsibilities of the CQC, they have squeezed its budget and my understanding is that, over the next four years, its overall budget will be reduced by £32 million. The proportion of its budget as grant in aid from the department will reduce and the proportion charged to providers will increase. I understand that its budget next year will be £236 million, which is a sharp reduction of £13 million from that of 2015-16. Like all public bodies with fee-setting powers, CQC expects to follow government policy by levying fees that will, over time, fully cover the cost of its chargeable activities. Previously, CQC was able to charge for some but not all of its activities, so these regulations are a prerequisite to enable it to meet the Government-set target of full cost recovery through a dramatic increase in fees.

Given the budgetary pressure it faces, the CQC undertook a consultation—I will come back to this consultation process—that recommended to the Secretary of State that the CQC should move to full cost recovery in just two years. I understand that there was a good deal of toing and froing between the CQC and the Government on this and that the CQC reluctantly asked for a two-year full cost recovery. The Government have really refused to help out or to give greater flexibility in relation to the number of years that it should take to meet full cost recovery.

I want to raise three issues. First, there is no doubt that this will have a financial impact of some significance on struggling providers by diverting resources away from front-line patient care. Secondly, there is the timing, given that the CQC is about to implement a new strategy in which it will evolve its approach to regulation considerably. Thirdly, there is the illogical series of consultations which took place with regard to these regulations, resulting in a lack of meaningful engagement by the Department of Health with the front line.

If the Government proceed, CQC fees will increase by a massive amount for individual secondary care providers. The estimate from NHS providers is the equivalent to every NHS provider losing two senior nurses. As the Minister knows, providers of NHS ambulance, acute, mental health and community services are already facing unprecedented financial challenges. I would have thought that the last thing the Government would want to do is put extra pressure on those providers at this time.

It is noticeable that, in the care sector, the care providers are facing huge financial acute pressure. Work in the past two weeks shows that up to a quarter of care homes fear financial catastrophe over the next 12 months. Again, I question the Government’s approach to regulation and the sustainability of these homes following such a large increase in fees.

The Government talk about a light-touch regulatory approach, and I suspect that in our next debate we might discuss that in detail. However, providers of health and care services had only two days’ notice of the fee increases before they came into effect. As no provision for this extra expense has been made through the national tariff, providers have to pay for it from money that would otherwise fund patient care.

We could debate the CQC as a whole, but I do not want to do that. I actually think that the CQC has been going in the right direction and I am keen to see its new strategic five-year plan, which is due for publication in the next week or so. David Behan, the chief inspector, commands a great deal of confidence in his mature, sensible approach. Certainly, my experience of large CQC inspections is that they can offer many insights and are getting better in quality as greater experience is gained. Therefore, this is not a criticism of CQC; it is about the impact on the NHS of a sudden increase in fees which, in relation to large NHS trusts, can amount to thousands and thousands of pounds.

On the consultation process, the decision to raise fees over two years has been made amidst a convoluted array of consultations, all of which have a bearing on the issues to be debated today. First, the CQC consulted on the timescale for moving on to full cost recovery. The Department of Health then consulted on a proposal that was a prerequisite for enabling the CQC to adopt full cost recovery for its current inspection model, amending legislation through the regulations debated today to allow full cost recovery of its comprehensive inspection regime through fees. Previously, the CQC had the power to charge health and care providers only for activities related to its core remit of ensuring minimum quality standards. So respondents to the CQC’s consultation were therefore obliged to opt for a trajectory to full year cost recovery of either two or four years before being invited to express views on whether such a move to full cost recovery was appropriate.

Further, the CQC was required to consult on the pace to full cost recovery before the final discussions regarding the spending review and the CQC’s budget for 2016-17 and before it consulted on its new strategy for the next five years. This did not allow for appropriate engagement on the proposals. Clearly, in the logical order of things, the CQC would have been allowed to finalise its strategy before making decisions about future fees. That was wholly unsatisfactory.

The consultation produced an almost unanimous conclusion that full cost recovery should be undertaken over four years rather than two. We need to remember that what this is doing is transferring money back from the Department of Health to the Treasury—we are talking about public money and it is about the way it goes through the system. But at a time of critical financial challenge in health and social care, the Government have bizarrely chosen to take money out of front-line services in order to give the Treasury more money. That essentially is what is happening at the core of this discussion.

At some point in the future, we are going to debate the NHS mandate—I think that it will finally reach us in the new Session—but, at the same time as this financial squeeze is being made, we have the extra CQC fees while another arm of government, in the form of NHS PropCo, is now charging market rates for accommodation rented by the NHS. That is another transfer of money, a paper transfer, presumably to the DH’s central budget. However, it is coming from front-line services. We know that there are other examples, such as in relation to pension costs, which again is essentially a Treasury decision to take money out of front-line services, so it is not as if the CQC decision is isolated. A number of peculiar decisions are being made to take money out of funds going to the NHS.

Those of us who have picked up on the evidence given yesterday by the Secretary of State to the Health Select Committee can see that he made that abundantly clear. Let us go back to the £30 billion for five years estimated by NHS England. The Government claim that they have given £10 billion—which of course is £8 billion because they added an extra year in order to get up to £10 billion—but the Secretary of State made it clear yesterday that about half of that money has been taken away from central department resources. So the reality is that in fact very little extra money is being put into the NHS.

I know that we are not going to debate the overall finances of the health service today, but it is important that decisions about the CQC are seen in the context of a very stretched service. I hope that, at the very least, the Government will reconsider this because it is a bit much to say to health services and care providers that they are facing a huge financial challenge that is going to be made worse by insisting that they pay full cost recovery over two years. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I believe that it has gone into the baseline funding of the GP contract, but if I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Baroness.

More generally, the CQC’s scope and the way that it does its inspections is just much broader than it used to be. They are done in more depth and detail. This statutory instrument was introduced to Parliament so that it would reflect what the CQC is now doing and recognise its enlarged scope. The regulations do not extend the remit of the CQC’s activity or the scope of reviews or performance assessments to additional providers or services; neither does it change the fees actually charged.

The CQC, like every other aspect of the NHS, is going to have to save a considerable amount of money over the next five years, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to in his speech. This means that the kind of inspections which we have seen in some NHS trusts, where a large number of very expensive people descend upon a trust, will have to be scaled back to some extent. As the noble Baroness intimated, I think that we will see a more risk-based inspection model—a bit more like the Ofsted model. I suspect that we will see more unannounced inspections as well, because a large part of the cost of the CQC is not just its direct cost but the indirect costs on the trusts preparing for the inspections. Sometimes the degree of preparation undermines the validity and insightfulness of the actual inspection.

I take on board entirely the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This is another expense when times are extremely hard, but it reflects the fact that the scope of the CQC is now broader than it was three years ago, and the need to have full cost recovery over a fairly limited time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister. I have no problems whatever with the wider scope of the CQC’s responsibility, which inevitably has an impact on its cost base. Nor do I object to full cost recovery as a principle, because that has obviously been accepted by Governments over many years.

My complaint is that it is hugely insensitive for the Government to insist, which is essentially what has happened, that the NHS and parts of the care sector had to move to two-year full cost recovery. I note the alleviation given to GPs and domiciliary care, but I am puzzled that residential care was not given the same amelioration, given that, as we know, the care sector is in such a parlous state at the moment. We obviously look forward to the CQC strategy; I am sure it is right that it should be more risk based.

I very much welcomed the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service does its role very well. I also recently met RDB Star Rating, which is based in Sussex although it covers a number of institutions nationwide. It also made the point to me that, if you have a strong accreditation system, not only is there greater ownership by the bodies being accredited—because they have volunteered for it—but it ought to tie into the CQC process. The Minister has encouraged the noble Earl to meet the CQC; I hope that he might encourage the CQC to meet the noble Earl to see whether further progress can be made, because we clearly ought to take up the offer in relation to accreditation, if at all possible.

This has been a good debate. It is not at all a criticism of the CQC but of the Government and their approach, and it has been useful to raise those issues.

Motion agreed.

Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Grand Committee

The final thing is that wonderful conspiracy theory: that the Treasury gets huge amounts of tax from the smokers but not from the vapers, so the Treasury may rather see us smoking than see vaping take off, and that the Government have a vested interest in making sure that this directive goes through unchanged to prevent vaping. Maybe they should declare that every time they try to promote the directive.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a great debate and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for once again bringing our attention to this matter. It is a pity that we are in Grand Committee and not in the Chamber, but I can understand the reason for that. I should declare my presidency of the Royal Society for Public Health, which has of course produced documentary evidence on electronic cigarettes.

It is tempting to debate Europe—and I look forward to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, on that, as it clearly seems to be part of our debate—and it looks as if we have quite a long time to wait this evening. I am in favour of remaining in the EU, but I would remark that this directive does not seem to show much evidence of the Prime Minister’s claim to have negotiated a new concordat and relationship with the EU.

I am very doubtful about the argument that, if we were outside the EU, we would not be doing this. The fact is—I speak as president of the RSPH—that some elements in the public health world were prejudiced from the start against e-cigarettes. That clearly influenced the Department of Health and is the reason why it has taken such a mealy-mouthed approach to e-cigarettes, which is simply not based on evidence at all. It is interesting that, if you look at some of the papers produced by public health bodies, there are some weaselly words around this issue: “We still don’t know and we need to be very careful”. They are really trying to find a legitimisation for the initial very negative reaction, which I am afraid has laid the foundations for where we are today, because this is bonkers. It is simply madness. Here we have a product which is clearly of benefit to smokers and there is no evidence whatever that it will be used by non-smokers, which is where all this nonsense has come from. Why would a non-smoker take up these e-cigarettes?

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I have debated tobacco issues for many years, and he will know that I have been strongly in favour of very strong legislation. I moved the amendment to ban the smoking of tobacco in cars with children only a year or two ago, so I am not at all worried about being very tough on smoking, but e-cigarettes are completely different. I do not understand why they are part of the directive at all or classified in the same way.

The evidence is abundantly clear that e-cigarettes are almost wholly beneficial. My concern is that it is also clear that the public are, at the moment, confused. RSPH research revealed that 90% of the public still regard nicotine itself as harmful. Going back to September 2015, Public Health England issued a joint statement with other UK health organisations, saying:

“And yet, millions of smokers have the impression that e-cigarettes are at least as harmful as tobacco”.

It seems to me that one of the real adverse consequences of this is that, as it becomes known that there are going to be major restrictions on the promotion of e-cigarettes, all that will do is emphasise the belief that they are harmful. I have seen the RIA, but I could not see there any analysis of the impact that that could have on reducing the uptake of e-cigarettes among smokers. However, it is a very important point.

I want to put three points to the Minister. First, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, asked him what would happen to the investment in smoking cessation services. My understanding is that, as a result of the Government’s cut to the grant to local authorities for public health, smoking cessation services investment is going down. Will the Minister confirm that and say what he is doing to reverse the pattern?

The second point is that, clearly, this directive will go through, because there is no Motion to stop it. What monitoring will take place, and how soon will the Government undertake an assessment of the impact? Assuming that we are still in the EU, is the Minister prepared to go back to the EU if evidence becomes clear that this is having an adverse impact on smokers giving up smoking? I hope he can give some reassurance on that.

The third issue relates to enforcement. In the statutory instrument, regulation 53 makes it clear that:

“It is the duty of each weights and measures authority in Great Britain and each district council in Northern Ireland to enforce these Regulations within their area”.

What guidance is going to be given to the weights and measures authorities about taking a light-handed approach to enforcement?

It is quite clear that these provisions are not supported. It is pretty obvious that the Government themselves do not support them because of the amelioration that they have attempted in transposing the directive. At the very least, one could expect a message to be given to weights and measures authorities that the Government expect enforcement to be proportionate, minimalist and certainly light touch.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether to thank my noble friend Lord Ridley for bringing this debate here today or not. The arguments that have been put have been very powerful and it would be obtuse of me to say otherwise.

Perhaps I can start by going back to the opening words of my noble friend Lord Ridley, who said that there are three ways of trying to influence the behaviour of people doing things that do harm: you can punish them; you can hector them; or you can try to offer safer alternatives. In the article he wrote in the Times some time ago, he used the example of methadone as something that is not desirable in itself but is used as a means of treating people with heroin addiction.

In the case of tobacco we have tried all three things. We have penalised people through taxation, we have hectored them incessantly for years, and having tried nicotine replacement therapies, in a sense vaping is a way of encouraging people to use something that is considerably less harmful than smoking. Actually, most people would agree that we have been hugely successful in reducing the consumption of tobacco in England. I was asked for a statement of the Government’s view on vaping; I think I can say unequivocally that we are in favour of it as a means for people to come off smoking cigarettes. There is absolutely no question about that. The reports produced by Public Health England and most recently and very powerfully by the Royal College of Physicians entirely endorse that view. The president of the Royal College of Physicians, Professor Jane Dacre, said in response to the report:

“With careful management and proportionate regulation, harm reduction provides an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of people”.

I pick that out because she used the words “proportionate regulation”, and that is really what we are discussing today. It is not about whether we are in favour of vaping or not, it is about what kind of regulation should be around it.

On the European element, given that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, could not resist throwing that in as one of his questions, I am not sure whether if we had been left to our own devices we might not have come out with something far worse several years ago. The noble Lord was kind enough to mention the original views of PHE and the MHRA, so we may well have brought in a licensing system or even have banned them altogether. I am not sure that one can lay this at the door of Brussels or indeed our own Government. We have been far too quick to resort to regulation in many areas and as a rule I am wholly in sympathy with less regulation. That is the best place to start. What we are discussing today is whether this regulation is proportionate, what damage it could do or what the directive’s unintended consequences might be.

I should just mention while I have it to hand, to put the concerns of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara to rest, that the concentration which he is taking it at will not be affected. It will not have to be licensed by the MHRA, but sadly I cannot say the same to my noble friend Lord Cathcart, who at 2.4% is higher than 2%, which is the cut-off point for licensing. But I shall come to that in more detail in a minute, if I can.

Perhaps I may pick up on a few of the fears that noble Lords have expressed about the directive and see whether I can allay their minds today. It has been said that the directive will ban flavourings in e-liquids. I should make it clear that it will not do so. What it does say is that flavourings which pose a risk to human health should not be used; we could probably all agree that that is a sensible rule. There is an additive called diacetyl, which I think is also used in the making of popcorn, and there are other flavourings where there is some evidence that airways can be inflamed. The noble Lord appears to be questioning that, but I think the RCP report cites evidence that some flavourings can cause damage.

It has also been said that the directive will ban all advertising and prevent shop owners communicating with their customers. It does not do that. The new rules do not prevent information being provided to customers either online or in physical retail outlets, nor does it ban online forums, independently compiled reviews or blogs. Some advertising will also be allowed, such as point-of-sale, billboards and leaflets, subject to the rules set out in existing advertising codes to ensure that these do not appeal to people aged under 18 or non-users. There will therefore remain a wide range of information on the products available to smokers who wish to buy these products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The intention of the regulations is to make vaping safer and less variable than it currently is. The intention of the directive is to make it a better product and to cause more people to use it. If it does indeed result in smokers not giving up smoking, then it will have achieved the reverse of what the Government wish to do. The Government’s view is clear: we wish people to quit altogether but if, as a way of quitting, they can give up smoking and take up vaping, that is something that we wish to encourage. Of course, I understand that nothing I can say today will satisfy my noble friends and other noble Lords, but I have done my best to put our case forward.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The Minister is very gracious to keep giving way. It is interesting that he used those terms. There is a reluctance to promote vaping. Even in the words that he used there was a qualification. The Government would prefer everyone to give up smoking but it sounds as though they are half-hearted about this. I understand why they are in that position but the issue that I raised with the Minister is that the evidence is that the public are confused. My concern is that if weights and measures authorities enforce this in a heavy-handed way, it will confirm the public’s view that there is something wrong with vaping. For goodness’ sake, if we could persuade all smokers to vape, it would be a fantastic public health movement. Why is there this hesitation? I do not understand it.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I think that the hesitation comes because for a number of years the evidence around vaping was not clear. Many distinguished scientists felt that it was potentially harmful; it was not just the tobacco lobby. It is now absolutely clear, as I said earlier—I am unequivocal about this—that vaping is far more preferable to smoking. That does not alter the fact that quitting altogether, either smoking or vaping, is probably the best outcome.