Mental Health Services
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the debate and very much support the speech made by my noble friend Lady Thornton. I also welcome the work done by the CQC, which identified some good practice but also raised some very serious failings in services. My noble friends Lady Massey, Lord Graham and Lady Thornton have rightly focused on CAMH services and the failures that have been very well documented. We know that the budget for CAMH services has been cut in real terms from £766 million in 2009-10 to £717 million in 2012-13. As we have heard, NHS England’s own 2014 tier 4 CAMHS report confirmed that 16% of patients travelled more then 100 miles to receive treatment, with many going more than 200 miles. It is clear that access for these young people to 24/7 services has worsened, with A&E or a police station often the only place to go.
I have no doubt that the Minister will put his trust in the crisis care concordat. I acknowledge the excellent work that has been done, and the concordat is clear: people experiencing a mental health crisis should have access to the help and support that they need 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But what is the status of the concordat? Is it being performance managed? Who, ultimately, is accountable for its implementation?
The CQC recommends that representatives of local crisis care concordat groups ensure: first, that all ways into crisis care are focused on providing accessible and available support; secondly, that commissioners are to be held to account; and thirdly, that they should engage with partners to encourage innovation. The question is how. If, for instance, their action plans are insufficient, what is going to happen and who is going to make them turn them into effective action plans? The concordat does not specify which organisation should lead this work locally. Why on earth not? The care concordat approach is an excellent one, but it lacks bite because no one is being held accountable for its implementation. Can the Minister sort this out and make sure that someone is truly held accountable?
I read a letter sent very recently by the Minister’s right honourable friend Mr Alistair Burt to the mental health crisis care concordat national signatory organisations. It is a remarkable letter of four pages, reading as eloquently as I would expect because DH officials drafted it. I have told the Minister before that DH officials are very good at writing letters and reports. However, it is all words. There is absolutely nothing in it. It has nothing to say about forcing the pace locally on implementing the concordat.
Of course, the Government have form here. I will not cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about credit for the parity of esteem amendment. All I will say is that it might have been her amendment but it was our votes “wot done it”—but we look forward to working together in future. Yet, despite the law, the NHS is determined not to implement it. We start with what can only be described as the outrageous decision of NHS England the year before last to discriminate in mental health funding as opposed to other services.
We have been told that funding for 2014-15 in mental health was planned to rise by £120 million. What was the actual outturn figure? Why do the Government say that more money will go into mental health whereas my understanding is that the forward plans of mental health trusts show that many are planning for a reduction because they have no confidence whatever that clinical commissioning groups will actually do what they were told? NHS England has direct control over CCGs. Why is it not informing CCGs that they must put more money into mental health services?
We now have transformation plans. My understanding is that the Government tasked every CCG with creating transformation plans outlining what they will do to deliver mental health. How will we judge whether those have been successful? We know that mental health data collection is poor. We also understand that the Government are producing guidance for CCGs on how to complete the transformation plans. A key question is: they produce the plan, but then what? Who will actually hold them to account for delivering on it?
That leads me to the better care fund. The Minister knows that this is designed to provide a joint approach to the planning and delivery of health and social care services. Now, given the pressures on A&E, which is really what this is meant to address, and given that we know that because of the cutbacks in mental health services more and more people with mental health issues come to A&E, I would have thought that mental health services would be at the heart of these better care fund plans. However, my understanding from Written Answers to PQs is that of the £5.3 billion of plans submitted in September last year, a mere £370 million was planned for investment in mental health services. That is an extraordinarily low figure. It means that the health service is determined not to implement parity of esteem despite it being a legal requirement. Finally, when will the Government get serious about making the NHS not only respond to guidance or plans but actually act in relation to mental health according to the law of the land?
NHS: Immigration Rules
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their response is to the Royal College of Nursing report concerning the impact of immigration rules on the employment of foreign nurses within the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, ensuring we have the right number of nurses is vital. That is why we are taking the issue of nursing recruitment seriously and have prioritised and invested in front-line staff, so there are over 8,600 more nurses on our wards. Health Education England’s workforce plan for England for 2015-16 forecasts that, following further increases in the number of training commissions, the proposed levels for nurse training will deliver over 23,000 more nurses by 2019.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the RCN report estimates that as a result of the migration rules around 7,000 nurses will be forced to leave the NHS because they do not reach the £35,000 per annum employment threshold. Despite the modest increase in the number of training places, is he confident that that gap can be filled, alongside dealing with the current recruitment crisis, the extra nurses needed for seven-day working, the extra nurses needed for improved patient-staff ratios and the Government’s indication that they want to rule out the use of agency nurses in future? When will all those policies be adopted alongside the 7,000 reduction in overseas nurses?
NHS: Innovation
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wills for opening this debate in an excellent way. I am going to talk a little bit about NHS procurement so I should declare an interest as president of both GS1 and the HCSA.
It is my great privilege to anticipate the Minister’s maiden speech, congratulate him on it and welcome him to your Lordships’ House. He is a distinguished businessman, politician and, latterly, was chairman of the fantastic Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and the Care Quality Commission. I think it is fair to say that he inherited the CQC in a somewhat fragile state. It is to his great credit that he and chief executive David Behan have stabilised the position. I do not take the Roy Lilley approach to the CQC. Of course there will always be issues about its methodology and the way it practises regulation, but I have no doubt that under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, the CQC was definitely going in the right direction, and we owe him a great debt for that. I should also say that I particularly appreciated the fact that he and his chief executive made themselves available frequently to politicians, and that approachability is also very much respected and appreciated. I am sure that that will also characterise his frequent appearances in your Lordships’ House in our many health debates.
This is a very important question. We have the great paradox that this country has, as my noble friend Lord Turnberg suggested, a hugely impressive life science base and much-valued R&D. Even today, with all the pressures on UK pharma, there are still many drugs in the top 100 globally which have been developed in this country, yet we have a real problem in adoption by the National Health Service. My fear is always that unless we can dramatically change the approach of the NHS, we will put at risk future global investment in this country.
I shall start by referring to the points raised by my noble friend in opening the debate, on giant-cell arteritis. I have come across similar problems in another disease area—we have had debates on them in your Lordships’ House: one on PAWS GIST, and another on neurofibromatosis NF-1—and my experience is exactly the same as my noble friend’s. The problem is where there are small numbers of patient groups and effectively no national strategy. CCGs simply do not have the capacity, capability or desire to do anything about it at a local level, and GPs are inundated with guidance on one thing or another, making it very unfair to attack GPs on this matter. It is clear that we lack a strategy within NHS England for dealing with these patient groups—these disease areas—where they involve a small number of people. Like my noble friend, I have had a number of meetings with officials at NHS England who are clearly completely overwhelmed by the task in hand. There is no decision-making structure that I can see where you can ask, “Who in NHS England is responsible for giant-cell arteritis?”. It is quite clear that no one has responsibility. They may well have a clinical director who has some vague oversight, but that is as good as it gets.
What has happened to the clinical directors is disgraceful. Under the Labour Government they were employed in the department, with direct access to Ministers. Now they are part-timers in NHS England, with no support and no access to the top of the office, and are left in an impossible position. I hope the noble Lord will sort that out. I also hope he will encourage NHS England to take a much more progressive view on innovation. I welcome a number of the Government’s initiatives, such as AHSNs and the current accelerated access review. Those are strongly welcomed. I know that Mr George Freeman, in his department, shares the concern that we have about the need for adoption in the NHS. However, someone has to sort NHS England out.
We have already heard about the problem of drugs that do not go through the NICE cycle. Basically, NHS England has set up a rationing tool to delay their introduction; that is why there are so many committees—it is simply a rationing tool. The gross example of this relates to the new PPRS agreement on drugs. In that area I congratulate the Government on negotiating an agreement whereby over a five-year period, if drug costs go up a certain level, a rebate is paid out to government. Every quarter a rebate is paid back. I think we have now gone through 18 months, so another rebate is due shortly. The money coming back could have been used to finance new and innovative medicines, but no—it is simply being taken and put into general allocations. There was an opportunity there for the pharmaceutical industry to finance the introduction of innovative new drugs, because we know what the drug costs will be over a five-year period. However, my understanding is that because NHS England was not part of those negotiations, and despite what it says in the NHS Five Year Forward View and Simon Stevens’ commitment to innovation, the practice of NHS England is in fact to stamp on innovation, because the only thing it is interested in is containing costs, and it sees that at a very crude level.
As the noble Lord will know, the 2012 Act has effectively been disowned by the Secretary of State. Every announcement that has been made in the last few weeks suggests that we are going back to good old command and control, and thank goodness for that. The Minister needs to take a grip on this, otherwise we will have another debate on innovation every year. Frankly, it is clear that the NHS is not going to adopt proven innovative new developments, techniques and medicines.
My final point concerns the report of my noble friend Lord Carter, which was published today. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the work that he has done, and I absolutely agree with him when he says that a better approach to purchasing will bring good returns. Again, it has been abundantly clear that we need a central, directional approach to procurement if we are to get those savings. The question that I want to put to the Minister relates to a new approach to purchasing, where essentially the Department of Health or NHS England, on behalf of the NHS, will commit itself to volume purchasing in order to get the kinds of savings that we want. Can he ensure that in the discussions that he takes forward it will be clear to the people doing the negotiations that part of the outcome will be a willingness to invest in innovation? I think that there is the potential for very good, longer-term agreements with industry in which the NHS, because it can commit to volumes, can achieve considerable savings. However, the deal has to be that the NHS adopts new, innovative products and medicines, rather than a penny-pinching approach, which in the end will be cost effective.
I know that some of those matters come within the responsibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. He is warmly welcomed to this House and to his position, and we very much look forward to hearing his maiden speech.
Penrose Inquiry
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating that Answer. Clearly the Penrose report is a detailed factual account of what happened, and I pay tribute to Lord Penrose for the work that he and his team have completed.
I noted the noble Earl’s comments this afternoon that we have the initial response, but that the full response is to be left to the next Government. It is clear that the report needs very careful reading in order to come to a substantive view. Certainly, as a Minister, I dealt with this issue in my time at the Department of Health—I see the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and other former Ministers here—and Dr David Owen has on a number of occasions drawn attention to some issues about the way this was handled by the Department of Health. On the face of it, does the noble Earl think that at the very least this warrants some discussion about whether his own department needs to establish some kind of view on the Penrose report?
Lord Penrose made a single recommendation: that all people in Scotland who had a blood transfusion before 1991 should be tested for hepatitis C. Again, is that to be left to the substantive response after the election, or can he give an initial view on the implications of that recommendation for people affected in England?
The noble Earl referred to relief. Can he say anything about the Skipton Fund payments and progress made on that fund since its establishment in 2004, and about decisions that I believe were made by the Government in January 2011 with regard to payments to the estates of people who died prior to the announcement of the scheme in August 2003?
One of the stark conclusions from reading the report is about what could be described as the paternalistic view taken by doctors on information to be given to patients. He says that the expert evidence available to the inquiry indicated the withholding of information from patients on the absence of treatment for the condition, which from a contemporary ethical perspective was not acceptable. Does the noble Earl agree with that, and does he consider that circumstances have moved on such that today such information would not be withheld?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his comments and questions. There is no doubt that Lord Penrose has done a very thorough job in examining the facts. It is worth understanding that he has considered the evidence from England as well as Scotland.
I pay tribute to those who showed tremendous courage in telling the inquiry about the impact of infection on their lives and the lives of their families. The report has systematically examined the facts and set them out. As well as other inquires, such as the Archer inquiry, with which the noble Lord is familiar, this report has now given us a detailed account of what happened, which is extremely valuable. I agree that there will be a need to reach a formal view on Penrose’s conclusions once my department and the next Government have had an opportunity properly to consider the conclusions that he reached.
As for Lord Penrose’s recommendation to offer a hepatitis C test to everyone who had a blood transfusion before 1991, the department conducted a look-back exercise in 1995 to try to identify everyone who might have received infected blood prior to 1991. We will consider whether anything more can be done on this in England, although obviously Lord Penrose’s recommendation relates specifically to the Scottish Government taking steps along these lines. We have already done an exercise to identify anyone who could have been affected, and we will consider whether anything more should be done on this.
The noble Lord asked about the Skipton Fund, which, as noble Lords will remember, is there to make non-discretionary payments to patients infected with hepatitis C. To date, over 5,100 individuals in the UK have received the stage one payment and around 1,500 have received a stage two lump sum in the UK, with around 700 receiving annual payments in the UK.
Public Contracts Regulations 2015
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 laid before the House on 5 February are being implemented with unseemly haste, will cause confusion as to which procurement regime is to be used for integrated health and care contracts, and do not implement the assurances given by Ministers to Parliament during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that NHS commissioners would be free to commission services in the way they consider in the best interests of NHS patients. (SI 2015/102)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I say at once that I welcome certain aspects of the regulations we will debate tonight, specifically the help for social enterprises. However, I am concerned about their potential impact on the NHS, the enforced tendering of services that will entail and the potential confusion between two different sets of procurement regimes for the health and social care sector.
These regulations implement the main public sector procurement directive agreed by the EU in 2014 but also introduce a number of UK-specific changes intended to open up public procurement, including for small businesses. The directive replaces the old system of type A and type B services, and the new light-touch regime will apply to health and social services—formerly Part B services.
Contracts in the category will fall under the new rules if they are valued at above €750,000. Above the threshold, commissioners will have to publicise in advance their intention to award contracts and announce the contract award decision after it has been made. This regime will sit alongside the healthcare-specific requirements in the NHS (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) Regulations 2013 and Section 75 of the 2012 Act, which we debated in your Lordships’ House on 24 April 2013. I am sure that the noble Earl will recall that lively debate.
The introduction of this new regime has been delayed for NHS-funded healthcare services until April 2016 to allow commissioners time to adapt. The Government have argued that this is necessary because of the need to ensure that commissioners and other key stakeholders are fully prepared. The Government have stressed that other contracting authorities, such as local authorities, are not subject to these additional domestic regulations and therefore need to follow the new rules for the light-touch regime as soon as they come into force. However, the Government have also been forced to acknowledge that there are concerns about the scope for potential confusion as a result of the existence of two regimes side by side for another 12 months.
The Opposition have sought two different legal opinions, both of which advised that these new regulations could force the tendering of NHS health and social care services to go beyond the requirements of the Section 75 regulations under the 2012 Act. Practically all health services will be above the €750,000 threshold. This would escalate the level of service tendering and privatisation of health and social care services as well as wasting vast amounts of money on pointless tendering procedures when the money would be far better spent delivering services for NHS patients.
At best, the new procurement regulations are confused and unclear. NHS services have an additional year because the new regulations do not come into force for health services until April 2016, whereas they came into force on 26 February 2015 for all other areas. Council social care services have to comply with these new regulations immediately so, in effect, two procurement systems will be operating for health and care until 2016. There will undoubtedly be confusion over the definition of some services, to do with whether they are strictly social care or include elements of healthcare as well, and therefore whether they are subject to these regulations and there is a requirement for them to be advertised and tendered. The advice we have—I think experience in the last three years shows that this will be the case—is that CCGs will understandably err on the side of caution to avoid legal challenge and therefore advertise or tender services in case the new regulations are found to apply to them.
What happens if an NHS body wishes to commission a contract that includes elements of clinical healthcare and social care? This will not be completely unknown, given the effort that we all support towards trying to integrate health and social care. The question arises: which regime will the NHS body have to follow? Will it not be driven to split out these elements in two separate contracts to comply with two separate legal requirements? What about the potential for legal challenge? Would it not drive a wedge between joined-up commissioning of health and social care?
The regulations also fail to take advantage of many of the flexibilities in the 2014 directive that could have exempted the NHS from having to run pointless tenders. They also fail to incorporate the flexibilities in the directive that would have allowed NHS bodies to decide not to tender when there are wider strategic interests that mean a comprehensive local health service must continue to be provided by a key NHS provider.
These missed opportunities reflect the Government’s political imperative to turn the NHS into a market and pave the way for private sector operators to deliver more NHS services. The imposition of market mechanisms when they are not needed, and the failure to allow CCGs flexibility to decide when tendering is the right approach for patients, will create wholly unnecessary additional cost and uncertainty at a time when NHS bodies should be focused on meeting the needs of an ageing population and improving services.
We are already seeing the impact because many CCGs undoubtedly believe that there is no alternative to full-scale tender. A vast amount of resources is being consumed, with no benefit to patients. The evidence is clear. Commissioner spending on private providers has increased from £4.1 billion in 2009-10 to £6.3 billion in 2013-14. The proportion by value of community health services provided by private sector providers has increased from 12% in 2010-11 to 18% in 2012-13. Private provider spending on mental health services increased by 12% between 2010-11 and 2012-13. Overall, the Department of Health’s annual accounts suggest that some £10 billion of the total NHS budget of £113 billion is spent on care from non-NHS providers.
Some large contracts have attracted particular attention and concern. For example, in Staffordshire, CCGs are seeking bids for a 10-year contract worth £1.2 billion for cancer and end-of-life care, which is potentially likely to significantly involve private sector providers. Then there is the Bedfordshire case. The Bedfordshire CCG awarded a five-year contract to Circle as prime provider, assuming a total risk for musculoskeletal services worth £120 million. A local NHS provider has subsequently refused to sign the contract under which it would provide some of those services because it would see a referral drop of 30%, thereby putting at risk its trauma services, which are cross-subsidised by musculoskeletal services. There are other examples of bizarre decisions being made by clinical commissioning groups because they feel that they must put services out to tender, and by doing so they seem to have no analysis of what that would mean for the viability of the whole health service system.
A recent study by the British Medical Journal found that one-third of contracts to provide clinical services awarded in the year from 2013 were secured by private providers. A study by the NHS Support Federation found that, of 80 contracts awarded, 54 went to non-NHS providers. We have also seen what I can describe only as a ludicrous intervention by the competition authorities in sensible service changes in Dorset and then Bristol.
I am sure that the noble Earl will want me to refer to the recent King’s Fund study, which concluded that any benefits from competition,
“can be outweighed by costs and difficulties of competitive process”.
As the study says, it is also clear that CCGs remain very uncertain about procurement and tendering rules. They are spending a lot of money on legal advice. A lot of that legal advice is very risk-averse, which is why so many services are being put out to tender.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response. He said that the imperative of the Government to introduce the regulations early is because of the economic benefits. Let me say at once that I have always accepted that there are some benefits in these regulations. I particularly welcome the social enterprises provisions, but my concern remains, rather like that of the right reverend Prelate, that the introduction of the regulations applying to care services now as far as local government is concerned, along with the existence of NHS regulations, will cause a great deal of confusion.
I also think that the noble Earl is underestimating the confusion out there in the health service about which services should be tendered and which should not. I do not believe that clinical commissioning groups accept the kind of view that he is putting forward. They are getting legal advice that actually makes them very risk averse. The noble Earl said that the requirement to advertise does not mean that people have to tender, but once you advertise you are inevitably on a route towards tendering.
Finally, on Staffordshire, my issue is that essentially the CCGs are outsourcing commissioning decisions which they as the statutory bodies ought to be taking for 10 years, and they are failing to engage with the public. They will not appear at public meetings to defend the position. The noble Earl will know from MPs in Staffordshire that there is a lot of concern about this, and if a Labour Government are elected we will certainly want to call in on what is happening.
Before I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that he has been the Minister for Health in this Chamber for five years, and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton and myself I would like to thank him for the courteous way in which he has responded to our many debates. I particularly thank him for the way he has agreed to meet a number of small charities over those five years on issues that I have raised. That is very much appreciated. I should also say that we have enjoyed working with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, as well.
Barts Health NHS Trust
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for repeating that. It is a worrying report about the largest trust in England, which is directly managed by his department through the NHS Trust Development Authority. Why have these problems been allowed to get worse over the past two years? Does he agree that the report has identified that the root cause of the problem was the reorganisation of the trust in 2013? Can he say why Ministers overruled the Co-operation and Competition Panel, which advised against the proposed merger and warned of the adverse consequences for patients?
Earl Howe
The decision to create Barts Health was taken following a report that analysed the options open to the department at that time. As the noble Lord knows, there was, effectively, a merger of several trusts to create Barts Health. The advice received by the Secretary of State at the time was that none of the three trusts subject to the merger with Barts was sustainable as a stand-alone organisation. The appraisal of the options identified the three-way merger as the most beneficial and strategic solution for the system as a whole, taking into account a wide range of clinical, financial and government issues.
False or Misleading Information (Specified Care Providers and Specified Information) Regulations 2015
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, before I go into the detail of the regulations, I will briefly set out the background for why this offence was set in statute and why the regulations are required.
The report of the Francis inquiry into the events at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust made clear the need for clear and reliable information about the quality of care and organisational performance. The inquiry found that inaccurate statistics about mortality rates obscure the true picture of care and can allow poor care to continue unchecked. The creation of a culture of openness and honesty is vital in improving care in the NHS and in empowering staff to challenge poor care where and when it occurs, and this Government have taken great strides to ensure that this is the case.
The provision of accurate information is central to the safe functioning of the NHS. It provides the intelligence on which commissioners and regulators form judgments about the quality of care. Where that information is wrong, it can result in delays in taking action to protect patients and service users. Deliberately falsifying such information is a serious matter that can frustrate attempts to provide safe care for patients and service users.
Care providers, which are directly responsible for the standard of services, have a clear responsibility to ensure that the information they supply is accurate and gives a true picture of the standards of care that they provide. The Care Act 2014 put in place a new criminal offence that will apply to care providers that supply, publish or otherwise make available false or misleading information. The offence will apply to the misreporting of information that is required to comply with a legal obligation. I wish to emphasise that last point: this offence applies only to providers of care, not regulators or commissioners of care.
Where a provider is found to have committed the offence, which could be as a result of deliberately supplying false or misleading information or as a result of neglect, the provider can be fined by the courts. In addition, the courts can require the provider to take action to address the failings which led to the offence occurring and make publicly known the action it is taking.
The FOMI offence can also apply to senior individuals within a care provider but only when the care provider has been found guilty of the offence. Senior individuals can also be found guilty of the offence where they have consented or connived in the publication or submission of false or misleading information, or have been sufficiently neglectful in their duties to allow false or misleading information to be published. An individual found guilty of the offence could face imprisonment of up to two years, a fine or both.
Of course, misreporting of information can be the result of genuine error and it is essential that such mistakes do not result in a criminal conviction. The Care Act 2014 therefore allows for a defence against the offence where a care provider is able to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid the misreporting of information.
The primary legislation contains a regulation-making power that allows the types of care providers and the types of information to which the offence applies to be specified in regulations. The regulations before the Committee specify that the offence will apply to NHS trusts in England, NHS foundation trusts and other persons who provide health services from a non-NHS hospital,
“pursuant to arrangements made with a public body”.
For clarification, this means that the offence can apply to independent providers delivering services under an NHS contract, but only if they are also required to submit or publish the information included in the regulations.
The information to which the FOMI offence applies is focused on the issues raised by Robert Francis, such as mortality figures, and is supplied by providers of NHS secondary care. This is a short list, but one that represents a significant quantity of data provided by the NHS and forms the foundation of the information used to assess NHS performance.
The regulations include other key information supplied by providers of NHS secondary care, including cancer waiting times, maternity data sets, many of the core commissioning data sets and NHS quality accounts. The latter is an important inclusion, as Sir Robert Francis specifically recommended that:
“It should be a criminal offence for a director to sign a declaration of belief that the contents of a quality account are true if it contains a misstatement of fact concerning an item of prescribed information which he/she does not have reason to believe is true at the time of making the declaration”.
All the information listed in the regulations is that which providers are or will be required to publish or submit because of a statutory or other legal obligation. This is a requirement of the primary legislation of the Care Act 2014 and an important part of the legislation for a few reasons.
First, it means that a provider cannot opt out of submitting or publishing information just because it wants to circumvent the false or misleading information offence. Secondly, as this is information that is already required to be published or submitted, we are not requiring providers of NHS secondary care services to undertake any additional work—only that they should ensure the information they provide is accurate and not misleading. Finally, providers of NHS secondary care services publish or submit on a voluntary basis a great deal of information which is incredibly valuable to improving the delivery of services and developing a greater understanding of the nation’s health. We do not want to dissuade providers from submitting or publishing such information, which is why the offence cannot be applied to information of that type.
In summary, the offence will apply only to the providers listed in the regulations and only where the offence occurs in relation to the provision or publication of the information listed. When the Department of Health consulted on the regulations in 2014, it was noted that the application of the offence was quite complicated. We have addressed this concern through guidance on the application of the FOMI offence which sets out how this law works.
The FOMI offence puts in place an important new sanction against providers of NHS-funded secondary care that mislead others about the performance of their services. As this offence is new, the regulations have been developed to focus the application of the offence so that it covers important data sets and data that can be robustly interrogated to determine if a provider has committed the offence. Designing the regulations this way will enable us to better understand how the offence operates in practice and allow us to make changes to the regulations in a targeted way in the future. I hope that noble Lords will support this rationale and will therefore agree to these regulations being commended to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for introducing these important regulations, which the Opposition are very happy to support. It is clearly unacceptable for anyone or any organisation in the NHS to knowingly publish false or misleading information. We are fully behind the Government on this. The noble Earl will probably remember that during the passage of the Care Act we tried to strengthen the clause that the regulations emanate from by tabling an amendment which would have made it an offence to withhold information with the intention to mislead or misdirect. That was not accepted by the Government.
I come back to the point that the Minister ended with. He emphasised that this applies only to NHS trusts, foundation trusts and those providing services. He will know from our discussions on the Bill that we wanted to expand this to cover other organisations, including local authorities and clinical commissioning groups. I would be grateful if he could respond on why the Government still think this should be confined to those who provide services.
I put to him that the Francis report into Mid Staffordshire, and indeed the more recent report by Bill Kirkup looking at the very worrying incidents that happened in Morecambe Bay, do not just put responsibility for what happened at the door of the providers, though I fully accept that in the end the board of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the board of the trust that ran Morecambe Bay must take primary responsibility. However, a number of other organisations were listed—organisations that would not be defined as providers. There are circumstances in which clinical commissioning groups, or part of NHS England, ought to be covered by the same rules and law because one depends on honesty and openness throughout the system. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
This is part of wishing to develop a culture of openness and transparency. People in the health service are very cynical about these proposals because they do not see the same transparency and openness and, to be frank, honesty emanating from the Minister’s own department. If my noble friend Lord Brooke were here, he would remind the Minister about the lack of publication of the interim risk register. I point to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Rose, on management capacity. It is one thing to have a legal provision, but it is another to ensure that everyone in the system actually operates according to the spirit of what the Government intend. I myself believe that that should apply as much to the Minister’s department and NHS England as it does to the providers in the health service.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for these regulations. He returned us to an issue that we debated during the passage of the Care Act: the question of why this offence is restricted to providers and does not extend further to either NHS or local authority commissioners. We took the view that, in determining the scope of the offence, the focus should be on information that is closest to patient care, where inaccurate statements can allow poor and dangerous care to continue. This type of information is required by law from providers of NHS secondary care, such as hospital trusts, and to be frank we have not yet identified information that would warrant extending this offence to commissioners or other providers of information. The scope of the offence is therefore determined by the information to which it applies.
The noble Lord referred to the need for openness throughout and across the system. I agree with him, of course, and I contend that over the past five years this Government have done more than any other to promote transparency in the health service and indeed from the department itself. The particular case of the risk register is one that we have debated on a number of occasions. He may recall that while the decision was taken by the Cabinet not to publish the transition risk register, nevertheless I laid before the House the essential elements contained within the register to enable noble Lords to understand the broad content of the risks that the transition addressed. The approach to risk registers in general is one that was taken under the previous Administration in a number of departments.
The report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Rose, on NHS leadership is being looked at in the light of NHS England’s five-year review. The five-year review was published during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Rose, was preparing his report and the possibility of extending the report to take account of the review is being considered. We look forward to seeing the conclusions of the report once it is ready.
Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing these regulations and welcome the way in which they have been drafted. Clearly, a great deal of care was taken in the drafting, and they seem eminently sensible.
It is most reassuring to know that the Association of Convenience Stores welcomes these regulations and the clarity that they provide. It says:
“We support strong enforcement against proxy purchasing of tobacco. We need to see these properly enforced, something that is lacking with the same powers that are in place for alcohol proxy purchasing”,
and that the penalty for proxy purchasing on e-cigarettes puts everything consistently in line. Indeed, it has welcomed the age restriction.
I was glad, too, to hear the reference to the Welsh study because it was the data from Wales that really began to make me personally concerned about these products. There is evidence of increased use among under-18s. I know some people will say that data from ASH are biased, but ASH has been fairly neutral in its view on electronic cigarettes because of the way that they have helped people quit ordinary tobacco cigarettes. It has found that the number of 11 to 18 year-olds who have tried an electronic cigarette increased from 5% in 2013 to 8% in 2014, although it did put the caveat around those figures that the use is closely linked with smoking behaviour.
One piece of research which is really important to have on the record is the work from Counotte and colleagues, published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience in 2011, which found that,
“nicotine exposure during adolescence can disrupt brain development bearing long-term consequences on executive cognitive function in adulthood”.
These are new products, with high levels of nicotine in them. We know that the propensity for the developing brain in the age group up until 25 years to develop addictions of all sorts, right across the board, and addictive behaviour is greater than in the older brain. There is a concern that exposure in the young leads to a much greater propensity to develop nicotine addiction.
I have been concerned at the way that these products are marketed, especially to the young, and about their appeal almost as a fashion accessory. When I have looked at those shops which specialise in selling these products, they have made me feel as if I was probably a bit too old to go and buy one. They seem to be marketed very much to a young, vibrant population, which I find alarming. If they are shown to be as addictive as they might be, this will create a long-term market for them in the future.
I have been to several meetings about electronic cigarettes, including one held here in your Lordships’ House at which I was concerned at the almost aggressive way in which vaping was being pursued by some people present, which set alarm bells ringing a bit in my head over the process. These regulations are proportionate, timely and welcomed by those who have the responsibility for selling these products. I am glad that they appear to have universal support.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome both sets of regulations. The Opposition fully support them. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was very impressed by the evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores and its support for the regulations. It is very persuasive in relation to the introduction of a minimum age of sale and I commend the ACS for the responsible briefing that we were sent ahead of these regulations.
The noble Earl referred to the research, such as the Welsh data and the evidence we have received from ASH, and mentioned the CMO’s concerns. Essentially, although one can certainly see that these products can have a beneficial health impact for many adult smokers, there is this issue about whether children go to smoking through these e-products. Is the noble Earl satisfied that enough research is being undertaken at the moment, either through the traditional research areas such as the MRC and Wellcome or perhaps through Public Health England? I do not know if he has information about this, but clearly it would be good to know that his department is keeping a continuing watchful eye to ensure that enough research is being done. Particularly relating to children, there is enough uncertainty around to make us want to ensure that there is ongoing research on this.
I have another question for the Minister, raised by the evidence that ASH submitted to his department when it was consulting on the regulations. ASH says that there is real confusion about the relative risks of electronic cigarettes compared to smoking, not just among the general public but among health professionals. It quotes from newspaper articles saying that smokers have been given advice by medical people and have had the impression that it is nicotine rather than tobacco smoke that is harmful. ASH quotes a study presented at the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference; it was some years ago so the profession may be more up to date now, but in one study presented at the conference a substantial proportion of GPs incorrectly asserted that nicotine in cigarettes caused CVD, strokes and lung cancer.
The point that ASH makes is that at the same time as regulations are introduced, the Department of Health should promote better understanding of the relative harm of electronic cigarettes and other nicotine products, including those authorised as medicine and their potential benefit to smokers. I understand that with regard to children there are areas where we are uncertain, but there are areas where we are more certain as well. I would be interested to know whether any advice or guidance accompanying the regulations is to be given to medical practitioners in particular.
I welcome the proxy purchasing offence, which is something that we very much support. The Minister quoted cases of young smokers having their cigarettes bought for them by another person, and outlawing this will help to crack down on it and send a wider public message that this is wrong. The other point comes back to the issue raised by the ACS regarding the e-cigarette issue: introducing the offence will give greater power to responsible shopkeepers not to serve people who they know, or strongly suspect, are going to pass cigarettes on to children. Overall, we are glad to see these regulations and to support them.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I welcome the support that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have given to these regulations. I shall respond to the questions and points that they have raised. The study mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was referenced in our consultation document. It was an important study, showing the impact of nicotine on the adolescent brain, and it influenced us considerably in informing the policy.
E-cigarettes are not risk-free. We do not know enough about the long-term health effects of adults using them, let alone children. There have as yet been no long-term studies to examine whether e-cigarettes serve as a gateway to tobacco use. Therefore, we cannot be certain at this stage whether there is a gateway effect from the use of e-cigarettes into tobacco smoking. Further research is needed to answer the question definitively. However, we know that nicotine is highly addictive, and we wish to protect children from the risk of nicotine addiction and the impact that nicotine can have on the developing adolescent brain.
The noble Baroness expressed a fear, which I share, about the aggressive marketing of these products. It is worth noting that the revised European tobacco products directive, which will apply from 20 May next year, includes a ban on advertising e-cigarettes, with a cross-border dimension—that is, advertising through television, radio, newspapers, magazines and sponsorship of sports events.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about what are sometimes seen as mixed messages around e-cigarettes, there is no doubt that, looked at in a certain context, e-cigarettes could be seen to have a role in enabling smokers to quit where they have tried other methods and not succeeded. We recognise that e-cigarettes are used by some smokers in that way. That is why the Government are working towards a regulatory framework that ensures that these devices meet basic standards of safety, quality and efficacy. We are clear that e-cigarettes must be accompanied by sufficient information to enable users to make informed choices.
The noble Lord asked about research. I agree that these matters must be kept under the policy spotlight going forward. The National Institute for Health Research recently commissioned a large, randomised control trial to examine the efficacy of e-cigarettes compared with conventional nicotine replacement therapy when used within UK stop smoking services. That research study is inevitably quite long-term. It is envisaged that the project will end in 2018, but the NIHR is confident that it will improve our current understanding considerably.
General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise and Over-arching Objective) and the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (References to Court) Order 2015
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the order. I declare an interest that, maybe for a short while only, I am a licensed practitioner and a registered practitioner, and the rules of the GMC may not be sufficient for me to revalidate.
However, the issue to which I want to refer is the separation of the functions, of which I approve—we have discussed that many times—but for the fact that the GMC can appeal against the decision made by the MPTS. Its role becomes that of an adjudicator as well. I would like the noble Earl to clarify that. I know that in the consultation process there were the same number of responses—39, as mentioned by the noble Earl.
Another issue that we have discussed before is that these changes are welcome, but there are other changes that the Law Commission identified in its report, published in April 2014, on the regulation of health and social care professionals Bill. The Government indicated that they would bring in legislation to deal with all the issues. This is obviously a piecemeal measure taken out of that Bill, so the noble Earl may want to comment on that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for introducing the order. I shall say at once that the Opposition support it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, we are disappointed that it is yet another Section 60 order being considered in Committee. We should have had the Law Commission Bill, either in pre-legislative scrutiny or in its substantive form. It is disappointing that we are having to deal with these various professional regulation bodies in such a piecemeal fashion.
That said, on the question of the overarching objective, we very much support that and the three pursuits set out in Article 21(1B),
“to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public … to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and … to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession”.
I want to pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the British Medical Association. I suppose it is an issue of proportionality. In its report, the Law Commission expressed concern about examples given, suggesting that regulators were inappropriately imposing moral judgments in essentially private matters under the guise of maintaining confidence. The BMA has raised the issue of whether the order might end up punishing doctors who pose no threat to the health and safety of the public, on the basis that failure to do so might incur the public’s disapproval. The Law Commission has urged regulators to look carefully at regulatory interventions that do not take some colour from the need to protect the public.
This is a very important point. I have been very impressed with the GMC and the way in which it has improved its procedures and processes—and certainly with its current leadership. However, there are other regulators, perhaps not so much in the health sector, which clearly lack confidence and which are very much influenced by the flow and ebb of media comment and potential political interventions. I think that we have to be very careful about regulators which, in a sense, lose confidence in their own ability to make common sense judgments, and then have knee-jerk reactions in the face of media storms. I hope that the noble Earl will agree that that is not the intention in the case of the health regulators, and like me, he will express confidence, particularly in the GMC to apply common sense judgments in response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
I now come to the question of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. The Minister referred to the fact that the consultation demonstrated strong support for enhancing the GMC’s investigative and adjudication roles, but that 52% of respondents took the view that creating an entirely independent body would be preferable, with only 27% supporting the proposal to put the MPTS on a statutory footing.
We must refer in particular to the evidence of the Professional Standards Authority. It,
“did not agree that the proposals to establish the MPTS as a statutory committee of the GMC would achieve the aim”,
of appropriate separation of function. It commented that,
“former and current members of GMC staff should be excluded from sitting on medical practitioner tribunals or interim orders tribunals … The PSA also asked about the ability of the GMC to make rules delegating functions from the MPTS committee to ‘officers of the Council’”,
and it,
“referred to the fact that case managers will be paid by the GMC, but case managers will be performing a statutory office”.
The PSA was obviously concerned that because those managers were paid by the GMC, they might come under undue influence. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, the PSA,
“conducts annual performance reviews of each of the health and care professional regulatory bodies”.
I would like the noble Earl to explain why the views of the PSA, above all others, were ignored in relation to this issue.
To pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about guidance, again, the Explanatory Memorandum says that:
“The Department does not intend to publish any guidance in respect of”,
this statutory instrument but that the GMC,
“will publish guidance as appropriate”.
Is the Minister in a position to respond to the noble Baroness about what kind of guidance will actually be produced?
However, overall I believe that the GMC has made great strides in recent years. It deserves to be supported for what it is doing. I accept that this will speed up processes to protect the public and provide more and better information about doctors on the register. It will improve doctors’ education and training and increase efficiency, and on that basis we are very glad to support the order.
Health Care and Associated Professions (Knowledge of English) Order 2015
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that overseas healthcare professionals make a valuable contribution to our NHS, and we are keen to ensure that highly skilled professionals do not face unnecessary barriers to working in our health service. However, it is vital that all healthcare professionals practising in the UK have the necessary English language skills to properly communicate with and care for patients and members of the public. The department has consulted on proposals to introduce language controls for nurses, midwives, dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and the vast majority of respondents to the consultation—99%—were supportive of the proposals.
We have worked with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Dental Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland to identify a system of language controls for EU nurses, midwives, dentists, dental care professionals, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians which provides greater safety for patients and members of the public. The draft order gives those regulatory bodies the powers to apply proportionate language controls so that only healthcare professionals who have the necessary knowledge of the English language are able to practise in the UK, together with an assurance that they can do their jobs in a safe and competent manner.
The draft order sets out to amend the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Dentists Act 1984, the Pharmacy Order 2010 and the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 to strengthen the regulatory body’s powers to introduce proportionate language controls and to require EU applicants to provide evidence of their knowledge of the English language following recognition of their professional qualification—but before registration and admission on to the register. We also propose corresponding amendments to the fitness to practise powers of the NMC, GDC, GPhC and PSNI, so that they can initiate fitness to practise proceedings in cases where a healthcare professional’s knowledge of the English language may pose a serious risk to patient safety.
A new category of impairment relating to English language capability will be created. It will allow the regulatory body to request that a professional undertakes an assessment of their knowledge of the English language during a fitness to practise investigation where concerns have been raised—something that they are currently unable to do. Those changes will strengthen the regulatory body’s ability to take fitness to practise action where concerns about language competence are identified in relation to healthcare professionals already practising in the UK.
Our overall approach is compliant with EU law which clarifies, under recent changes to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive, the ability of national authorities to carry out language controls on European applicants where the profession has patient safety implications. Any language controls must be fair and proportionate. For example, there cannot be automatic testing for all European applicants, and any controls cannot take place until the applicant’s qualification has been recognised by the regulatory body.
The order makes amendments to the relevant legislation which will require the regulatory body to publish guidance setting out the evidence, information or documents which a healthcare professional must provide to demonstrate that they have the necessary knowledge of the English language in order to practise their profession. Any person who is refused admission on to the register on the grounds that they have failed to demonstrate the necessary knowledge of English will have a right to appeal. The process for determining whether a person has the necessary knowledge of English will be set out in the relevant regulatory body’s rules or regulations, which we anticipate will be amended and implemented before the end of the year.
These changes are a major step forward for quality of care and patient safety, and build on the language checks already in place for the registration of healthcare professionals coming to work in the UK from outside the EU. They further build on the amendments made last year, which provided the General Medical Council with the powers to introduce a strengthened system of language controls for doctors from within the EU.
Since the GMC’s legislation was changed in June last year, the GMC has required 1,956 doctors from Europe to provide evidence of their knowledge of English when applying for first registration and a licence to practise. Of these, to date 429 doctors have been registered without a licence to practise medicine in the UK due to insufficient evidence of language competence. This evidence shows that these proposals are essential to ensure patient protection and uphold the standards of care delivered. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining the order. Clearly, we support the order because we want to protect patients from the risk of avoidable harm.
My own view is that language testing of healthcare professionals from outside Europe is now entirely adequate as a result of last year’s measures—which, again, the Opposition supported. However, we accept that there may be a—one hopes—small number of European professionals whose knowledge of English is not at a level that we might reasonably expect, and indeed an even smaller number of UK nationals who do not possess the requisite knowledge of English and where there are concerns.
I wonder whether the Minister can spell out one or two things in relation to how this is going to be done. I note—the noble Earl said it and it is repeated at paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum—that:
“Any language controls must be fair and proportionate, for example, there cannot be automatic testing for all European applicants and any controls must not take place until the applicant’s qualification has been recognised by the regulatory body”.
Paragraph 7.10 cautions that, in relation to the requirements that can be imposed as to English language controls, the bodies concerned,
“must first request and consider any available evidence before requiring a test”.
Can the Minister explain a little further how it is expected that employing authorities will go about that?
I also want to ask the noble Earl about the implementation of the power to implement fitness to practise proceedings. I noted from the Explanatory Memorandum that there is currently provision for most of the relevant regulatory bodies to commission an assessment of performance where fitness to practise allegations have been made. I was not sure about the purpose of the extension in this order, given that the Explanatory Memorandum notes that there is already provision for most of the relevant regulatory bodies to do this.
I would like to ask the Minister about support and guidance for individual employers. This comes back to my first question about how you make the assessment that a test should be undertaken. I should have thought that human resources professionals within NHS organisations would need some careful advice and guidance on this—first, because this may be a sensitive area, and, secondly, because some consistency throughout the NHS would be appropriate.
Finally, there is the question of vexatious complaints, which we discussed in relation to the previous order. Clearly, we have to balance the public interest with that of the appropriate interest of medical professionals. We know that there are cases in which medical professionals have been subjected to complaints that have turned out to be unsubstantiated. Clearly there are political sensitivities around the ability of European immigrants to speak English; I refer the noble Earl back to our previous debate and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I want to be clear that the Government understand that, while this is undoubtedly the right measure for patient safety and the protection of the public interest, we have to have regard to ensuring that doctors and other professionals are dealt with fairly under these provisions.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of the order. The first point for me to make about what might trigger a language test is that European healthcare professionals currently provide a range of supporting information to accompany their application for registration and admission to the register. It is during that process that if a regulatory body had cause for concern, such as a poorly written application form, it would write to the individual to seek further evidence of English language competence. It is important to restate that the individual would still have their qualification recognised, but would not be admitted to the register until the body was satisfied that they met all the requirements for registration.
The draft order requires the regulatory bodies to publish guidance on the evidence to be provided by a healthcare professional where there is cause for concern about their English language capability. However, the regulatory body, as the independent regulator of the relevant healthcare professionals in the UK, will have the power to decide what the necessary knowledge of English is to practise safely in the UK. All the regulators subject to this order are in the process of developing this guidance. In recent discussions they suggested that, where there is a cause for concern, the evidence required could be the required score in the academic version of IELTS—the International English Language Testing System—or that the healthcare professional has a primary qualification taught and examined in English. In making that determination, the regulatory body will need to be mindful of EU law and ensure that such requirements are necessary and proportionate in view of their scope of practice.
As regards vexatious complaints, responses to the department’s public consultation highlighted the potential serious risk to patient safety posed by a professional practising without adequate English language skills. As I explained, these proposals would allow the regulatory bodies to take pre-emptive fitness to practise action, even if no actual harm has yet occurred, to maintain public protection. We accept that this could lead to a rise in the number of referrals but we are confident that if these are triaged correctly, any discriminatory or vexatious complaints can be identified early on and dealt with appropriately by the regulatory bodies affected by the order. The regulatory bodies will also be responsible for communicating the changes effectively to employers, which may be best placed to deal with issues at a local level. As I mentioned, there is a right to appeal if a person is refused admission on to the register, or is subject to fitness to practise proceedings and then found to be impaired on the grounds of defective English.
The noble Lord asked how we would ensure that the controls were fair and proportionate. Guidance will be published by the regulator on the evidence accepted on initial application for registration. If that has not been supplied, an individual will be sent a letter of recognition requesting further evidence. If it is not supplied at that point, a test will be requested.
The introduction of language controls at national level should not have the effect of requiring individual professionals to undertake the same English language test twice: once at national and once at local level. We agree that that would be disproportionate. However, it must be remembered that the regulatory bodies’ roles as the national regulators of the healthcare professionals affected by the order will be to ensure that all professionals have the minimum English language capability required to work as a practitioner. It will still be for the employer to assure themselves that the applicant has the necessary English language skills for a specific role, which may require more sophisticated language skills. I hope that that is helpful.