Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I would also like to formally record an enormous welcome to these changes to the Bill. What has been said in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Warner, is very pertinent regarding the need to keep questioning. The one thing now that can happen is that those who are actively involved in research can actually question if they get blocked, in a way that they could not before. I think that they will be very bright and questioning people who will make it known if they are not able to do the research that they see needs to be done for the improvement of clinical services.
Indeed, if we can speed up the processes, perhaps we can create an environment in which all patients and relatives understand that a research-rich environment is one that drives up standards of care, and therefore that they are not being experimented on but are being invited to participate when there is equipoise in the highest standards of monitoring that they could possibly have. The governance around research processes in this country is potentially second to none. We may then regain some of those external trials that up until now have, sadly, been bleeding from our shores. The amendments are incredibly important and their universal welcome is very appropriate. The Minister is to be personally congratulated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, from the opposition Benches we too welcome the amendments, which very much reflect the debate that we had in Committee on the importance of research. The Chief Medical Officer has paid a visit to Birmingham over the past two days; he gave a lecture at Birmingham University and visited my own trust to discuss research and the role of the NHS in it. My noble friend Lord Warner has put his finger on it: the question to the Minister is how we make sure that the NHS makes a sufficient contribution in future to the development and support of research. The Minister will know that the Chief Medical Officer is a passionate advocate of research and excellence in the NHS, and that is to be warmly welcomed.
There are some issues that need to be tackled. We have already heard about the issue of getting approval for clinical trials. We still have the problem, which has been with us for many years now, of local committees taking far too long and repeating work by other committees. I understand that there are some issues around the fact that, because foundation trusts are separate legal entities, they have to go through the process themselves, but if they join a clinical academic network some of that work can be reduced. I know that there is to be an announcement at, I think, the end of March about how these clinical networks are to be developed in the future. That is a very important way of enhancing research.
There is no question that the more we do in research, the better the outcomes not only for patients but for the UK’s reputation and economic well-being. Healthcare research is surely an area to which we need to give great priority. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is of course responsible and we are very glad that he is leading this work. However, there is no doubt that, welcome though these amendments are, we should be given some assurance that the Government will now take them forward into the new situation with enthusiasm.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I begin by saying how much I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There are two very good reasons why research needs to be promoted in the NHS. The first is that it is for the good of patients. The other is that it is potentially for the good of UK plc. If we can attract investment in translational and clinical research to this country, it will be a major advance. The sad truth is that in recent years the UK has been slipping back in the international league table as a location for clinical research. The Government are determined to reverse that trend, as were the previous Government. We are trying our best to build on the foundations that the previous Government set.
Noble Lords have asked me to explain how the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research will work in practice. I shall try to do so in a few words. The Secretary of State will use the mandate to set priorities for the health service, based on his legal duties. One of those duties is to promote research within the health service, which is shared by the board and CCGs. What are the tools at the Secretary of State’s disposal? The National Institute for Health Research—the NIHR—which is headed by Professor Dame Sally Davies, provides transparent, competitive funding to support clinical and applied health research, the training and development of health researchers, systems to support research and the NHS infrastructure for research. The NIHR will continue to be part of the Department of Health. Its budget of £1 billion is held centrally by the department. The Chief Medical Officer will remain responsible for the NIHR and its budget.
The second main route that the Secretary of State uses, and will continue to use, to support research, is through the NHS. Since the NHS was established, its patient care budget has funded the patient care costs of patients who are taking part in research in the NHS, as set out in existing guidance. In the future, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups will ensure that these costs continue to be met through these arrangements. The research costs of these studies are paid by the Government and charity research funders such as the Medical Research Council, the NIHR, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust. The NHS benefits greatly from the evidence provided by this research.
Let us not forget, too, that the Secretary of State will be held to account for what he does. He must report annually to Parliament on the performance of the health service. There is an expectation that he will report on how he has fulfilled his statutory duties.
That brings us to the duties placed on the board. In the document we published, Developing Clinical Commissioning Groups: Towards Authorisation, we set out the early thinking on the authorisation process. The document highlights that as part of the process CCGs will need to demonstrate how they will exercise important functions, such as the duty to promote research, and the NHS Commissioning Board will seek consistency in the way in which CCGs exercise these duties. Furthermore, a CCG’s commissioning plan, and its annual report, as well as the board’s annual assessment of the group’s performance, will cover the exercise of all the CCG’s functions, including the duty to promote research.
I hope that that has given noble Lords a clear outline of how this is all going to work. We regard these duties as extremely important. These amendments are extremely important, as my noble friend said. I am in no doubt that both the health service and its patients will be better off as a result of them.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I note the noble Lord’s liberality of spirit in this Christmas season. The problem is that it is not up to him, or indeed me as an individual, to cut across the practice which has been laid down across government. However, I have undertaken to look further into this question and I shall indeed do so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is of course open to my noble friend to simply seek access to papers that he was given advice on as a Minister. I suggest to my noble friend that perhaps he should ask to see those papers. Having done this myself, I know that you have to see them within the department. Usually you get a cup of coffee from the Permanent Secretary’s office, and you cannot take the papers away, but you can summarise and make notes. If the department is not going to make the papers available, perhaps my noble friend would care to do that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Having supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, it would seem wrong not to do so. I hope that the Government can speed up this legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this is a bit like Lords reform. If you deal with the bells question, you then have the Bishops. Is this part of a process of disestablishing the Church of England? I hope not.
We debated this in 2007 during the passage of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act. At the time, on behalf of the Government, I said that it was a matter for the House of Commons and that it was best that the Commons dealt with it. The fact is that the House of Commons has not dealt with it in four years. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will accept this amendment. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find support on Report if not.
I have been looking at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill and I have quickly skimmed Part 7, which covers the whole range of disqualification of Members. I might have misread it, but I cannot find any reference to disqualification on the grounds of mental illness. Quite clearly, the Government do not think that it is relevant to an elected second Chamber. It certainly should not be relevant to the House of Commons.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind the Committee that the Government are publicly committed to the repeal of Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983. On 3 February 2011, the Government announced that it would be repealed when a suitable legislative vehicle became available. Section 141 sets out a process by which an MP’s seat is vacated if they are authorised to be detained under mental health legislation for a period of six months or more. There is, however, no parallel provision for the automatic disqualification of those who might be hospitalised or on sick leave with physical ailments for six months or more, as the noble Baroness has indicated, even if those people might be equally incapable of fulfilling their duties. The noble Baroness is absolutely right in that regard.
Even those who are imprisoned are not automatically disqualified unless their sentence is more than 12 months. This is an unwarranted discrimination against those with mental illness. With the repeal of Section 141, being detained in hospital for mental health reasons would no longer lead to the automatic loss of a MP’s seat.
However, the Government believe that the most suitable vehicle for this reform would be a stand-alone Bill, allowing both Houses the chance to debate this important issue. There are some outstanding questions on the extent and effect of repealing this provision, which we are still discussing with the devolved legislatures. The Government do not feel it is appropriate to accept this amendment while these questions remain unanswered.
The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill, had its Second Reading on 25 November 2011. The Bill aims to repeal various pieces of legislation that discriminate against the participation of those with mental health conditions in public life, including Section 141. At its Second Reading, the Government indicated their support for this Bill and we continue to support the Bill as an appropriate means for removing several pieces of discriminatory legislation.
We have already announced our intention to repeal, setting out the Government’s position that this sort of discrimination is not acceptable. While I applaud the noble Baroness’s intention, this important reform should be part of a stand-alone Bill, not inserted here at Committee stage. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the issue should be given the parliamentary attention it deserves, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Patel, who sends his apologies to the Committee. He is strongly enthusiastic about the amendment but regrettably cannot be here. The amendment would introduce a new clause to provide for a review and scrutiny of the operation of the Act.
The noble Earl, in responding to the Second Reading debate, was kind enough to deal with the matter I had raised regarding post-legislative scrutiny. Your Lordships’ House has determined that careful post-legislative scrutiny should be considered because it is of value and importance for all complex Bills. The detailed Committee stage which has attended the passage of this Bill in your Lordships’ House has clearly shown that there has been considerable anxiety about the potential implications and operation of what will eventually be the Health and Social Care Act. It is only right that a Bill of this complexity should be subjected to post-legislative scrutiny. This can be undertaken only if appropriate information is made available to both Houses of Parliament.
The purpose of exploring the opportunity for the Government to consider the issue at this stage is to determine whether the noble Earl—in addition to confirming the Government’s commitment to scrutiny of the Act, if Parliament decides to pass it—would consider initiating post-legislative scrutiny earlier than the three years which he kindly indicated when answering the Second Reading debate. A range of between three to five years is the normal period in which scrutiny might be considered for an Act once Royal Assent had been received. However, in view of many of the issues that have been raised, it would seem appropriate to attend to the matter of scrutiny earlier.
It might be argued that having scrutiny one or two years after enactment would be a little too early, but many of the new mechanisms and arm’s-length bodies being established to deliver the purpose of the Bill are already available in shadow form. For example, the chief executive-designate of the NHS Commissioning Board has already been appointed. The chairman has been appointed and the board is starting to make other important appointments and to deal with its structure so that when the Act comes into operation the board will be in a position to start its work. It means that, after a year, we should all be able to perform reasonable scrutiny.
With regard to clinical commissioning groups, pathfinder commissioning groups have already been established. They are starting to develop the alliances and relationships in their areas and localities that will allow them to become fully operational at the time that the Bill proposes. Therefore, the period of finding their feet has already been established.
A commitment to both rigorous scrutiny after enactment and early, formal post-legislative scrutiny will allay a lot of anxieties and provide your Lordships and the other place with reassurance that if there were to be unintended consequences associated with the Bill, they may be identified earlier. If other elements of legislation were required to ensure that the Bill’s objectives could be fully achieved, given that the Government are considering a further Bill to deal with matters such as education, research and social care in the next Session, scrutiny of the Bill could inform what legislation might be added to that Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I rise to support the noble Lord. Earlier today, he made a very pertinent point on Lords reform, and this one seems equally pertinent. Before I do so, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that my noble friend Lady Gould has just vacated the Deputy Speaker’s seat. That was her last session, and I wanted to say to her—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—what a wonderful job she has done. She has accompanied us through many pieces of legislation, often very late at night, always with tolerance and very efficiently, as befitting a former fearsome organiser of the Labour Party, if I may say so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It would be churlish, then, to spoil the atmosphere by commenting overall on the Bill because, as the noble Lord suggested, it is open to us to have a kind of Second Reading speech, but I will resist—to the benefit of noble Lords opposite, if not my noble friends.
The noble Lord put it very well. The fact is that the reforms are being enacted; they are taking place at this moment. The Government have not waited for legislation. Primary care trusts have effectively been abolished. The new system is coming into being. We have shadow clinical commissioning groups, although they cover much larger areas than originally envisaged, so it would be quite right and proper for early post-legislative scrutiny to take place. Because the changes go to the heart of the National Health Service, I should have thought that it would have been useful to have an annual report and to allow Parliament to debate it.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, to go one step further. He will know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has always been fond of sunset clauses. He moved many such amendments when in opposition. I should have thought that the Bill deserves a sunset clause. I would give it two years, because then, if the coalition survives that long, the noble Earl will be back to put right all the problems that he is now enacting.
On that note of Christmas spirit, I invite the noble Earl to accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is addressing us in the guise of Christmas spirit, it is well disguised from most of us.
However, it may be worth reflecting at this juncture that this is the 41st day that the Bill has been debated on the Floor of this House or that of the other place—a quarter of all sitting days in this calendar year. I thank all parliamentarians, especially noble Lords, who participated in subjecting the Bill to such unprecedented scrutiny. It is a better Bill as a result; the Government are better informed as a result; and I look forward to our further debates in 2012.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and the actions of government are of paramount importance. The Bill has, as I said, received a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny during its passage, and I have no expectation that this will stop following Royal Assent—and nor should it. Ministers will continue to provide information to Parliament—for example, in response to Parliamentary Questions and Select Committees. I am sure that we will be providing a lot of information both on the implementation of the Bill and on health and social care more widely in the months and years ahead.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his remarks about the conduct of the Committee stage of the Bill. I also express my thanks to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for the way in which they have responded to the scrutiny debate, and I also thank the Bill team. I fear that Christmas will be cancelled because they are going to be writing so many letters to Members of your Lordships’ House. We look forward to Report.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to one of the most important parts of the Bill—the regulation of social workers. Although the Bill is entitled the Health and Social Care Bill, the reality is that most of our debates have been about the National Health Service. It is right that in these latter stages of Committee we give a little attention to social care and specifically the condition of social workers.
I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House will be in any doubt about the scale of the responsibility placed upon social workers or the pressures that they come under. Although Professor Munro’s review was centred on the child protection system, what she had to say about social workers would apply more generally to the profession. I was particularly struck by the conclusion, which stated:
“While well intentioned, attempts in the recent past to improve the child protection system have not secured the improvements children and young people deserve. Professional practice with vulnerable children and families has been driven too much by compliance with regulation and rules”.
The review found that,
“frontline social workers in particular operate within an over-standardised framework that makes it difficult for them to prioritise time to form relationships with children and to understand their needs. In parallel, it has becomes more difficult to provide the range of help and services to respond to the wide variety of needs and circumstances presented”.
The Government have said that they will,
“oversee a radical reduction in the amount of regulation, working with partners to see a corresponding reduction in locally designed rules and procedures”.
They have also said that they want,
“to improve radically the knowledge, skills, and expertise of social workers from initial training through to continuing professional development”.
The Government said in July that they will,
“work with higher education institutions, employers, the General Social Care Council”,
to ensure that the specific capabilities identified by Professor Munro will,
“explicitly inform social work training, professional development and performance appraisal”.
I am sure that that is welcome and would be generally supported. It is interesting that only five months ago the Government were happy to acknowledge the role of the General Social Care Council. It must surely follow by implication that if the Government are seeking to enhance professional expertise and give social workers more discretion on the front line, it needs to be done in the context of a proportionate, though robust, statutory regulation of social workers. That is what the General Social Care Council exists to do. After a difficult start, which many would acknowledge was difficult, it is performing well. This is not the time to tear the General Social Care Council up by its roots and start again, but that is precisely what the Government propose to do in this Bill, by transferring social worker regulation to the Health Professions Council.
Currently, the council has a register of around 200,000 people, covering 15 health professions. If it takes on social workers, it will have a further 100,000 on the register from a single additional profession. I understand that the reason for which the Government have put forward these proposals is related to cost, not the current performance of the General Social Care Council, which the Government, in the form of the Department of Health, have acknowledged to have improved its performance considerably.
The argument on costs falls away immediately. Registration with the General Social Care Council currently costs £30 per registrant. This is a low figure compared to other regulators, and the Government subsidise the council’s operations to the tune of around £16 million a year. The Government want to get rid of that subsidy and their original aim was to transfer the function to an independent body that it was acknowledged would need to charge higher fees to cover costs. Originally, it was intended to make the General Social Care Council independent and for it to recoup all its costs from its registrants. However, the Government argued that an independent self-financing council would be unaffordable for social workers because registration charges for individuals would be in the region of £200 to £300. This calculation did not take on board the work that the General Social Care Council has done in developing a financial plan for independence. My understanding is that the latest calculation from the GSCC is that the actual cost would be far lower, and not dissimilar to the current HPC charges of £76 per annum. I hope that the noble Baroness will answer that point when she responds and not cite those higher figures for costs. I am clear from the evidence I have received that it would be possible to provide independent regulation in a single body for the kind of figure that the Health Professions Council charges.
Concern has been expressed about the Government’s intentions. First, within the social care sector, the transfer of the General Social Care Council to the HPC, a multiple profession regulator with generic professional standards, threatens to dilute the unique identity of the social work profession at a time when, as we know, the profession has come under considerable pressure. Some critics cite the reduced representation of social workers within the new Health Professions Council and the fact that the name of the regulator will not contain the term “social work”. There are also concerns that a generic, multi-professional regulator will not be well suited to deal with the complexities of social work and the social model, which underpins the practice of the profession.
There are also concerns about changes to the regulation of social work students. Like the General Social Care Council, the HPC does not currently register students of the professions it regulates. I understand that consultation is being or will be undertaken by the HPC on this matter, but it is widely expected that it will conclude that the way in which students are dealt with—in other words, that they are not registered—will continue and that, therefore, social work students will not be registered in future.
That is one problem that we face. I make no criticism of the Health Professions Council, but it has a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation. Its philosophy is that it does not really matter who you register—it could be social workers, clinical psychologists or any profession you like—its model will fit. I am worried about that approach for social workers. That is why I have tabled a number of clause stand part amendments. I think social workers need to have regulation that is geared entirely to the social work profession. My amendments are intended to tease out the Government's approach to how, if social workers come within the Health Professions Council, they are to be given special provision. My Amendments 338B, 338C and 338D are aimed to do that by, first, establishing a statutory committee within the Health Professions Council to oversee the social work regulation, to ensure that the appropriate person will be director of social worker professions’ regulation. That is to ensure that a senior officer is directly responsible for social worker regulation and recognised as such in statute. Next, it is important that there are social workers on the council of the Health Professions Council. I do not understand why the council of the HPC is not being dissolved and a new council formed. The number of social workers coming over to the Health Professions Council suggests that that is what should happen: not simply that the council carries on. There should be specific recognition and social workers should be on the council.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, a couple of minutes ago, the noble Lord said that he was not going to make any criticism of the HPC. He then sets out amendments which tell the HPC how it is supposed to behave. Is there not a smidgeon of contradiction between those points?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I cannot see any contradiction, although I will of course search my mind to see whether I have been guilty of such. I wanted to make it clear that I do not seek to criticise the Health Professions Council as a body. As I set it up, I have a certain feeling of support for it. I am not sure that its approach to generic regulation, which essentially says that it can regulate any profession in the health service and does not in any way need to change how it does it, should apply to social work, which is a different profession to which different matters apply.
Lord Mawhinney
But is the noble Lord not in effect saying that he does not trust the HPC properly to discharge its responsibilities, so he has to tell it how it should go about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
If I were to say that I did not trust the Health Professions Council, that might be taken as rather pejorative, and I would not seek to do that. It has done a good job on the health professions it regulates. I simply do not feel that it is right for it to regulate social workers. I do not think that it is prepared for it. Its philosophy is not attuned to it. That is why, if the Government insist on going ahead, some protection needs to be given.
My final amendment relates to the name of the new HPC, the Health and Care Professions Council. I am puzzled why “social worker” is not in the title. Why was it felt that when bringing 100,000 people into this body, it was not thought worth putting “social worker” in the title. I do not think that Health and Care Professions Council can possibly describe a body that will regulate 100,000 social workers.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider the matter again. I know that they want to reduce the number of quangos and regulators, although, if the noble Baroness had been here for the Statement on the banking system, she would have discovered that all Governments start by having a bonfire of the quangos and then inevitably they start to grow again. We saw in the past few minutes a good example of the Government starting to grow some new regulators. In this case, I do not think that the issue of money comes into it—the cost of the balance sheet is taken off the public purse, because it will be funded by registering. Because I am satisfied that the General Social Care Council can fund this through fees which would be similar to those of the Health Professions Council, I hope that the Government will give this further consideration.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to Clauses 206 and 208 to 211 standing part of the Bill, and will also speak to Amendment 338B. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has elaborated these issues extremely comprehensively and powerfully. I want to avoid duplication and will therefore concentrate on a few specific concerns that, for me, are the most serious, although the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, are also important to me.
Social work carries onerous public protection responsibilities that, to my mind, differentiate it importantly from the other professions regulated by the Health Professions Council. One issue that highlights that problem is the registration of social work students referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This and other key matters are left to regulation under Clause 208 without any clarification of what that will mean in practice.
It is important to bear in mind that social work students have direct and unsupervised contact with vulnerable people, including children, whose lives may be at risk. That is rather different from the contact that other professionals tend to have with individuals. Following an impact assessment, the GSCC, not surprisingly, concluded that compulsory student registration was necessary. At present, the GSCC makes grants to the universities providing social work training. Those grants are conditional on the registration of students. The result is that 95 per cent of students are in fact registered. I am not sure what happened to the other 5 per cent, but in essence it is a form of compulsory registration of students.
As a result, any serious complaint about the conduct of a social work student can be referred for investigation by the GSCC. Although the number of serious complaints is small, it is larger than that of complaints about other professions. It is very important that these individuals are picked up early before they can do any severe damage to young children, or indeed other children. If a student is found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from their course, they cannot simply go across to the other side of London or to Newcastle and register on a different course, as this will be picked up by the GSCC. However, that will be lost in the new system. This system of student registration seems to be an important safeguard in public protection.
As I understand it, the HPC is consulting on whether the registration of students should be purely voluntary, as it is in the other health professions regulated by the HPC and as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The concern is that the consultation includes all the health professions, which of course will say that registration does not need to be compulsory, and indeed it does not for these other professions. Any social work professional will recognise the importance of the compulsory registration of students, but of course they will be outnumbered by all the other professions. As a result, social work registration is likely—in fact, almost certain—to become voluntary. I understand that Paul Burstow, the Minister in the other place, has some concerns about this. Can the Minister tell the Committee what progress has been made to ensure that social work registration remains, de facto, compulsory under the student arrangements?
It is worth flagging up that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland will continue to have compulsory registration of social work students, and England will be out of line if this provision goes ahead. As a result, inappropriate students—potentially dangerous social workers—will come across the border into this country and practise. Do we really want that to happen?
Another issue is the assessed and supported year in employment—the ASYE. This is not yet in place but has been recommended by the Social Work Reform Board and is supported by the GSCC. I understand that senior social work professionals do not expect the HPC to introduce the assessed and supported year for newly qualified social workers because they want a common system for all professionals, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This provision is not necessary for professionals without a public and child protection responsibility.
Again, there is a problem here because of the differences between social work on the one hand and all the other professions on the other. As someone who practised social work—albeit briefly and many years ago—I fully appreciate the importance of a year immediately following qualification when social workers carry a lighter case load and receive support with more hands-on supervision to enable them to consolidate their knowledge. You could say that this was all a bit heavy-handed if it were not for the public and child protection duties of these workers. However, it really is important that those people know what they are doing and that they do not miss high-risk cases.
The GSCC wants the assessed and supported year to be a registration requirement in the future. Northern Ireland has this system. Of course, this would need to be tied in with some control over the number of social work trainees, but in my view it is a very important matter. What are the Minister’s plans in this regard?
My third area of concern is the standard of social work training. Those at the head of the GSCC would agree that we need more, rather than less, rigorous regulation of social work training. Social work standards set by the Department of Health have already fallen over a period; certainly they are quite unrecognisable to me. I think all of us who are aware of the Baby P report would agree with that assertion. We can expect these standards to fall further under the HPC because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, the HPC has basic standards across all professions at roughly NVQ level 3—not a degree level and not, in my view, a sufficiently high level—and just a few generic standards for each profession. It is not looking for intellectual rigour and does not have practice standards. Its focus is on outputs, which we all recognise and think are a thoroughly good thing. However, we all know that outputs based on book learning without any fieldwork requirements will miss absolutely essential elements of effective social work professional practice. The Social Work Reform Board is setting higher standards but these will not be regulated. Only the most basic standards set by the HPC will have that regulatory framework.
The Government are, I believe, leaving it to the yet-to-exist College of Social Work to promote excellence in social work. The BASW is challenging the establishment of the college, I understand. Will it exist and, if it does, will it be delayed? If so, for how long? I gather that even when it does exist, the college will be toothless—it will have no powers to regulate training at all. It may set standards of excellence but it will have no powers to ensure that those standards are met. Does the Minister agree that social work standards need to rise, not fall? If so, will she agree to take away these concerns and consider how best to ensure meaningful progress on the issue? That is vital to the protection of children and to avoid more Baby P scandals, with huge embarrassment to the Government. I trust that the Minister will take this seriously.
Finally, I ask the Minister what will become of the GSCC code of practice for social care workers, which is another group altogether. It is important that this code of practice is retained as an element in the standards framework for social care. This is all about standards and the quality of provision. Will this code of practice be hosted by Skills for Care in the interim before any registration of these workers, or will it be lost? I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the spurious financial justification for the abolition of the GSCC. I, too, understand that, financially, keeping the GSCC would stand up perfectly well—it could be self-funding on a similar basis to the HPC. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain this.
Very real risks arise from this planned merger. England will move out of line with its neighbouring countries, and we will reduce standards and safeguards in a profession at the front line of child protection. Is it really too late to rethink this high-risk plan?
Baroness Northover
These amendments on whether the clauses should stand part relate to the transfer of the regulation of social workers in England from the General Social Care Council to the Health Professions Council, and I thank noble Lords for them. The regulation of social workers in England is a very important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, having played a key role in the establishment of various of these bodies, argues his usual very strong case. We are committed to the development of the social work profession and the transfer of the regulation of social workers in England to the Health Professions Council as part of the ongoing work to reform the profession and to ensure that such regulation is effective and sustainable. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, I, too, pay tribute to those who have been involved in these changes. I have met a number of them and find impressive their commitment to the profession and to making sure that, whether they supported the changes in the first place or do now, they are doing their very best to make sure that this works as effectively as possible. The noble Baroness’s tribute to them is well deserved.
The purpose of compulsory statutory regulation is to assure the quality and safety of the regulated professions. That, of course, is separate from the development of the profession itself. We are clear that if we separate professional regulation from professional representation, action needs to be taken to ensure that social work has a strong professional voice, and that is why we are supporting the development of the College of Social Work and the appointment of a chief social worker. The proposed transfer of functions to the Health and Care Professions Council will bring a number of further benefits in the form of standards of proficiency, many of which will have been developed by and tailored for the profession, and a fitness to practise process that will look at conduct and competence in the round.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised some issues about the General Social Care Council and the costs and so on. The council has made progress in developing the organisation since the discovery of a backlog of contact cases in June 2009. However, while the council is improving, there is still a lot of work to be done to bring it into line with the other professional regulators, such as the Health Professions Council. In addition, the council estimated that its costs would significantly rise as a result of these changes, and it would have been challenging for individual social workers to meet those costs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The noble Baroness says that, but my understanding is that the latest estimate given by the GSCC is that as an independent regulator, the cost to registrants would be no different from that to the cost of registrants under the HPC, so I just do not understand the costs issue.
Baroness Northover
As the noble Lord will be aware, the figures provided by the General Social Care Council indicated that the costs would rise from £21 million to £25 million per annum, which would indeed cost about £250 per social worker. I realise that the council later revised this downwards, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do that those were the original figures based upon what the council estimated at the time. Even with the revision downwards, it was still not in line with the HPC, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware.
However, it is extremely important to make sure that the arrangements that are in place regulate the social work profession properly and separate out the professionalisation of social work. The noble Lord will remember that he asked a question on this, and I drew the distinction for the medical profession with which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will be familiar; the GMC regulates the medical profession, and the royal colleges do a fantastic job in promoting the profession and taking it further. The original arrangements that the noble Lord introduced were an earlier stage for social work, and the task now is to take it to the next level of development.
Regulation by the Health and Care Professions Council will bring social work regulation in England within the scope of the professional standards authority, with the added scrutiny that that will bring. It is our view that it would be wrong to require the Health Professions Council to move away from its tried and tested system of regulation solely for the social work profession.
Baroness Northover
As I just said, the HPC is currently consulting. I strongly suggest that the noble Baroness feeds into the consultation her recommendations and the evidence on which they are based so that they can be properly considered.
The question was raised of how social workers might be linked to the wider reform programme. The Health Professions Council is represented on the reform board and will be able to contribute its expertise to the ongoing reform of social work. Moira Gibb, chair of the reform board, is also a member of the Social Work Regulation Oversight Group. Her professional expertise and knowledge is contributing to the transfer process. Many organisations on the HPC’s professional liaison group, which has developed draft standards of proficiency for social workers in England, are also on the Social Work Reform Board, which has ensured that the development of standards has been informed by wider developments in social work in England.
I hope that noble Lords will see that a lot of attention is being focused on trying to ensure that the change will operate as effectively as possible and will be in the interests of those with whom social workers work. It is exceptionally important that we protect the vulnerable people whom social workers look after, and we are acutely aware of that. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendments in this group.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s response. Of course I agree with her last point that the end result will be the impact on people to whom social workers provide a service. However, she did not respond to her noble friend Lord Newton, who asked whether creating this new body would not repeat some of the issues that were faced by the CQC. I am left with puzzlement. I have not heard one point in favour of this happening. It is beyond me to understand why it is being done. No argument with any thought behind it has been put to suggest that this will improve the regulation of social workers.
On the question of costs, whatever the original estimate, the General Social Care Council produced new work. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Is she saying that the General Social Care Council is misleading Parliament on the issue? It stated clearly that it can produce a regulatory system that will cost the Health Professions Council very little.
Thirdly, on the question of student registration, the problem is that I know what the outcome will be of the work that the HPC will do. It will continue with the system that it applies to the health professions. It is clear that the HPC, although it is a good body, is completely inflexible and will not change its approach because a new profession has been added to it. There is no trust out there—I have fallen into the trap set by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I am talking about the professions. There is no trust because the record of the HPC is simply to embrace profession after profession, which all have to be moulded into the system that the HPC has set. While that will work for health professions, my concern is that social work is a completely different profession. This point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
I understand why my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is concerned about an amendment that stresses the importance of having social workers on the council of the HPC. However, because of the very new nature of the body, when one brings in a completely new profession some protection needs to be given. There needs to be some assurance that the HPC will have people at a very senior level who understand social work. I still do not know why a new council is not being appointed. If good faith was being shown by the Government to the social work profession, the current council would have been stood down and a new council appointed. That is why I tabled my amendment.
Finally, I turn to the name. The noble Baroness said that we cannot put “social work” in the name of the organisation because none of the other professions covered by the HPC is in the current HPC name. If that is the case, why does Clause 210 refer to the Health and Social Work Professions Order? The Government have no problem whatever recognising “social work” in an order before Parliament. Surely it is not up to the HPC to depart from that view. Clause 219 refers to the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. Therefore, if the noble Baroness does not like “social worker” in the title of the organisation, why would she not accept “health and social care professions”? Why is there an attempt to completely remove the concept of social work and social care from the title?
Unfortunately, an existing health body is simply taking over the social work profession without any genuflection whatever to the need to embrace social workers in the new organisation, whether in governance, remit or title. It is very disappointing that the Government are not prepared to reconsider the matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a very helpful offer from my noble friend. I welcome the debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for moving the amendment. It seems to me that there are two issues. First, we have already had a debate about whether certain professions, particularly healthcare assistants, should be statutorily regulated. No doubt, the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, will bring that back on Report. Secondly, notwithstanding whether one might agree or disagree about which profession should be statutorily regulated, is there some benefit in a voluntary register alongside statutory regulation or is there a halfway house, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has suggested, of strengthening what voluntary registration means? I have not sought to amend on the principle of voluntary registration. However, if it is accepted that there is benefit in having a voluntary register—the noble Baroness gave some powerful reasons in relation to healthcare assistants in our debate before the Statement—and if it is taken further and statutory bodies such as the NHS say, “We won’t employ you unless you are on a voluntary register”, there is then the problem that people could move on to other places and work in other care settings. Such people might have been sacked or removed by a trust. There is no guarantee of safeguards for the public. I have a sense that, once you have gone down the pathway of acknowledging that there is benefit in voluntary regulation, you are acknowledging that there should be statutory regulation.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, had to say and he will know that I have a particular interest in prison healthcare. I think that the involvement of the National Health Service in prison healthcare has led to a great improvement but more needs to be done. The points that he raised are very important.
I have put my name to Amendment 339BZA, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Low, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today. Perhaps I may briefly say that he has some strong arguments in relation to rehabilitation officers for the blind. He has pointed out that such officers work within the same legal framework as occupational therapists and social workers. They case-manage clients, devise and manage packages of care, oversee the work of lower skilled workers and manage risk-intensive situations with already vulnerable people. In Wales, statutory regulation for rehabilitation officers is due to be finalised at the end of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Low, would like some recognition that at least voluntary registration could be considered for this profession under the terms of the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give some positive response to the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for these amendments, which raise important issues about the ways in which we assure the quality and safety of our health and social care workforce. It is another bite of a very important cherry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, put it, which is a wonderfully graphic image. We had a full discussion of this issue earlier. Perhaps I may emphasise again that the Government are committed to embedding quality of care and patient safety at the heart of health and social care provision. These are the key drivers of our policy on workforce assurance.
I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that we need to drive up quality, which has run through a lot of our debates today. In considering how we achieve this, we need to ensure that any system is proportionate and effective and properly balances the need for local responsibility for providing high-quality, safe services, and the need for consistent and rigorous national standards. I assure noble Lords that we are not ruling out compulsory statutory regulation for any groups of workers. Compulsory statutory regulation will be considered where there is a clear body of evidence that the risks presented by specific groups cannot be mitigated by assured voluntary registration alongside other existing systems of assurance of standards, such as supervision of workers by qualified professionals, enforcement of standards by employers, registration with the Care Quality Commission, and the vetting and barring system.
However, compulsory statutory regulation, as we discussed earlier although we did not all agree, is not a panacea. It is no substitute for good leadership at every level and proper and visible management of health and social care services. The best protection for the public is, of course, well run services focused on the individual and delivered by qualified staff and appropriately trained and supervised care workers. Employers, commissioners and managers must take responsibility for ensuring this and we need to make sure that local service providers and commissioners are held to account for managing problems effectively and promptly.
The Care Quality Commission sets standards of care for all providers of regulated activities and takes action when they are not met. These standards include a requirement that providers use suitable numbers of appropriately trained and qualified workers. In the rare cases where health and social care workers present a risk of harm to service users, the vetting and barring system can be used to ban individuals from working with vulnerable adults and children. In this context, our view is that the standards of unregulated groups of health and social care workers can generally be assured without imposing compulsory statutory regulation. However, we recognise that we need to ensure that commissioners, employers, supervisors and individual users of services have the knowledge needed appropriately to employ, delegate to and supervise health and social care workers. The Government believe, as noble Lords have clearly picked up, that assured voluntary registration enables this to be achieved.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to enable regulatory bodies to establish and maintain voluntary registers of unregulated rehabilitation officers for the blind in England. The assured voluntary registration of this important group of workers would enable standards to be set for entry to and practice of the profession. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Low, through the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the amendment is unnecessary as we are confident that the provisions which enable voluntary registers as social care workers in England to be established by the Health and Care Professions Council and accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care are already wide enough to include such officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, flagged up key areas with his particular concern about prisoners’ mental health and the mental health of those coming out of the Army. The Health and Care Professions Council will be given the power to set up voluntary registers of workers. Perhaps I may clarify for him the possible confusion over the roles of the various bodies. The council can set up voluntary registers of workers. The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care will not hold registers, but will have the function of accrediting them to ensure that they are robust. However, I am happy to write with further details to clarify the situation for the noble Lord so as to ensure that he is quite happy with the way that things will be organised.
In referring back to our earlier debate, perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lady Barker, who is absolutely right in terms of training, that we place great importance on improving the training of health and social care workers, and especially on further integrating it, something flagged up not only by my noble friend, but also earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and others.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our commitment to assuring the quality and safety of health and social care workers and the contribution assured voluntary registration can make to the existing systems of assurance of the standards of health and social care workers. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
“( ) The Chair will be appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Health Select Committee of the House of Commons.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this amendment brings us to NICE. I start by paying tribute to its work, and I should say that I much appreciated the commendation for the institute made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the Oral Question last week. NICE was established because of the slowness of the NHS to take up proven new treatments and drugs, and although there was concern at the time of its establishment, I do not think there is any doubt that it has done a good job and that it has achieved global recognition for aspects of its work. It is important to build on this in the future and not to put any qualifications or impediments in its way or undermine its independence. That is why Amendment 340W would provide that the consent of the Health Select Committee ought to be required for the appointment of the chairman of NICE. This is a very important appointment, and I would have thought that parliamentary scrutiny will enhance confidence in the independence of NICE’s role.
Amendment 340X would remove the current provision in Schedule 17 to give the Secretary of State a veto over the appointment of the chief executive of NICE. Given the Secretary of State’s desire to take a hands-off approach and given also the enhancement in the status of NICE, I remain somewhat puzzled as to why the Secretary of State wishes to maintain a veto power over the appointment of the chief executive, and I wonder if the noble Earl would consider removing it. Surely it would be appropriate to leave it to the good sense of the chairman and members of the board to appoint the chief executive.
Amendment 344ZA ties in with Amendment 344, to which my noble friend will speak in a moment. It is important that NICE should continue to assess the cost-effectiveness to the health service of new pharmaceutical products, and certainly until this matter is incorporated into a system of quality standards as provided for in Clause 231. I assume that this is also tied to proposals on value-based pricing which we debated a little at Second Reading. Essentially, however, I would like some assurance from the noble Earl that in the current circumstances, appraisals by NICE will be subject to directions so far as implementations are concerned and that clinical commissioning groups will be required to implement such guidance. The point here is this. The other reason NICE was established was to try to remove postcode prescribing as far as possible, so it is important to ensure that this continues under the Government’s new proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. At heart, there are two key issues here. One is the independence of NICE—I am grateful for what the noble Earl said on that. I certainly support the change in status. The reason there is some anxiety about independence is that in two parts of the Bill the NHS Commissioning Board has powers of direction over NICE. We will come on to this in relation to Clause 231 on quality standards—it applies also to Clause 236 but this is where some of the concern comes from. I am very dubious about whether quangos, to put it kindly, should have power over NICE. That is where the concern comes from and why scrutiny by the Health Select Committee of the chair would be important.
The noble Earl has reassured us that the technology appraisals will continue and that, until value-based pricing is introduced, there will be a clear understanding that NHS bodies will implement the technology appraisals. He said that it would not be appropriate for those directions to the health service to be in the Bill, but can he clarify that the current order will be amended so that instead of directions to health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts in England, clinical commissioning groups will appear in the title of the order? It is quite clear that although this will be done by secondary legislation, clinical commissioning groups will be required. I take his point about the need for discretion when it comes to primary legislation, but I would like to ask him about that point.
My third point to the noble Earl is about value-based pricing. One of the joys of talking about value-based pricing is that no one understands it, and, frankly, having read all the reports and the original OXERA report, I confess that I am still rather puzzled by it. It sounds good, but I caution the Government that the PPRS has served us reasonably well. It has allowed the Government to cap the profits of the pharmaceutical industry but has given them complete discretion about the price of individual drugs—the advantage being that prices set in the UK have then been influential throughout the rest of Europe. My concern about value-based pricing is that, combined with issues around the regulation of medical health research, it makes the UK a less attractive place for the industry to invest in R&D.
My noble friend Lord Warner toured the boardrooms of New York and New Jersey, and I followed him to sweep up—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
—not the mess, my Lords, but my noble friend’s vigorous discussions—because of the wish to ensure that those global companies continued to invest in the UK. The problem with the Department of Health is that while it sponsors the industry, its real concern, when it comes down to it, will always be the cost of drugs to the National Health Service—hence my concern that powers of direction by the NHS Commissioning Board will not be used in a way that is conducive both to the independence of NICE and to the continued R&D spend on pharmaceuticals in this country. I do not really want to institute a debate on value-based pricing at this point, but I hope that the Government will look very carefully at its introduction and all the consequences from it. Having said that, unless the noble Earl wishes to answer the point on direction, I certainly beg leave to withdraw.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I will drop the noble Lord a letter on the funding direction, but it is our intention to place this in secondary legislation, appropriately amended as he indicated. It is possible that this will be incorporated in the standing rules as a fixture. On value-based pricing, I can tell him only that quite detailed work is currently under way on the model and that, while I agree in many ways with his comments on the PPRS, it has two unsatisfactory features. One is that it does not recognise fully the factors that society values; the other is that it does not incentivise research sufficiently to address areas of unmet need. If we can achieve both those things, it will represent an advance, but the noble Lord is right that there is still some way to go before this model is finalised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Owen
I thank the Minister for his explanation earlier. I found much of it convincing, particularly his statement that Professor Mike Rawlins thought that this was a vote of confidence in his organisation. I have long had respect for Professor Rawlins—he was an adviser to the SDP many years ago, so I can hardly disavow his advice at this stage. I urge the Minister to consider for one moment that Amendment 342 would go a long way towards reassuring a lot of us. It would take out the word “direct” and put in the concept of agreeing, which would be much more beneficial if he wants to establish the relationship in reality.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Clause 231 says:
“The relevant commissioner may direct NICE to prepare statements of standards in relation to the provision of … NHS services”.
In relation to a quality standard regarding the provision of NHS services, the relevant commissioner means the Commissioning Board.
I come back to the point about independence: surely it should be the Secretary of State who should direct NICE to prepare statements of standards in relation to the provision of NHS services. Surely, under this architecture, the concern of the Commissioning Board will be money. It is going to have to ensure that the NHS delivers what the Secretary of State requires in the mandate, which is growing ever longer as we debate the Bill, and that will mean quite a lot of pressure on it. I am worried that because it can direct NICE to prepare statements of standards, it is bound to be governed by finance; in fact, it is bound to relate the number of standards that it directs to the resource issue.
Of course one has to take account of resources, and the very fact that NICE’s technology appraisals are concerned with cost effectiveness is a recognition that we have to make judgments about the use of resources, but I would have thought that there was benefit in there being a distance between that direct concern of the Commissioning Board and the overriding leadership of the service that the Secretary of State must provide.
I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to give this further consideration. In this part of the Bill and in Clause 236, where the board can give directions to NICE, one simply has anxieties that, at least visibly, the independence of NICE might be compromised.
Earl Howe
My Lords, NICE’s independence is the foundation of its reputation as an authoritative source of evidence-based advice. To guarantee that independence, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Bill contains no direction-giving power to enable NICE to be directed as to the substance of a quality standard, and explicitly prohibits regulations from enabling the Secretary of State or the NHS Commissioning Board to direct NICE on the substance of its advice, guidance or recommendations. I reassure noble Lords that the independence of NICE’s advice is assured by the very mechanism by which it formulates it—through public consultation and collaboration with respected authorities such as medical royal colleges.
I shall explain in a moment how we propose that the NICE quality standards should be commissioned, because there are different arrangements for different types of quality standard. However, the amendments begin to chip away at what we want to see—that is, a clinically led process—by specifying what really does not need to be specified, as the evidence of the quality standards published to date shows. I appreciate that many people have an interest in this programme, and that is why subsection (7) not only requires NICE to establish a process for its quality standards programme but requires a consultation on that process. That gives ample opportunity to patients, clinicians and other interested parties to have a say in how the programme is delivered.
NICE is expected to develop a broad library of between 150 and 175 quality standards, spanning the domains of the NHS outcomes framework and commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board. The Secretary of State will have responsibility for commissioning quality standards for social care and public health. For integrated pathways of care covering NHS treatment together with public health and/or social care interventions, the Secretary of State and the Commissioning Board will be able to commission quality standards jointly. So, NICE will prepare quality standards when commissioned to do so by the board for NHS healthcare services, by the Secretary of State for the public health service and social care and jointly by the Secretary of State and the board for integrated pathways.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, expressed his disappointment at the rate of progress of the rollout of NICE quality standards. Actually, there has been a steady start to this: we have some two dozen quality standards at the moment and, as I mentioned, we will have between 150 and 175 of them over a five-year programme. We agree with the noble Lord that it is crucial to maintain momentum with this important work, and NICE has told us that it believes that the programme is realistic. It is unnecessary to undertake to agree a programme of quality standards each year. The current programme that is being overseen by the National Quality Board is ideally placed to deliver that steady steam of quality standards over the agreed timescales.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked how we will ensure that standards will stand the test of time. NICE regularly reviews its products, including guidelines and standards. This is an established part of NICE’s working procedure that has helped it to attain its high standing with patients, clinicians and, indeed, the industry. NICE is keen to take into account any new evidence and to be responsive to changes in circumstances.
As I said earlier, NICE quality standards bring clarity to quality, providing definitive and authoritative statements of high quality care and based, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly said, on the evidence of what works best. As we move towards a system that will focus on improving the outcomes that matter most to patients, it is vital that quality standards reflect these.
Amendment 343, which places a particular emphasis on long-term conditions, is understandably motivated but it may have the unintended consequence of excluding other conditions. While I sympathise with the sentiment, it is probably undesirable to specify that in the Bill. That is why the National Quality Board is overseeing the development of a process for selecting topics for the rest of the library that will integrate and build on the current process for selecting the NICE clinical guidelines. This process recognises the importance of ensuring that smaller specialties are taken into consideration. I have a long list here of topics in the proposed programme that address long-term conditions. I am happy to let noble Lords have that. This reflects the fact that these quality standards are needed to help the NHS improve outcomes in this area, as we envisaged in the NHS outcomes framework.
NICE recently completed an engagement exercise on the proposed library of quality standards. The responses were overwhelmingly positive about the programme and the role of quality standards in the new system. This feedback is reassuring, and I hope it reassures the noble Lords sufficiently to enable them not to press their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Is not the point that NICE enjoys a global reputation for the excellence of its work, as we discussed earlier? I do not know how many hits it has on its website every day but I understand that it is a considerable number. Is this not a huge advantage for the UK and that all the Government are seeking to do is to ensure that NICE can exploit that so that its work in the UK can be developed elsewhere?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is exactly right. He will know from his time as a Minister with responsibility in this area that NICE has steadily grown its reputation overseas, and that with that have come opportunities to sell its services in a number of quarters. We simply want to see that continue.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
That is helpful. My noble friend and I are clearly in agreement. I apologise if I imputed any different views to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, indicated that she felt that the oversight powers for foundation trusts should be retained. As the regulator of all providers of NHS-funded services, Monitor will continue regulating foundation trusts under this Bill. These would be enduring functions, not transitional. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured by that. What would be transitional, however, is Monitor’s power to remove foundation trust boards and board members. That is what Clauses 109 to 112 provide for until 2016, although the Secretary of State would be able to extend the transition period by order, as I indicated earlier, if he or she considered it necessary.
My noble friend Lord Ribeiro sought assurances that all providers will work on a level playing field. I am happy to assure him that all providers will indeed be required to meet the same quality standards for the same procedures. Before being qualified, providers will be required to demonstrate that they can meet those quality standards and Monitor will set fair prices for all providers. Competition, as I have said on previous occasions, will be on quality and not on price. If my noble friend will allow, I shall write to him in some detail with answers to his specific questions, which of course were extremely pertinent. I will copy the letter to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, also said that the Secretary of State should not raid the budgets of successful foundation trusts. I can assure her that this Bill would not enable the Secretary of State to direct individual foundation trusts or to raid foundation trust budgets, which she has rightly cautioned against. She said that there was a need to ensure that the new system should allow care to be shifted out of hospital. I share her view on that. It is essential that the new system enables more care to be shifted out of hospital into people’s homes and communities. This will require strong commissioning, and that is a key point made by the King’s Fund.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of a foundation trust. It is quite simple for commissioners to be instructed to top-slice, say, 2 per cent of their budget and for the commissioning process to be used to divert money from some foundation trusts to others. What the Minister ignores in his construct of the Bill is the actual practice that is happening in the system at the moment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I do not see how the noble Earl can get away from that. We have recently seen that the Secretary of State, having said that he will not intervene, has made three interventions, twice in relation to PCT behaviour and once in relation to the quality outcomes, and in the last debate the noble Earl said that he would continue to use that mandate in future. It seems to me that we will continue to see these kinds of central interventions. It is as if we were in parallel universes. In one, we have the Bill and the theory. In the other, we have the practical management of the health service. Which is it to be?
Earl Howe
Once again, the word “micromanagement” springs to mind. We want to get away from the Secretary of State micromanaging the health service. On the other hand, we think it is perfectly right and proper for the Secretary of State, on behalf of voters, patients and Parliament, to set broad objectives for the NHS, such as the NHS outcomes framework. That document has been very well thought out by clinicians led by Sir Bruce Keogh in the department and has, I believe, commanded universal approval. Surely this is the territory that the Secretary of State should be on: to drive up the quality of care and the performance of the NHS, but not to micromanage.
I recognise that there are fundamental fears that this Bill would increase the role of competition in the NHS and take us down the road to privatisation. I need to be clear that it is not the intention of this Bill, and I do not believe that it is the effect of this Bill, to privatise the NHS. The Bill reaffirms that the NHS will always be there for everyone who needs it, funded from general taxation and free at the point of use. Extending choice and increasing competition is not about privatisation. We want patients to be able to choose to receive their care from the highest-quality providers. Competition in services, where it is introduced, should only be introduced when commissioners genuinely and for good reasons believe that it will benefit patients and the quality of their care. Should we allow this to happen without any check that it is happening legally and properly? Our answer is no; it needs to be overseen fairly and apolitically by a sector-specific regulator with the interests of patients as its core duty.
As with other parts of the Bill, I am more than willing to enter into discussion with noble Lords on Part 3, and I have already indicated that I am sympathetic to some of the key concerns which these amendments raise. With that in mind, I hope that we can move on and debate different issues arising from this part of the Bill and that noble Lords will feel content for the time being not to press the amendments.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I have two amendments in this grouping and, lest I be drummed out of the Brownies, I would like to explain that there is a typo in the Marshalled List. It should read not “detailed merits” but “detailed remits”. As noble Lords will appreciate, there is a great difference, and I do not need any persuasion as to the merits of this Bill.
The purpose of my two amendments is to be probing; I am really just seeking clarification. The Future Forum was very widely welcomed by most people, but it further complicated the new proposals in the Bill regarding how we are to organise and manage the NHS. After years of being dictated to and micromanaged, there is a real risk of paralysis, and this at a time when commissioners need to reach decisions and be truly radical.
As I understand the proposed structure, the national Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups will be supported by clinical networks, clinical senates, commissioning support organisations and health and well-being boards, which will work in partnership with them. In addition, we have a new public health system, which we debated last Monday, with the creation of Public Health England and the establishment of HealthWatch England and Local HealthWatch to try to improve patient and public involvement. This has the potential to cause confusion and duplication if the Government are not clear about the accountabilities, roles and responsibilities of these different organisations. I would like to take a very serious example: it is still unclear who will take the lead on the commissioning of specialist doctors and nurses responsible for safeguarding children within the NHS.
At a national level, the movement from a single department of state to a more dispersed range of organisations, including the national Commissioning Board, Public Health England, HealthWatch England, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission, could have a similar effect. The danger is that the NHS could find itself in paralysis at just the moment that it needs to make key decisions that are crucial for the sustainability of parts of the service. In particular, some of the important decisions on potential service reconfigurations are urgent if the NHS is to meet the Nicholson challenge and at the same time fulfil its commitment to high quality and safe services to patients.
It is still unclear to me, and I know that it is to some others, how the respective responsibilities and accountabilities of commissioners, providers and regulators for quality are intended to work together. We also need to ensure that additional complexity does not result in an increased administrative burden or financial cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, falling on healthcare organisations. I think that my noble friend gave an undertaking on that on Monday but further clarification would be welcome.
Because of these concerns about the complexity of the new structure, I am asking the Minister if he could look seriously at this issue; go beyond the organograms and design detailed remits and powers for all those in the system to minimise confusion, gaps and duplication; and be as clear as possible at the outset as the reforms are implemented, while at the same time keep under review and address any confusion, gaps and duplication between the components in the system. Change is always a challenge. The more we can reduce muddle and confusion from the outset, the more successful these reforms will be.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group which concern the duty of the Secretary of State to keep health service functions under review. This is an important provision. I note that on what will probably be the last day in Committee, we have Amendment 354, which relates to a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a report which can then be debated by Parliament. Although it is not grouped with this amendment, it is highly relevant to it.
It would be helpful to know from the Minister just how these matters are going to be monitored and how adjustments can be made in the light of experience. As my noble friend Lord Warner suggested, although we are not going to be allowed to see the risk register—I am very doubtful that we will see it before the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House—we know that considerable risks will come with these changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, spelled out some of the key issues that we face. The last thing that the health service needs is a massive reorganisation. Clearly, there are risks and it is right that there should be a regular review by the Secretary of State.
It is also right that the Secretary of State, when reviewing the operation of the changes, reviews all parts of it. I am extremely puzzled by Clause 49 concerning the duty to keep under review. The Bill sets out the bodies to be reviewed. They are the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, the Care Quality Commission, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Health and Social Care Information Centre and special health authorities. There is no mention of the plethora of bodies that will exist in the new system. There is no mention of clinical senates, the local field forces of the NHS Commissioning Board or health and well-being boards. Quite remarkably, there is nothing about clinical commissioning groups. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell me why the effectiveness of the CCGs is not to be kept under review?
Perhaps I have misread the Bill and this will be done in some other way. But I find it remarkable that this Bill is built around GPs and clinical commissioning groups, which are untried and untested, yet they are not to be kept under review. Looking at the architecture of this Bill, one begins to see very tight control of most of the health service but when it comes to clinical commissioning groups, issues of corporate governance, conflicts of interest or any of the other matters, it is incredibly light touch. It is as if we are to believe that, somehow, this part of the reforms is believed by the Secretary of State to be so remarkably able to carry out its duties that very little monitoring, performance management or review is to be undertaken. I would be grateful to know why clinical commissioning groups in particular have been left out of this list.
Amendment 243A concerns the annual report. In Clause 50 we see a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of the whole service in England, which must be laid before Parliament. That, of course, is welcome. But my amendment asks that the report should include a statement on progress towards reducing relevant inequalities, on integration of services, on waiting time performance, and on health outcome performance. No doubt the noble Earl will argue that it is a list, and that the Secretary of State’s annual report is bound to cover these matters.
However, we are in new territory when it comes to specifying matters in the Bill. We are told that the Secretary of State is stepping back from involvement in the National Health Service, and that we should not worry about that, because there will be a mandate, and a constitution. All will be well. Those of us with some experience in these matters are rather doubtful as to whether that is sufficient in terms of accountability. In that context, it is right for Parliament to set out some details which we would expect the Secretary of State to report annually. Of course, there may well be other matters which one would wish the Secretary of State to report on, but my four areas cover some of the main points.
Amendment 245B relates to the intervention orders under the 2006 Act. I would be grateful if the noble Earl would confirm whether those intervention orders apply to the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups. If they do not, perhaps he could explain why not?
Amendment 245C deals with liabilities and the Secretary of State’s responsibility in relation to NHS organisations. Again, could the Minister confirm whether this duty applies to the NHS Commissioning Board and to clinical commissioning groups?
Amendment 245ZA relates to the general power of the Secretary of State. In page 289, line 30, the Government seek to dissipate the general power of the Secretary of State, as is currently set out in Section 2 of the 2006 Act. I realise that this takes us back to the crucial debate we had on day 1 about the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. The Explanatory Note which relates to this says that the reason for changing the wording is because there is no longer a duty on the Secretary of State to provide services. Given that those matters have been, in a sense, put to one side, is this part of the package that is being looked at, because it does relate to the general powers of the Secretary of State?
My noble friend Lord Warner made some very apposite points which I certainly support, and I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I had been agonising about her amendments, and she has very helpfully clarified a point for all of us. She has really put her finger on it. I am disappointed that she did not take part in our debate at our last sitting ,when we discussed the complexity of the new arrangements.
We were promised a streamlined approach. What we have got instead is a highly complex set of arrangements. The NHS Confederation has expressed its concern about their complexity. I therefore like the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that asks the Government to try to clarify for us who on earth is responsible for what in the new system.
When it comes to the key issues of the reconfiguration of specialist services and of funding, someone out there is going to have to hold the reins. Some agency or body is going to have to sort the problems out. It ain’t going to be the clinical commissioning groups. They are too small and they will not be able to do it, so someone else will have to. Is it going to be the clinical senates, or are we going to have to rely on the local government health and well-being boards, or will it actually be the local offices of the NHS Commissioning Board? I know that it will be the local offices of the NHS Commissioning Board. If that is so, we come back to the fact that that is patently going to be where the power is, and surely they ought to be made accountable. That is why I had an amendment down on our last day in Committee to turn them into statutory bodies. I detected a modicum of sympathy around the Committee, but not much more than that. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as a distinguished former regional health authority chairman, knows that when we had the RHAs it was they that, in the end, had to intervene and sort problems out. There needs to be some sort of agency to do that in the future, and I think we should be told.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene but I have been stimulated to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The model being described of the Commissioning Board and its regional offices—the outposts—is very similar to the model that functions rather well for universities. There is the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which is centralised but also corporate with all its regional offices. The vice-chancellors, who you might say are the chief executives of the local organisations, relate directly to HEFCE. However, the regional executive officers are there to act as a moral support and a conduit. They do not necessarily sort out problems, but at least they are aware of them and know which areas the central body ought to be looking at. That is not so different from the way the regional officers from the Department of Health worked during the time of the district health authorities, between 1983 and 1990. If it is well done, and it has certainly functioned well for the duration of HEFCE, then it seems to me that it is a model which can be built on and developed. Is not that the way the problems the noble Lord is talking about will be resolved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful intervention and I fully accept what she says. I want to make two points. First, we need an acknowledgment by the Government that there is going to be a kind of intermediate tier that, in the end, they can turn to when there are problems—if CCGs cannot work out a strategic approach or if reconfiguration is not taking place, as well as all the things that arise in the health service generally. My second argument is that I believe the health service is somewhat different from HEFCE in that it touches everybody, and the kind of issues that this intermediate tier will intervene on are likely to concern the public much more. There is then a case for making the intermediate tier a statutory body. Essentially there are two points here. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of a helpful enabling intermediate tier which occasionally needs to intervene.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I have observed on earlier occasions, I believe that this Bill increases Ministers’ accountability for the health service through a range of mechanisms. However, perhaps I may begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I agree that the Secretary of State’s annual report is an important mechanism through which he will account for the system. I am sympathetic to the objective behind Amendments 243 and 243A, which seek to specify areas for inclusion in the Secretary of State’s annual report, but I can reassure noble Lords that I expect to see mention of areas such as the reduction of inequalities set out in the report, as these issues are the foundation of a high-performing health service.
The Bill also sets out extensive powers of intervention in the case of failure, which are essential if Ministers are to be able to retain ultimate accountability for the health service. The intervention powers in the Bill are specific to the organisations to which they apply, which is the issue covered by Amendments 245B and 245C. With that point in mind, I believe that the powers set out by the Bill strike the right balance, enabling appropriate freedom for NHS bodies while ensuring that the Secretary of State can intervene in the event of their failure.
The Secretary of State’s duty of keeping performance under review only applies to national arm’s-length bodies. It does not refer to CCGs. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, questioned why that was. We think that is right; however, the CCGs will very definitely be kept under review. The Bill sets out a robust process for the board to hold CCGs to account and sets out extensive powers for the board to keep the performance of CCGs under review and to step in where they are not performing.
The noble Lord also queried why there was no mention of a range of other bodies, such as senates and field forces. The answer is that they are part of the NHS Commissioning Board, which is specifically mentioned. As regards health and well-being boards, as the noble Lord will know, we intend them to be part of local government. I do not think local authorities would take very kindly to the Secretary of State for Health keeping them under review.
There are also a number of amendments in this group that are concerned with the transparency and accountability of arm’s-length bodies, such as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Much like the Secretary of State’s annual report, each arm’s-length body’s annual report and accounts must be laid before Parliament. I simply remind the Committee that all ALBs are under a duty to exercise their functions effectively, efficiently and economically, and the Secretary of State is required to keep under review how effectively they are exercising their duties and functions.
Finally, I turn to co-operation between the bodies in the system. The Bill sets out a formal duty on each organisation to co-operate, and the department will hold organisations to account for the way they work with each other, not just how they perform their own functions. As regards Amendments 240A, 243ZA, 350 and 351, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that, through these two routes, the department will work to ensure that duplication is prevented and gaps do not emerge. If the Secretary of State believes that the duties of co-operation are being breached or are at significant risk of being breached, he will be able to write formally and publicly to the organisations. If the breach is significant, sustained and having a detrimental effect on the NHS, the Secretary of State will have a further ability to lay an order specifying that the organisation should take certain actions only with the approval of another specified body, other than the Secretary of State himself.
Amendment 245ZA looks to reinstate a power at Section 2 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which would enable the Secretary of State to provide services. We believe that the role of the Secretary of State should be one of oversight, direction-setting and intervention when organisations are failing. We have had many hours of valuable discussion on this topic; so while I fully understand the various concerns raised by noble Lords, I remind the Committee that all sides of this House have agreed to a process of engagement and discussion on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked specifically in relation to this amendment whether this issue was covered by that process. The Clauses 1 and 4 process, as I call it, is considering the issue of the Secretary of State’s accountability for the NHS in the round rather than specific clauses in the Bill; so, yes, this would be covered by that process.
I hope that I have provided enough detail on these clauses to enable the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lady Gould, on their perseverance. I think they have been waiting for about three days for this amendment. Clearly, they have pointed out the anomaly in the law and the perverse incentive under the current situation; in particular, the fact that if charges result in no treatment, there is danger to the individual and risk of spreading the disease, and that knowledge of charging prevents people from coming forward for testing and treatment. As my noble friend Lady Gould has just said, the contrast with other infectious diseases such as TB clearly points this out as an anomaly.
I too was interested in the answer to the question about health tourism. We have been given a pretty convincing response. The experience of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is very clear. I also found very interesting the question of cost against benefit. It appears that very little money is raised by the charge, but that it is a disincentive for people to come forward. If they do not come forward, the cost to the system in the end is much greater. It seems to me a pretty convincing argument. I know there is a review, but we encourage the noble Baroness to anticipate that review and give good news to your Lordships tonight.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Fowler for the constructive way in which he has raised this amendment and I pay credit, as others have to done, to his continuing, enormous commitment to improving HIV services for all. I also pay tribute to other noble Lords who contributed to this debate and to this long battle over many years. I will commit to having considered by Report the arguments and proposals set out by my noble friend.
The Department of Health is indeed currently concluding an internal review of the current policy to charge some people for HIV treatment. We will be concluding this review by the new year, including any discussions with the other government departments which will have an interest. The review has considered many of the issues raised by noble Lords today. These include the increasing evidence of the public health benefits of early diagnosis and the role of HIV treatment in reducing onward transmission of HIV.
In the UK, around 25 per cent of people with HIV are unaware of their infection, which means they are unable to benefit from effective treatment and risk transmitting HIV to others. Promoting HIV testing to reduce undiagnosed HIV and late diagnosis remain important priorities for HIV prevention. We would be very concerned if our current policy were to deter people from testing for HIV, even though testing has always been free of charge to all. Those already entitled to free HIV treatment and care include asylum seekers and, from 1 August this year, failed asylum seekers receiving specific support packages from the UK Border Agency. Further, failed asylum seekers who are already receiving HIV treatment when their asylum application and any appeal fails continue to receive free HIV treatment up to the point that they leave the country, regardless of whether or not they receive the UK Border Agency support.
However, I acknowledge that a small number of vulnerable people will not be covered by the current exemptions and they may be deterred from accessing HIV testing services because they cannot afford treatment or are confused about the entitlement to free NHS treatment.
The world has made huge progress against the HIV epidemic in the 30 years since AIDS was first identified. Globally, new infections have fallen, and nearly 7 million people are on ARV treatment. While there is currently no significant evidence of health tourism in relation to HIV, in considering any changes to our current policy we must make sure we that we do not create an incentive for people to come to the UK for the purpose of free HIV treatment, without compromising our overriding responsibility for public health. I stress again that our overriding responsibility is to public health. As my noble friend Lord Fowler said, the Select Committee on HIV examined the issue of health tourism.
In conclusion, the department's review identified and considered many of the issues raised today. We are now looking urgently at how these can best be addressed. I assure my noble friend that we will provide a clear position in time for Report. I hope that in the light of this he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Nursing
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for her splendid opening to our debate, I declare an interest as chair of the Heart of England NHS Trust and as a consultant and trainer for Cumberlege Connections. I also acknowledge my noble friend Lord MacKenzie on the Front Bench. I suspect that what he does not know about nursing is not worth knowing; it is very good to see him there.
This is a very timely debate. We all agree that the quality of nursing care is fundamental to the quality of the patient experience. However, we are presented with a paradox. On the one hand there have been huge advances in the nursing profession over the past 20 years. There has been the move to it being a graduate profession. Nurses have taken on much greater responsibility. There is complex care and specialist nurses, in both hospital and the community, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, so vividly informed us. I think also of midwifery. If the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, were here, she would be able to talk about changing childbirth and how the profession was encouraged to take on a huge leadership role. The public have welcomed the increased responsibility that nurses have taken on.
At the same time there has been a mounting concern about basic standards of care and issues to do with hygiene, the feeding of patients, nutrition, dignity and even face-to face contact. This has been reinforced by several reports from unannounced visits and the CQC over the past few years. There have been any number of investigations of concerns about what seems to be a falling off in basic values of care. What is the reason for that? My noble friend Lady Warwick convincingly demonstrated that the old canard about modern nurses being “too posh to wash” just does not stack up. However, there are a number of questions that one might ask. There is a real question about whether nurse training is too focused on academic performance rather than on practical nurse training.
I also wonder whether the drive for specialist nurses and modern matrons has removed too many experienced nurses from the ward or the equivalent within the community. Has the lack of regulation for healthcare assistants led to patchy and inadequate care in some places, despite the undoubted dedication of many of them? We need some serious thinking about how to enhance quality overall and the standards of basic care that nurses give. Certainly, in my own trust a lot of thinking has gone into the quality of nurses. I claim no credit for it. While we do not have matrons in starched caps, we certainly have visible chief nurses in purple uniforms walking the wards as a visible demonstration of nurse leadership, which has been warmly welcomed. Anyone who wants to see nurses really dressed up should go to the Florence Nightingale service in Westminster Abbey once a year. I always hope that the chief nursing officer will come in uniform—alas not. To see the chief nurses of the Army, Navy and Air Force marching up the aisle is a wonder to behold. The reason why the public like to see it is that they want to see nurses in authority. They want them to have the confidence to be leaders in the ward, in the community and in the health service as a whole.
Another thing that we have done is to develop a robust measurement of nurse standards by polling 400 patients a month, looking at the results, reporting to the board and trying to identify any problems with nursing care. The third thing that we have done is to develop VITAL—virtual interactive teaching and learning. Essentially, it assesses all nurses online for their knowledge of best practice in fundamental care. This covers, for example, nutrition, falls, privacy and dignity and pain management. Since the summer, 60 per cent of our trust’s workforce have achieved 100 per cent in that online examination. Our intention is that from next year all newly qualified nurses and midwives will have to achieve 100 per cent within six months or they will not get the substantive contract. We also expect our nurses and midwives to sign up to a code of values and behaviour. We are introducing a badge for our nurses which will be achieved only if they get 100 per cent in the online test, sign up to our values and have evidence that they are putting those values into action. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, will certainly remember the badge, which nurses wore with pride. It showed where they came from and who they were; for example, the Tommy’s nurses. We need to get some of that ethos back into the health service.
We have done a lot but there are a lot of issues around the training and education of nurses. I do not disagree with the requirement for nurses to have a degree. I do not think there is any argument about that. However, we have thought about how a foundation trust could be much more involved in nurse education and in supporting students in practical nurse training. We wanted to facilitate a practice-based model built around the trust which promoted our core values but adhered to national standards and the curriculum as laid down by the Nursing and Midwifery Council and with appropriate academic accreditation. It is fair to say that our proposal has not met with universal acclaim. Indeed, I feel that all the establishment bodies concerned with nurse training and education have put a real dampener on this. We have been accused of turning the clock back to the old schools of nursing. That is a bit unfair to some of the old schools of nursing because they were pretty good. However, we are not trying to do that. We seek to facilitate a more practical-based nurse education degree, which would have degree status but would be built much more around the hospital and its values. I do not think that this discussion is at an end. I believe that we will soon have a new chief nursing officer to follow on the excellent current CNO Christine Beasley, if one has not yet been appointed. This must be one of the main focuses of the new chief nursing officer. What could be more important than sorting out the education and training of nurses?
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Masham, were right about the role of senior sisters, or their equivalent, in the community. We need to empower them to lead. That means they have to have control of the budget so that whoever is providing the cleaning or the food, whether it is directly employed people or contract cleaners, none the less when the senior sister wants something to happen there is no question but that it happens. We need to give our senior sisters much more confidence and support to take on a leadership role. We need to go back to the days when doctors were a bit scared of the senior sister because she is in charge and she is the person on whom the patients depend for the overall quality of care. Making our senior sisters supernumerary so that they can focus entirely on leadership and management will cost us £1.6 million. It is a challenge to find the resource to allow them to focus much more on leadership. The problem with being drawn back into being counted as one of the qualified nurses on wards is that they then get so focused on caring for patients that they just do not have the time to carry out the leadership role that is required.
I urge the noble Earl to take account of two further points. My noble friend Lady Warwick talked about the lack of UK research in relation to basic nursing standards. The noble Earl will not be surprised to hear that there is an issue with regard to the amount of money spent on research into nursing. I know of the efforts made by the department over the years to give a boost to the amount of money spent on research in relation to nursing but clearly we need to go somewhat further in that regard. We probably need to have more academics who can focus on research.
With regard to healthcare assistant regulation, the Government’s response is to have a voluntary register. I suspect that there will be a halfway house and that it will not be long before some NHS organisations will say, “You can’t be a healthcare assistant with us unless you register voluntarily”. I hope that training programmes will be set up but, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has given in terms of safeguarding the public, the argument for regulation is becoming ever more persuasive.
I hope the noble Earl recognises that the number of nurse training places should be determined by Ministers. If he devolves that issue, he will find that in times of financial difficulty the number of training places will be cut. I would give much more discretion to the NHS locally to determine arrangements with universities regarding the provision of graduate education for nurses. However, history tells us that the moment the department relinquishes control of the number of training places, the health service does the wrong thing. I know that we are debating the tension between national leadership and local discretion, but national leadership is required in some areas, and this is one of them.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(1) The Secretary of State may give directions to any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) about the exercise of any functions.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) the bodies are—
(a) NHS Commissioning Board(b) clinical Commissioning Groups”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is exactly the point I was going to raise. Originally my Amendment 152 was grouped with Amendment 153 and other groups. For some reason I have been divorced by the Liberal Democrats, who are going to have a second debate on the same issue. This is a complete waste of time. I think that the best thing is for me not to move my amendment now, but I will speak to it in the next group.
Lord Owen
My Lords, I have followed with great interest the career of the noble Lord who has just spoken. He has now reached great eminence in his profession, and he has succinctly explained exactly what this Bill needs. This is by far the most important amendment that we have had before us. I welcome both of its parameters. It would be a terrible failure if we did not pass such a Bill. It is inconceivable that a person could even call himself Secretary of State for Health and not have this power. It would be impossible for him to stand before the House of Commons, where he is most likely to be holding that great office, and be unable to say if he felt that there had been a failure to carry out the responsibilities with which he is charged. How could he hold the office? It would effectively be a resignation issue on an important matter if he did not have that power and was not able to exercise it, and not to give him that power is effectively to strip the Secretary of State of his substance and his standing. This amendment is therefore utterly crucial. I personally think the wording is correct.
I would just like to deal with this word “significant”. Until a few weeks ago I would have queried whether or not the word “significant” would be adequate. However, if you look at the legislation that this House has already examined in great detail and which has now been passed into law, namely the European Union Act 2011, which was given very close scrutiny, there is an issue—I think it is in Article 48—that I suspect we will be debating quite soon. This allows the Government, in circumstances in which they think a change has been made to the EU legislation that is not significant, to give up having a referendum. It has already been indicated to the rest of the eurozone countries that there are some circumstances under which the British Government would consider a eurozone amendment predominantly the concern of the eurozone and not significant, and therefore it would be able to be passed with unanimity and not need a referendum in the UK. So this word “significant” has already been crawled over with a great deal of care by a large number of people, not least the Eurosceptic element within the Conservative Party.
It has also been made clear that that would be subject to judicial review, which might be another safeguard that you would have to see. I think it is implicit in the wording—the noble Lord would know the legal consequences better than I—but I personally could live with the “significant” because there is an important issue here that if decentralisation is to be effective, there must not be micromanagement. I looked at putting down an amendment using the word “micromanagement” and then I came to the conclusion that micromanagement is in the eye of the beholder; it is not really a word that we could carry through in legislation. I think the combination of wording that the noble Baroness has used is the correct one: you have got the right to intervene but it is qualified by the fact it has to be significant, and it might be that that significance could be challenged. I very much hope that, having given it due thought, the Government will rise today to tell us that it is going to be accepted. If they do not do so, I hope it is pushed to a Division, whether that is now in Committee or on Report is up to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, whose judgment I always accept—almost always.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I remain very puzzled by what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. There is no disagreement at all, it seems to me. My original amendment and the amendments of the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches are entirely about the whole question of what is an appropriate intervention by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the noble Earl is going to accept this amendment and the Liberal Democrats want the glory of having it accepted—who knows? I agree entirely with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the powers of the Secretary of State have to be sufficient to enable the Secretary of State to discharge his or her accountability to Parliament and to be responsible for the overall performance of the National Health Service. I agree with him that the current intervention powers are too weak in terms of the threshold and I agree that they are set too high. I also agree with his analysis about the relationship between the board and clinical commissioning groups.
It is very interesting as this Bill has progressed—somewhat slowly but none the less some progress has been made—that we have seen a number of interventions by the Secretary of State into the affairs of the National Health Service during that time. They have included coming down very hard on primary care trusts that were making people wait longer on the waiting list, although within the 18-week target period in order to save money, and on NHS trusts that, once a patient missed the 18-week target, let them wait many more months. I make no complaint about those interventions. I believe the Secretary of State was entirely justified. One of the questions is, how would that happen under this legislation?
When we debated this last week, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, essentially said that provision could be made in the mandate set for the board by the Secretary of State. That in itself risks the mandate becoming prescriptive and potentially another way to micromanage the National Health Service as one thing after another is added on. He was not very keen on my noble friend Lord Warner’s suggestion that the mandate be restricted to, I think, five objectives and five desirable objectives. I suspect that when we see the mandate it is going to be very detailed because the Secretary of State will seek to cover himself so that when blame comes it will fall entirely on the NHS Commissioning Board.
It may be that in writing the mandate there are some events or issues that could not be anticipated in advance. However, in the circumstances that I have mentioned, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, could say, “Well, you have the intervention powers contained in Section 13Z1 on page 23”. As the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Marks, have suggested, the problem is that the intervention has to be based on a failure,
“properly to discharge any of its functions, and the failure is significant”.
The intervention is based on the consideration of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be properly advised by his officials and possibly by the Government’s law officers. However, what if the NHS Commissioning Board rejects the Secretary of State’s view? What if clinical commissioning groups which had contained costs took the view that, in the case of non-urgent treatments, it was legitimate to make patients wait a few weeks if they were none the less treated within the overall 18-week target? Looking at the robust evidence given by the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board to the Health Select Committee, which scrutinised his appointment, it is just possible that the NHS Commissioning Board might tell the Secretary of State to back off. I do not think that is right. I am firmly on the side of Mr Lansley, since he is the Secretary of State and firmly answerable to Parliament. In the way that the Bill is currently constructed, I worry that the Secretary of State will be inhibited from necessary interventions.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister. He is getting a kicking from both sides of him, left and right, and in front. I am puzzled by this amendment and the arguments being put forward, both the one by my noble friend Lord Hunt, and the one in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The reason why I am puzzled is because I keep coming back and looking at this Bill, particularly at Clauses 17 and 20. I know that the Minister did not think much of my restrictions on the number of items in the Secretary of State’s mandate under Clause 20, but let us set that aside for the moment. Let us assume that the Secretary of State does exactly what my noble friend Lord Hunt does and lays out a very large number of items, and not what David Nicholson does, listing them on one side of A4.
The beauty of the mandate is that it has to be related to money and the Secretary of State can, in certain circumstances, change the mandate. He also has considerable powers to make standing rules changes under Clause 17. So I am slightly puzzled about the set of circumstances that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, are making for this additional provision. I am interested to hear what the Minister says about why this additional requirement may be necessary, because of the inadequacies of the combined effects and powers of Clause 20 and Clause 17.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Perhaps I could try to answer my noble friend. There are two reasons why this is important. First, there is a real risk that the mandate will become so large and extensive to cover the Secretary of State—who wishes to transfer responsibility to the national Commissioning Board—that we will end up with a real fudge about who is actually responsible. Secondly, there are circumstances. Until last week, I do not think that many people knew that once a trust had allowed its waiting times to go beyond 18 weeks, there was a problem with some of them taking their eye off the ball. If a patient missed the target, often he might have to wait for weeks. It is quite possible that even if the mandate is as extensive as I suggest it might be, there will be circumstances in which the Secretary of State may need to intervene. It is not the case of having time to rewrite or edit the mandate, or look at the standing rules. The Secretary of State may need to intervene on the day that an issue arises. All that I want to do—and I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Marks, also wants this—is to make sure that the Secretary of State is able to intervene in circumstances that we cannot necessarily anticipate but, knowing the health service, we suspect will arise from time to time.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Owen, demonstrate again why this Chamber is frequently held in the highest regard for the strength, clarity and coherence of the arguments that are advanced within it. I am not going to repeat what they said because I agreed with both of them. My noble friend Lord Newton and I are in danger of becoming Tweedledum and Tweedledee when it comes to trying to persuade the Government that there is a real world out there with around £130 billion worth of responsibility. Lots and lots of people are doing their best, but human beings have the inescapable ability of getting things wrong from time to time, no matter how good their intentions.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that one of the interesting things about this Bill is that it talks about a mandate. I think of my time in Richmond House when something had gone seriously wrong and civil servants came in to say, “Well, there’s a mandate, Minister,” and I would say, “Isn’t that fantastic?”.
Let us get down to the reality of what we are going to do about this latest mishap. That is not an argument for not having a mandate, it is an argument for not putting all your eggs in one basket, even if this particular basket is as widely constructed as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, thinks. I have not resiled from what I have previously said in this Committee in that the Secretary of State is responsible. He has to be responsible to Parliament, he has to be responsible in law, and in reality he has to be responsible in the health service. I am relaxed about the Government putting in place arrangements which they believe—it will all have to be tested over the next few years—will provide a more coherent way of delivering a better and more efficient service than we currently enjoy. I do not resile from the fact that when push comes to shove—and it will, because that is one of the characteristics of the Department of Health, more than any other single department in Her Majesty’s Government in my 30-odd years in this building, one end or the other—it must be clear that the Secretary of State can act, and in a way where the people of this country believe he is acting for them and on their behalf.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, does not the noble Lord make my point for me, apart from believing that the 2006 Act is perfectly formed in every way? Surely the point is that it should not be open to any doubt whatever. In the end, if a Secretary of State intervenes, it must be because he considers it in the best interest of the National Health Service. Why should we complicate matters by potentially giving at least an argument for judicial review when, in the cases mentioned, the Secretary of State simply will need to, or be required to, intervene?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
The answer is that we are not at one about the vulnerability of my amendment to judicial review. I rather hope that that is never tested; nevertheless, I hope that the amendments are accepted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my Amendment 154 brings us to a group of amendments which consider a number of interesting points about clinical commissioning groups and their relationship with GPs, other contractor services and local authorities. They also allow us an early canter at probing exactly where the Government’s policy on clinical commissioning groups currently is.
My first Amendment 154 is partly probing, but it is also to ask why membership of a clinical commissioning group is only confined to general practitioners or, in the jargon of the Bill, providers of primary medical services. What about the other contractor professions within primary care: the dentists, the pharmacists and the ophthalmologists? What about primary and community nurses? I would not in any way seek to undermine the potential leadership role of general practitioners, but they are part of a primary care team. It is rather unfortunate that other members of the primary care team were not considered worthy of membership of a clinical commissioning group.
I must say that I have yet to hear any rational explanation as to why GPs only have been singled out for this exalted membership of a clinical commissioning group. It would have been perfectly possible to have brought all the contractor professions and, I would hope, primary care nurses, into membership of a clinical commissioning group, and then to have a governance structure which none the less recognised the pivotal role of GPs but did not exclude the other professions. One could have had a weighted voting system or some other way of reflecting that yes, GPs are clearly a very important profession in primary health care, but they are not the only one.
I am curious to know why the Government did not adapt that approach, and how they expect clinical commissioning groups to really relate to the other professions. How can they bring them on board? I think of rural clinical commissioning groups and rural dispensing, and how there can be terrible tensions between GPs who dispense in rural areas and community pharmacists in those areas. If I were a community pharmacist, I would be rather concerned that the rural clinical commissioning group is not at all going to act in the interest of community pharmacy. It is almost bound to act in the interest of rural dispensing general practitioners.
I would be interested therefore, if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, could give some further explanation as to the construct of clinical commissioning groups. I should say to him that, having talked to dentists and community pharmacists, they are really concerned that they will be excluded from the decision-making process within clinical commissioning groups, and that it will be purely GP-dominated. Some of the people most concerned, and quite rightly, are primary care nurses, whose voice should be heard. One fears that the traditional approach will be to exclude them from those discussions when they have an enormous amount of expertise to bring to the table.
Amendment 158 is a probing amendment. It relates to the areas of clinical commissioning groups and argues that clinical commissioning groups ought to be coterminous with the boundaries of a local authority or contiguous group of local authorities.
I stress to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that this is a probe. If health and well-being boards are to work well, there clearly needs to be an integration of public health and commissioning between the various groups at local level to make sure that they come together in a cohesive plan and at interventions. It is very important that clinical commissioning group areas at least do not go over into other local authority boundaries. There is an argument for coterminosity, but of course I do accept that in some areas that would make the clinical commissioning groups far too large and that is why I stress to the noble Earl that this is a probing amendment.
In the county, non-metropolitan district areas where you still have a two-tier system, I would have thought there is some concern about the involvement of the non-metropolitan district councils in the arrangements for liaison between local government and clinical commissioning groups. While it does not strictly come within the remit of this amendment, it is a matter to which I suspect we will want to return at Report stage.
Beyond that, this is a good opportunity to ask some serious questions about clinical group commissioning. It seems to be clear that there is now increasing anxiety among GPs that the likelihood of them having significant control of commissioning is becoming remoter by the day. The noble Earl will be aware of the BMA’s decision to come out decisively against the Bill. But I have also noted with great interest a press release by the NHS Alliance, which of course has been very much a flag waver for the Government, in which it complained about bullying taking place by the system in relation to clinical commissioning groups. The headline is that doctors leading the NHS reform changes report coercion and bullying in the way the organisations are being set up, which followed a survey of a number of pathfinder clinical commissioning groups. The survey asked: “Do you believe that your clinical commissioning group is being coerced or bullied in how you are setting up in ways that conflict with what you feel would benefit your local population?” Out of the 67 clinical commissioning groups surveyed, 60 per cent answered yes. So much for this hands-off approach that we have been promised. Clearly things have changed. When this started the assumption was that we would have a large number of clinical commissioning groups covering fairly small areas where GPs would actively be involved around the table in commissioning decisions. It has been made abundantly clear that CCGs would not be authorised unless they merged into much larger organisations covering very large population bases.
I wonder whether the noble Earl could perhaps say how many clinical commissioning groups he now expects to be informed. Can he also confirm that they are going to be forced to obtain external commissioning support? Indeed, they have been promised the delight of a bureaucratic procurement process for that support lasting, I understand, up to 12 months. So they are also clearly being leaned upon to use the private sector for such support and they are being forced also to merge commissioning for large-scale commissioning projects. No wonder some GPs are beginning to wonder what this is really all about and whether one beast is being replaced by another. Today Dr Michael Dixon, the chair of the NHS Alliance, told the annual conference about the challenges ahead for clinical commissioning groups or, as he called them, the nation’s future clinical commissioners. He said that they will be confronted by the demons of self-interest, factional politics, ignorance, laziness and raw emotion. They will be hated by all of those who have fed from the gravy train of the current system.
I am a longstanding admirer of Dr Dixon, not least because of his pressure when I was in government to give support to complementary medicine, which I suspect that noble Earl, Lord Howe, now enjoys as well. But I think he made those remarks because he knows, deep in his heart, that the game is up. Whatever one thinks of the Government’s reforms and whatever changes have been made as a consequence of the listening exercises, I had always clung to the thought that the Government were serious about giving GPs control of commissioning. It has become abundantly clear that this is not the case. GPs have been sold a dupe and so too has Parliament, I fear. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
I speak to Amendment 157 which is aimed at containing the number of clinical commissioning groups and their total operating costs. I have some sympathy with the remarks made by my noble friend, but before I go into the detail of these particular amendments, I want to give a little context.
My Lords, there has been a great deal of concern expressed by many people who are well versed in the background and activities of the NHS about the number and small size of clinical commissioning groups that might emerge. I do not condone bullying, but we have a problem. The smallest population size for a CCG that I have come across is 18,000 for Radlett, near Watford. I asked the Minister for the Government’s latest estimate of the number of clinical commissioning groups likely to be operational in April 2013. In his answer to me on 9 November, he said:
“It is too soon to estimate the number of clinical commissioning groups that will be operational in April 2013. There are, however, currently 266 pathfinder CCGs covering 95% of GP practices in England”.—[Official Report, 9/11/11; col. WA 58.]
So it is possible that there could be about 280 clinical commissioning groups when all practices are covered. This is far too many to be effective, for reasons I will explain in a moment. We are getting into an extraordinary position. It seems almost an article of faith, or really bold ministerial courage, for the Government to be embarking on this massive NHS reorganisation, at a time of great financial challenge, without knowing, 16 months before they go live, how many clinical commissioning groups—the bodies that will be handling large chunks of this money—will be in place. That seems a pretty racy way to live with a national icon like the NHS.
We will come to the competency tests for CCGs in later amendments. If those competency tests are to mean anything, a significant number of these groups could, presumably, flunk them. Or will all the geese suddenly become swans? What light can the Minister throw on the likely failure rate for clinical commissioning group applicants? When will we have more reliable data on how many clinical commissioning groups we are likely to end up with? For the purposes of discussing the amendment, I will assume that the Government anticipate having something of the order of 250 clinical commissioning groups by April 2013. For many of us, this would seem far too many, and totally fails to learn the lessons of history. As someone who had to learn the lessons of history in the area of commissioning the hard way, I want to share some of that experience with the House.
In 2002, the previous Government set up 302 primary care trusts to undertake commissioning. To some extent, in doing this, it was following the course that this Government are trying to pursue—of getting commissioning closer to local populations. That was one of the arguments for doing it and it is not one which I would quarrel with, in principle. But, like clinical commissioning groups, small PCTs were expected to be able to carry out most of the functions of a commissioner. They needed to have all the skills to undertake commissioning, they needed to be effective demand managers, they had to have the muscle to stop acute hospitals gobbling up too much of the money and they had to be able to secure a more appropriate balance between community-based and hospital-based services in their delivery. They failed, and their failures were shown by a number of reports by the Health Select Committee in the House of Commons. They failed because many of them were simply too small and there were too many of them for the commissioning capability nationally available to be able to staff and run that number of bodies. We are heading down exactly the same path with clinical commissioning groups. The manifestation of the failure of the PCTs was the financial meltdown of the NHS in 2005-06. This meltdown occurred after several years of 5 per cent real terms growth in NHS expenditure and in the middle of a financial year with 5 to 6 per cent real terms growth. This is not the situation that clinical commissioning groups will be faced with.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I have supported the idea of coterminosity from when I first saw the Bill in January. It struck me as being straightforward and sensible that if health and social care were put together, the health boundaries would be aligned with the social care boundaries. That clearly happened in the middle of the last decade, when PCTs were grouped together to be coterminous with social care boundaries. There are all sorts of issues. If you have a large clinical commissioning group, then there is a capacity issue in that you have one clinical commissioning group that might need to work with several local authorities’ health and well-being boards, directors of public health, healthwatches or whatever. If you have a small group, then you have many CCGs working with all those bodies. It struck me that if there were a direct fit, everything would look quite neat and hunky-dory. I parked the thought in my mind that everything was fine.
Then I started to look at what was happening around me locally in the south-west. Torbay has been mentioned many times in your Lordships’ House. It provided a care trust—health and social care together. One of the areas they are really anxious about is that if they become part of Devon, an awful lot might get lost. So there are special circumstances around that integration. They know that they are small and they are trying to look at making themselves bigger by working with other parts of Devon, all of which take their acute services from one DGH. The same sort of thing is happening in Plymouth. Noble Lords will remember from the Bill about constituency boundaries in January that there was a huge big deal about Cornwall being all on its own. Cornish patients, believe it or not, actually do cross the Tamar in order to go to hospital in Plymouth. A fifth of Cornish hospital patients actually do that, so a whole group of Cornish GPs who face that way, along with some in south-west Devon who face that way, along with Plymouth, have discussed the possibility of working together as a group, simply because they all face one DGH. It was a common bond, if you like.
Therefore, we have a county or a district or a borough seen as one possible common bond. We have an idea that commissioning groups who commission from a particular hospital, trying to work together in a pathfinder mode, is not peculiar to the south-west; a lot people seem to think it would be a good idea. There are lots of issues, so how do we solve this? I still think that, for an awful lot of situations, co-terminosity is the right answer. The test really has to be: what actually can be deemed to be in the interest of the patient? The whole thing has to be taken in the round; it has to include care providers and health providers and there has to be an element of size capacity. My head—and my heart—say coterminosity, but then I look at certain other areas where there are groups that have—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Would the noble Baroness give way? She has raised an interesting point. Could I describe the situation in Birmingham? My understanding is that although there will be more than one clinical commissioning group, there will clearly be one HWB group and the membership has now reached 25. There is one place for providers on it. One gets the feeling that there is a risk that it will become a talking shop. Secondly—and I declare my interest as chair of an NHS foundation trust in Birmingham—if you exclude the providers from those key discussions, you will not get a buy-in. Think of patient discharge and the relationship between reducing length of stay, preventing admissions and the support that social services needs to give packages of care. One worries that you reach a situation where the whole thing is so unwieldy that it will not really work.
Baroness Jolly
I have lost my thread. We are talking about Birmingham, which is humongous, and presumably any large city would have exactly the same sort of issues. Is the noble Lord arguing for coterminous clinical commissioning groups?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My point is that my amendment was a probing amendment to get some information from the Government about their intent regarding boundaries. Clearly, one of the problems that we are discussing is size and the larger you make clinical commissioning groups, the less influence GPs will have on their deliberations. The whole point about clinical commissioning groups was to put GPs in the driving seat. I do not know if Ministers know how much pressure within the system is being put upon potential clinical commissioning groups, but they are being told that they have to get large. The numbers who put themselves forward at the beginning were basically told that there was no way that they would get approval, so they have been forced into big marriages.
I simply point out that even if you take Birmingham, where there will be very big clinical commissioning groups, you will still end up with an unwieldy health and well-being board. One has to think through the implications of this if you are then trying to get a cohesive strategy on public health and on joint commissioning that pulls all of the players together—while still excluding the providers from those discussions. We started from an original prospectus that was going to give GPs real control over commissioning. That is gone. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I do not think that there is now any chance in the system that is being forced upon the service, that individual GPs will have any influence. As with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, it is clear that GPs are realising this now, and that the prospectus is a false one.
Baroness Jolly
I think that the noble Lord’s point is well made. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, however, talked about the element of size and back office, which needs to be quite large. Small CCGs will need to share a back office, simply because that is the way it is. There will need to be shared commissioning arrangements. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Warner, was saying much the same thing: these things will not work if they are tiny but might if they are larger. I remember primary care groups, which became primary care trusts, which became bigger primary care trusts. What is a reasonable size to make all those linkages work? What we do not want is for all of these organisations to spend their days going to meetings. If we are not careful and clinical commissioning groups go over local authority boundaries then they will have to serve more than one health and well-being board.
The ideal would be to have some co-terminosity but clearly it will not work in really enormous situations. My background and experience is in rural areas, where it strikes me as the most obvious way forward. Even if that is not how it starts, that is how it probably should end up. As for the Torbay example, the PCTs are very small. However, they are also perfectly formed and have done a really good job. They are desperate to keep what they did, and did well, but they are being pressured to join a Devon PCT—which also has pressure on Plymouth, which is also part of the Devon PCT. So it is not a straightforward picture. When clinical commissioning groups put their case to the board, there needs to be some sort of nuancing in application.
Lord Greaves
I was going to make merely a brief intervention on this group on the question of coterminosity. However, this has extended into a much more important debate, which is coming down to some very fundamental issues in relation to clinical commissioning groups. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is to be congratulated on introducing this debate because it is absolutely crucial. We have to have it some time—if we are having it on this amendment, fine.
The noble Lord said in passing that the same issues keep coming round at different stages of the Bill. On this Bill the same issues keep coming round in different sessions in Committee. This is the second time we have talked about coterminosity. I think previously it was on an amendment from his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I will not repeat everything that I said then, except to say that there has to be some flexibility. There are very good arguments for saying that CCGs should not cross local social care authority boundaries. However, the point I made previously was that in very large counties, like Lancashire or North Yorkshire or, if I think about the south of England—which I force myself to do occasionally—Hampshire and Kent perhaps, at the very least they ought to have the ability to not have a very large CCG forced on them that covers a whole county, which would be very remote indeed.
We have heard about Cornwall and Devon from my noble friend. We have heard about Birmingham. I am going to say a few things about Lancashire. I am very interested to know whether there are any noble Lords in Committee today who are very clear about what is happening in relation to setting up CCGs in their own areas, how it will work and what will come out of it. Asking colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches while this debate has been going on, nobody seems to know; chaos and confusion seem to be the impression. I am not saying that it is chaos and confusion, but as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned, let alone other people like myself who try to take a more direct interest, it is not very clear at all what is happening, or if what is happening is clear, it is not clear why and how it is happening. This comes back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the fact that there are very clear pressures from above that are moulding the system that is going to take place. I very much take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that there ought to be local discretion and local decision-making here. However, that is not happening. People are being forced into decisions, and that goes against what she was saying.
Let me tell you about where I live, in east Lancashire. At the moment there are two PCTs. There is a Blackburn with Darwen PCT, because Blackburn with Darwen escaped from Lancashire County Council at some stage in the past and became a small unitary authority, so it has its own PCT. The other five districts, which are part of Lancashire County Council, have an East Lancashire PCT which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, had been formed by amalgamations over the years. There is one East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust that effectively covers the two PCTs, so there are two PCTs and one hospital trust at the moment. The PCTs have been combined with the rest of Lancashire into a county-wide cluster, but the East Lancashire PCT still exists.
I have recently been given a whole set of minutes and agenda papers, a great big thick file, from a relatively recent meeting—in the last few weeks—of the East Lancashire PCT. Although they find it increasingly difficult to keep going because all their chief officers have gone, there are still functions taking place at the PCT level; there are functions taking place at the cluster level, and for somebody like me who takes an interest in but is not directly involved in the health service nowadays—I used to be on a district health authority, an area health authority and a community health council, but am not now—I find it very difficult to find out where the decision-making is taking place.
Back when CCGs came along, the original idea was that they would be quite small, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, quite rightly said. They would be groups of GP practices within a recognisably local area. Whether that was a good or a bad idea—and in many ways it was an attractive idea—that has clearly now gone by the wayside. People were told that the minimum that you could get away with in east Lancashire was district-wide—that is the lower tier—so people were getting together and forming proto-CCGs at the district level.
In terms of population, Rossendale is about 70,000 and Pendle is probably the biggest of the five at about 90,000; it is that sort of range. The doctors who were getting together and working on these CCGs—and certainly in both Burnley and Pendle they were working closely with the district authorities to share back-room services and so on when they were set up—were told that this will not do any more. I am not at all clear who told them, but it has been made absolutely clear that there now has to be a new CCG covering the five districts, an area of 450,000 people. It is a very significantly different proposition, however you define significant, from groups of local practices, where the whole thing started off.
Blackburn and Darwen, because it is a unitary authority, is insisting that as far it is concerned, it will have its own CCG, which will be coterminous with the relatively small unitary authority, which has a population of around 140,000.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Has that potential CCG been told that it will not get authorised? I would think that that is the way in which the system will force it into a larger merger.
Lord Greaves
I assume so, but I have no personal knowledge of the processes that are leading to these outcomes. All I hear about—from talking to people who are professionals and politicians involved in these systems and through the normal bush telegraph—is the outcome. The outcome is that there is almost certainly going to be a CCG 450,000 bigger, as I understand it, than any of the doctors involved would really like, and there have to be far fewer doctors involved from each of the districts. In my own district, it was going to be a Pendle-wide organisation where all the doctors involved would be known to a lot of people in Pendle, but now there will be just a small number from Pendle and some from Rossendale and some from far-flung parts of the Ribble valley. Meanwhile in west Lancashire, along the Fylde coast, where there is a string of small holiday towns with Blackpool in the middle and then a large area of countryside, are the two districts of Fylde and Wyre while Blackpool itself, the main town of the Fylde coast, is a unitary authority. What we understand is going to happen there—I have no direct evidence of this, it has come through the bush telegraph—is a CCG of Fylde and Wyre, a relatively smaller one, with Blackpool on its own. Of course all the hospital services and everything else are mainly in Blackpool. There does not seem to be any logic about what is going on, even though it is being defined by local authority boundaries.
I ask the Government to provide some clarity over what is happening in two ways. First it would be very helpful to have clarity on what is actually happening in each area, and for this whole process to be taking place in a much more public way. But it is not. It is all taking place out of the public gaze, and unless there are local journalists who are particularly interested in it and try to research it, nobody has the slightest idea what is going on, whether or not it is being decided locally.
More importantly, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, says, but I think that we need an understanding of the sort of pattern which is going to result from this Bill once it is enacted and the CCGs are set up. We want a clarity of vision from the Government. What sort of number are they talking about? What range of size will be thought to be permissible? If they are saying that it could stretch from areas of 15,000 right up to a major city of half a million or so, and that sort of thing will be left to some sort of diffuse local decision-making, then that is okay, but we need to understand that. If, on the other hand the Government are saying that a lot of the groups that have been looking at this are far too small and they have to be much larger, then they are really moving towards what I might call the Lord Warner position, and again we need to understand that. We have a right to know what the outcomes of this legislation are likely to be before we allow it to go forward.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
I cannot answer for the whole of London. I really do not know. What I do know is that the more the clusters emerge, obviously the more those PCTs will be absorbed into them. My noble friend will be much more able to give you more detail about that.
What is happening in real life in north central London is that the PCTs are being absorbed into the cluster. Contrary to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, the clusters have not just taken over the whole PCTs, including staff and everything else; they have not. In fact, the chief executive of the cluster in north central London did not come from north London at all. So that is very different, I think, from some of the experiences that other people have. However, I cannot give you the view of the whole of London because I really do not have that knowledge.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps I could intervene to say that I echo everything that my noble friend said about the work of the clusters. They are covering, in my case, some 1.3 million and clearly are trying to get to grips with the strategic leadership that is required on the whole issue of reconfiguration of bed numbers and all the things that have been put off for so long. My understanding is that they go on as local field offices of the NHS Commissioning Board. That is the whole point. The question that then comes back, and where I am completely puzzled, is where on earth is GP commissioning in this? It is abundantly clear that the clinical commissioning groups are going to have very little influence. When you come to the issue of the individual GP, which was what this was all about, it is very hard to see what on earth they will be doing in terms of commissioning.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein
May I intervene briefly, as I have my name down to Amendment 168? This has been a very important debate, and I want to return briefly to the issue of collaboration. Whatever the outcomes in size of the clinical commissioning groups, there will be a need for joint commissioning. I refer particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said, to some of the rare conditions, such as many of the neurological conditions, which will require a population, as I understand it, of some 250,000. For motor neurone disease this will be a population of some 500,000. It is vital that we have in the Bill something about joint commissioning for long-term illnesses. We will come back to that issue in a later group of amendments, but I want to emphasise its importance.
Earl Howe
Earlier on I noted that the noble Lord drew parallels between CCGs and his attempts when he was a Minister to reduce the number of PCTs. I do feel there is a critical difference. The decision to establish a certain number of PCTs was taken in Richmond House by Ministers. I am not saying those decisions were arbitrary—of course they were not—but they certainly were not bottom-up. With CCGs, the onus is on GP practices to determine the most appropriate size and configuration for their local population. As I have said, the board will then rigorously assess whether this proposal will result in the CCG being able to fulfil its functions. That is a judgment, but it is a proper fitness for purpose test which PCTs never had to go through. I simply do not accept that, come April 2013, there is likely to be a raft of CCGs failing. If a CCG’s proposed constitution is not robust, then it will not receive full authorisation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not think that is quite fair, since I was involved in setting up PCTs. I accept the strictures of my noble friend about whether we made them too small. As for the idea that Ministers came up with PCTs, it was of course the service which, basically, came and made recommendations. Frankly, the same tiers are deciding on CCGs as decided on PCTs. There has been huge pressure on CCGs to come together and merge. Yes, it started as a bottom-up idea, but I have to put it to the Minister that the reason why I quoted Dr Mike Dixon is because he, like many people, knows that the “forces of bureaucracy”, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, likes to put it, have been very strong and have basically said to CCGs that they will not get anywhere unless they merge.
Earl Howe
Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested earlier that there was a process of shoe-horning CCGs into certain shapes and sizes, forcing them to take up external support and merge commissioning functions. I emphasise that CCGs will not be forced to take up external support or merge functions. What is happening at the moment is a process of advice and information from the centre. Obviously, the board will not authorise the establishment of any CCG which could not satisfy the board of its ability to discharge its functions and be an effective commissioner. We want to ensure that the process is not too bureaucratic or cumbersome. The noble Lord suggested that it was likely to be, but I do not accept that. We are working with stakeholders to ensure that emerging CCGs can articulate their requirements for commissioning support. I do not accept the picture that he has painted.
My noble friend Lord Newton spoke about the clustering of PCTs. Clusters bring together PCTs to prepare for and support the transition to clinical commissioning. Until PCT abolition in April 2013, they continue to exercise their functions and remain statutorily responsible for their functions until abolition. Pathfinders, or emerging CCGs, can act as sub-committees of PCTs until this time. The role of PCT clusters during the transition is to support clinical commissioning groups, not dictate how they operate. For the reasons that I have stated, it is important that CCGs have the freedom to develop their own solutions from the bottom up and that they are fully supported in doing so. The latest operating framework for the NHS emphasises this and we will see that it is acted upon.
My noble friend Lord James queried the legal arrangements. The process of clustering has been open and transparent. If it is acceptable to noble Lords, I can provide a written update on the latest position, giving the numbers, locations and so on, to save time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his response. This has been a really good debate, which has gone to the heart of the Bill and the Government’s intentions. I would like to come back to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made when she reminded us of the central tenet of the Secretary of State. Essentially it is that GPs are responsible, like GPs the world over, for most expenditure in the NHS, either through their referrals or through their prescribing decisions. The clear intent was to put budgetary responsibility with referral and prescribing responsibility, in the hope that it would lead to a more cost-effective system. I think the issue that many noble Lords have is that in the way this has emerged and in the guidance that has been given by the board and the department it is becoming clear that the influence of the individual GPs within this huge structure that is being established is likely to be very limited. On the other hand my Lords, because of the mantra of the Bill and the reforms, patients are likely to believe that it is their GPs who are making the commissioning decisions. Therein lies trouble, because I think the GPs are going to be in a very unenvious position. We as patients will hold them to account for commissioning decisions in a way they have never been held account before, but their influence on commissioning is going to be very limited indeed. I think this has been a very good debate, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
In moving Amendment 159 I shall also speak to Amendments 160 and 164 in my name. I start by emphasising that this is a package of amendments that relates to many concerns that have been expressed to me and others—namely, that we need to make very sure that we ensure the assessment of competence of CCGs is sound and open before they undertake the commissioning of services that this Bill will enable them to do.
My earlier Amendment 157 enabled us to debate the number and population size of clinical commissioning groups, both of which considerations have a considerable bearing on the issue of competence of CCGs. I will not rehearse those arguments again except to emphasise that if the Government go ahead with such a large number of clinical commissioning groups, as it seems may well happen, then it is even more necessary to tighten up the Bill’s provisions on proof of competence and the ability of the National Commissioning Board to reject applications where competence is in doubt. It is for those applicants to take on the role of a clinical commissioning group to prove that they are competent to take on this task and to safeguard the public money that will be entrusted to them.
Amendment 159 makes it clear that in submitting an application to the board, the clinical commissioning group applicant must demonstrate that it can meet the requirements of commissioning competence specified by the board. If its application does not do so then the board should be able to reject it out of hand. The onus is on that group to show that it is competent to undertake the commissioning. It seems to me that clinical commissioning groups will have had plenty of time to assemble their case and to prepare for their application. The Bill should make it absolutely clear that a demonstration of competence should be mandatory in submitting an application. If I can put it crudely, we do not want to see people taking a punt. They have to be able to demonstrate that they can actually do the job, otherwise public money and safety will be put at risk.
Amendment 160 is linked to Amendment 159. It requires that when the board publishes information for applicants, that information document must specify the competencies required to commission health services. This problem of specifying competencies in commissioning has bedevilled the whole movement towards commissioning over several decades. Mark Britnell’s attempts at world-class commissioning ran into the same problem—we were not sufficiently clear about what competencies would deliver good quality health services from commissioners. So this competency issue is at the heart of making clinical commissioning groups work. It is vital that the board is left in no doubt of its responsibility for doing this and that applicants are in no doubt that the competency hurdle that they have to clear is put very clearly to them before their application can be accepted. What we do not want to see, if I may put it this way, is a load of well meaning waffle coming out of the board about commissioning. We want to have articulated the competencies that have to be met before applicants can be successful. Amendment 164 rounds the whole process off in terms of applicants showing that they can discharge clinical commissioning group functions “competently”, which is the word which it adds to the Bill.
These amendments make it clear that Parliament regards competence in commissioning as the yardstick by which the success or failure of applications to become clinical commissioning groups will be judged. This issue should be uppermost in the mind of the board when it makes decisions, and wording that makes this clear should be on the face of the Bill. Competence in commissioning has been missing in the past and we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of the past by not making it absolutely clear in this Bill what is required of the applicants to be clinical commissioning groups. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I will start with Amendment 159A which questions why, on page 9, line 36, it is possible for non-providers of primary medical services to be eligible to apply to establish a clinical commissioning group. Particularly in the light of my noble friend’s comments on Amendment 159, one would surely only want applicants who had experience of providing GP services to be able to apply to form a clinical commissioning group.
Amendment 160A requires the board, before considering an application to form a clinical commissioning group, to consult with the general public, the relevant local authority, the relevant health and wellbeing board, and patients receiving primary medical services from providers within the clinical commissioning group. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised some pertinent questions about transparency in the formation of clinical commissioning groups. It is extraordinary that there seems to be no process by which putative CCGs consult with their patients before they make an application. The decision is, essentially, being made by bureaucrats within the National Health Service system—who put constraints on CCGs,—and the GPs themselves. Where on earth are the public in all of this?
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord very kindly referred to what I said. Is it not also the case that a group of GPs could go ahead and put forward proposals without even consulting all the GPs in their area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
From reading the Bill, it is only when two or more are gathered together that they can make such an application. So the noble Lord is quite right. The amendment is seeking assurance that there will be public consultation and consultation with patients. We are told this is all about patients. Can patients therefore be consulted before GPs commit themselves to forming a clinical commissioning group? Or are we just to be told at some stage, “That’s it, you are in that clinical commissioning group because you are in that practice and you have no choice”. It is remarkably high-handed for it all to be done with no public involvement whatever. It is remarkable how many changes are already being made without any statutory authority given by this legislation.
I want to continue the theme of consultation, because I have a number of amendments in this group which come back to the same point: Amendment 164A in relation to the board’s determination of applications; Amendment 166 in relation to variations in the constitution of clinical commissioning groups; Amendment 166B in respect of variations made in the area covered by a clinical commissioning group, as specified in the constitution; Amendment 167A in respect of mergers, and Amendment 167B as regards the dissolution of clinical commissioning groups.
If I as a patient am part of the clinical commissioning group, one would have thought that I would have a role in deciding whether it is appropriate for that clinical commissioning group to be dissolved, or is that again just for the GPs to decide? What about Amendment 216ZZA as regards commissioning plans? Perhaps I have misread the Bill and there are crucial points which would envisage members of the public and patients within a CCG area being consulted on all these matters.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, particularly on Amendment 160A. The idea that patients whose GPs are serving on the Commissioning Board, or are part of a commissioning group which represents that board, should be consulted and we should hear what their own experiences have been, is innovative and interesting. He should be congratulated on putting it forward. It means involving patients as individuals in their own assessment of the service that they have had. Time and again the Bill reflects the demand that that should happen—no decision without me, and so on. This actually makes that real. It gives the words flesh, and I congratulate him on that. It is quite an exciting idea and I hope that it is one that will commend itself to the Government, given the Government’s wish to involve patients.
I am not so happy about Amendment 163B. I fear that the opposition Front Bench has not taken on board as much as I hoped that it might the idea that regulations should not go straight to Parliament, even if they are affirmative, but should go by way of the Health Select Committee. The noble Lord will be familiar with the argument—that the Health Select Committee has a huge range of expertise and knowledge. As a former Minister he will know—as well as I or the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, knows—that the regime of regulatory scrutiny is not very effective. If there is an individual Member of Parliament in another place who knows a great deal about it and is concerned about it, you can have a real debate and that real debate can affect the outcome with regard to regulation. However, nine times out of 10, there is no great debate. In the case of the negative resolution procedure, there is often no debate at all.
I fear that this is a very weak safeguard for the huge amount of regulation that is built into the Bill. I therefore hope that I might commend to the House, and not least to the opposition Front Bench, the idea of looking again at the proposal, which is also radical and new. It is an idea that really ought to commend itself to those of us who believe strongly in accountability to Parliament and in the need to strengthen Parliament’s power vis-à-vis the Executive across the whole world.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps I can come back to that. On Amendment 160A, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. I am not even sure that I got it right. I am also trying to get at the fact that so much is happening now without any consultation. The CCGs are essentially being decided by the system and then at some stage there will be a formal application process. I am long enough in the tooth in the health service to know about NHS consultation. Frankly, we all know that the traditional NHS consultations make the decision and then consult. I fear that, with CCGs, this is what is happening. While I welcome the support for the involvement of the public in a formal application, I find it perplexing that so much is now being decided and that the public are not involved at all.
I listened to the noble Earl before supper talking about this being bottom up. That is not what is happening. I do not think that he understands quite how much this is being driven by the centre. It is quite extraordinary. You can call it guidance, but putative CCGs are being given such clear steers about what will be acceptable. I feel that we will reach a situation where, at some point, it will all be a done deal and the consultation will simply not be realistic.
On the noble Baroness’s comments about making the regulations affirmative, I accept that, even if they are affirmative, there is a limit to what parliamentary scrutiny can provide—although that does provide some safeguards. I would be interested in debating the idea of giving the Health Select Committee a role, although excluding your Lordships’ House from it would be a problem. I say to the noble Baroness that I think it a pity that the House did not adopt my suggestion about a mandate for a kind of national policy statement approach. There is an argument for having a more interactive debate, if you like, about some of these matters. I very much take to heart her constructive comments on this and the Select Committee role. It could be a very useful debate for the future.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, lest it be thought that we were all wholly of one mind on these Benches in regard to some of these proposals, let me say that I am much more cautious about the propositions. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has described the propositions for consultation with patients as novel. She is quite right. When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that he recognises NHS consultations from the past as decisions first and consultation afterwards, he recognises how the previous Government carried out their business. As somebody who was in the health service at the time, I was very familiar with it.
We must be realistic about some of the propositions that come forward for consultation. Think through what is actually involved in doctors coming forward with proposals to fulfil the requirements set down in legislation in all its various aspects passed by Parliament, and then being asked to consult with the patients as to what exactly they think. Think through what exactly that might look like for general practitioners and their patients—those patients who would choose to back the general practitioner in his application to go along with the proposals, or would start to run a campaign against their GP. Is there really a thought that this will be something that serves the interests of helping general practitioners and their patients to move forward together? It is an interesting and novel proposal from the point of view of debate in your Lordships’ House. However, I am not at all convinced that it has been thought through in terms of how one might actually implement such a thing, and in terms of working with patients and patients working with their general practitioners.
In psychiatry, for example, I think of how much discussion and consultation there has been with patients about who their sector psychiatrist might be, never mind all sorts of other important decisions about them. The fact is that it is not a way in which one can possibly run these things. It is important to have consultation with the public in general, but to try to divide it up so that patients are consulted on whether their GP should follow decisions taken in line with decisions that Parliament set down is wholly another matter. My noble friend was right to describe it as “novel”, but I am much more cautious about the proposal than she is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I thought that what the noble Lord said about the last Government was a cheap shot. I was talking about the NHS consultation in my experience over 40 years. It has not been a wholly satisfactory situation. It is quite remarkable what the noble Lord seems to be saying. The health service has strong corporate governance and strong processes for consultation, but suddenly we are bunging £80 million to GPs and they do not have to consult. Are they in such a mystical position that they do not need strong corporate governance; that we can trust them, even though some of that money will be spent with the GPs instead of on other parts of the health service? Suddenly we think that they are jolly good chaps and we can trust them. We can trust them simply to form these clinical commissioning groups, in which in theory they will have great power, and there is no consultation whatever. It is quite remarkable what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, let us be clear. It was no cheap shot. It was a comment on how the previous Government carried through their policies. He will know very well that I sat on those Benches and asked the questions of him. I am very much aware of it. What I said had nothing to do with corporate governance. It was the specific proposal that GPs’ patients should be asked to express a view on the proposition that their general practitioner be part of a clinical commissioning group. As though there was some serious alternative to it, and that it was something that could be carried through willy-nilly without any potential disadvantage in the GPs’ conduct of the practice.
What I pointed out was that this is not something that has any kind of precedent; it was, as my noble friend said, “novel”. What I said about it was quite clear. It has not been tried and I am not persuaded that it is something that has been well thought through. It could be very divisive within a practice. That is not at all to say that other elements of corporate governance are not appropriate. I wholly support them and the proposal. I was addressing a specific issue and I notice that it was the one issue that the noble Lord did not respond to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
So I as a patient have no right to say or comment on which clinical commissioning group my GP wants to join? It is nothing to do with me and just up to the GPs to decide? That is what he said. On the question of general consultation, let me remind him of the NHS plan. If this Government had done this properly, they would have published a Green Paper. They would have gone through a process of working with the health service, they might have spent six to nine months doing it and they would have got much greater buy-in. It shows that they have dealt with these reforms in a high-handed manner. The result is that there is no buy-in whatever and that is why the Government are in the trouble they are. I pray in aid the way that the NHS plan was dealt with and the fact that 500 people came together on a number of bases to work on the plan. That is why it had so much greater ownership.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments, many of which are from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, because I, too, am worried that the Secretary of State may feel obliged to include in the mandate every last possible objective and priority that the department can think of. Let us remember that it will probably be the department’s civil servants that write the mandate.
For decades, the NHS has prescribed objective-setting as a sort of all-purpose remedy for NHS motivation. Rather than dispensing objectives as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for the NHS Commissioning Board, the Secretary of State needs to conceptualise his objectives in the mandate as prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side-effects and close supervision.
Given the impact that objective-setting has on activity in management, I should like to ask for a more self-critical and self-denying approach to the creation of the mandate than has hitherto been the case in NHS priority-setting—hence the rather arbitrary notion that we might have five “musts” and five “maybes”. I would like the Secretary of State to restrict his mandate to one side of A4, but I can see a departmental machine creating a mandate which reflects all the recent ministerial enthusiasms—for example, a waiting list here and a choice or two there—and which during its creation becomes a sizeable novel of the unattainable but desirable, or, alternatively, the attainable but unimportant, which were the characteristics of NHS priority lists in the past.
The mandate should answer the question: where do we want the NHS to go in the next five years, and specifically in the next year, and what resources are we going to dedicate to get there? We should then translate that into something specific that is measurable, achievable and realistic, with time for things that one wants to see for all objectives. If one has more than just a handful of objectives, I suspect that only two or three will ever get done. I therefore wonder how we can be reassured that the Secretary of State will produce a working document of realistic goals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this is one of the most important groups of amendments that we are going to discuss, because, in a sense, it sets the whole relationship between the Secretary of State and the NHS Commissioning Board.
I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend Lord Warner’s Amendment 96, which seeks to avoid the Secretary of State essentially putting in a huge shopping list of demands by limiting the mandate to a maximum of five obligatory and five desirable functions.
I come back to the recent interventions by the Government in the affairs of the National Health Service. The most recent have been around waiting times, both in terms of what happens to patients who have passed the 18-week target and of the activities of some primary care trusts, which, in order to contain their expenditure, have set arbitrary waits for patients even though they are ultimately treated within the 18-week limit. I have said to the Minister that I have no complaint about the intervention of Secretary of State, which I thought was quite proper, but it is very difficult to see how this will happen under the new system. We have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to it. What in the new system will suddenly obviate the need for the Secretary of State to make such interventions?
The question then comes to the mandate. Is it, as my noble friend Lord Warner hopes, a high-level document which will focus on a very limited number of objectives, or will it be a shopping list? The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, expressed it very well as in a sense legitimising “recent ministerial enthusiasms”. We were rather given the lie to this when we debated this matter last week, because the Minister suggested that if there was an issue such as primary care trusts lengthening waiting in order to meet the budget, the mandate could be used to prevent it. Indeed, that is the risk—that the Secretary of State will, quite properly, come under pressure to intervene in the health service. The Bill weakens the legal powers of the Secretary of State to do so. The risk is clearly that the mandate will be used instead, and it would be used retrospectively if it does not satisfy the intervention power. I believe that there is great reservation among noble Lords as to whether the intervention power is sufficient, because there has basically to be a failure by the NHS Commissioning Board to carry out the objective. If it is not sufficient for an intervention to take place during the year, my goodness me the shopping list will grow when the new mandate is written. So, there are some very important issues on which we have yet to receive any answer from the Minister.
There are, however, a number of other important amendments in this group. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify three points. The first point is how long the mandate will last. My assumption, from what Ministers have said and what is in the Bill, is that it will last for a year. The Minister will be aware that the chairman of the NHS Commissioning Board expressed a wish to the Health Select Committee, which was vetting his appointment, that the mandate should last for three years. I wonder if the Minister could clear up that matter for your Lordships.
Will the Minister also clarify the intention behind the provision in proposed new Section 223D(7)(b), on page 27, which allows changes to total capital and revenue resource use after parliamentary general election takes place? I take it that this is simply to allow for a change of Government but I would be grateful if he could spell that out.
However, my substantive amendment, Amendment 100A, is concerned with parliamentary scrutiny. In Clause 20, proposed new Section 13A states:
“Before the start of each financial year, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a document to be known as ‘the mandate’”.
Surely Parliament is entitled to a little more involvement than merely receiving the mandate as a fait accompli. My noble friend Lord Warner has already pushed the Government in their amendment to give Parliament information about any reservations the board may have expressed about meeting the mandate. I would certainly support that in the interests of transparency. There is also, in Amendment 100, reference to the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the board, HealthWatch England and other persons, with the results of any consultation on the mandate to be published. That too seems reasonable.
However, I wonder if we ought not to go further in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. If we take Ministers at face value—and the Secretary of State has expressed a wish to step back from day-to-day involvement in the National Health Service—it is clear that the mandate assumes special importance. Why is Parliament not being given a proper opportunity to scrutinise the mandate before the Secretary of State finally sets it for the NHS Commissioning Board? If the Secretary of State is really going to tell Members of Parliament in particular that he is not going to intervene in a particular question because he considers that now to be the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board, in accordance with the mandate that the Secretary of State has set, then I think that Parliament should be entitled to some involvement in scrutiny of that mandate. My Amendment 100A suggests how that might be done. It is built on the system of scrutiny for national policy statements.
The House will be aware that the Planning Act 2008 introduced a new planning system for applications to build nationally significant infrastructure projects. They cover applications for major energy generation, railways, ports, roads, airports, water and hazardous waste infrastructure. Under this system, national policy on national infrastructure is set out in a series of national policy statements. Under Section 92 of the Planning Act 2008, each proposal for a national policy statement must be laid before Parliament. In so doing, the Secretary of State specifies a relevant period for parliamentary scrutiny.
If during that scrutiny period either House passes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or if a committee of either House makes recommendations regarding the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Statement setting out his response to the resolution or recommendations. Following completion of parliamentary scrutiny, the Secretary of State may formally designate the proposal as a national policy statement. The final national policy statement is also laid before Parliament.
In the House of Lords, national policy statements are normally debated in Grand Committee, but that does not restrict the freedom of committees of the House or individual Members to make use of the statutory procedures. In the event of a Motion for resolution being tabled, the usual channels have undertaken to provide time for a debate in the Chamber within the scrutiny period.
When I was energy Minister, I had to bring through four energy policy statements. We had three four-hour debates in Grand Committee. They were very thorough. The Government took note of what took place in those debates. In the end, it is up to the Government to make the statement because it is a matter for the Executive. I do not challenge that the mandate, which I regard as important as a national policy statement, is ultimately for Ministers to make. It is rightfully an Executive responsibility. However, the process that I am suggesting in my Amendment 100A would allow Parliament to have much more involvement in the scrutiny. It would allow Ministers to take account of that and then make their minds up in relation to the mandate.
If the Government are determined to hand over such responsibility to a quango—and I remind the House that in this Bill the National Health Service Commissioning Board is given concurrent powers with the Secretary of State in relation to the crucial responsibility in Clause 1—there has to be a great parliamentary scrutiny of that mandate.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. They were prompted by the lack of clarity in the nature of the mandate that the Secretary of State will issue to the Commissioning Board. There is also a lack of clarity in how he will consult the public, although the provision does say that the Secretary of State will consult HealthWatch England prior to issuing a mandate. Who else will be able to scrutinise the mandate?
On the basis that the Secretary of State will use the mandate to performance-manage the Commissioning Board, what will be the nature of the mandate that will allow him to do that? Will it have measurable outcomes against which the Secretary of State can performance-manage the Commissioning Board? What happens if the Commissioning Board does not agree with the mandate? How is that dispute settled? Will the financial aspects be a major part of it or will it be better outcomes for patients?
Earl Howe
Of course, Parliament is the sovereign body and can do whatever it chooses. Nothing will prevent it commenting on the mandate once it has been published. No doubt the Health Select Committee will wish to do this. My point is that to expect the process to feed into a regurgitation or reformulation of the mandate would be unfair on the NHS. The opportunity for Parliament to have its say should surely be during the normal consultation period. Parliament will be able to see the extent to which the Secretary of State has responded to whatever comments it has made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I take up the point that any debate in Parliament should be after consultation has taken place so that Parliament will know what the Secretary of State has decided. The Minister said that this would be debated by a sovereign Parliament. However, he will know that translating that into real time for debates in which noble Lords can question Ministers is problematic. The beauty of the Planning Act 2008 was that it laid down a requirement that was then turned into procedure. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on this. As he rightly said, this mandate is a very important indication to the health service of the Secretary of State’s wishes. If the department gave some further thought to this matter, it might come to the conclusion that it would be right to allow parliamentarians to have a go at the mandate—to question Ministers—before it is finally signed off.
Earl Howe
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, thinks that the health service should be run in that way; that is, Parliament in effect mandating requirements to the health service whenever it chooses. I do not think that is a helpful idea. I think it is helpful for the Secretary of State, as now, to take responsibility for the health service but in the future to take direct responsibility for what lies in the mandate. Should events during a given year raise questions about the performance of the board, the Secretary of State would be answerable to Parliament for whatever the event was, and he would indeed have to take the necessary advice from the board. What he would not be saying is, “This is not my concern, guv”. He is answerable to Parliament in the ways that I have indicated. There is obviously a need for the board to take responsibility for the day-to-day management of the health service. However, we are seeking to achieve a balance between the Secretary of State taking responsibility in Parliament for what is in the mandate and the outcomes that he has set for the health service.
This is a shift of responsibility, it is not an abdication of responsibility—that is the distinction. Power is a zero sum game. If you shift power from the Secretary of State down to the health service, you cannot at the same time expect the Secretary of State to retain the same degree of power. We are transferring power in two directions; from the Secretary of State downwards, and from the Secretary of State upwards to Parliament. That is the picture that I hope noble Lords will keep in their minds.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but there are some extra points here. What we have seen from the Secretary of State recently is no desire to desist from day-to-day involvement in the National Health Service. We have seen a number of interventions—which, as the noble Earl knows, I welcome; I believe that is the duty of the Secretary of State. I am still completely mystified as to how the Secretary of State will do this in the future. I can see that you have the NHS constitution; I can see that in the objectives set in the mandate the Secretary of State will say to the NHS Commissioning Board, “You will do the right thing on waiting times”. However, what happens if, because of resource constraints, clinical commissioning groups put in artificial devices to extend waiting while still meeting the 18-week targets? They will be okay under the constitution, but that action is found to be unacceptable in PCTs now. Where does the intervention come? The Secretary of State will be required by Parliament to intervene. There will be no getting away from that.
The second point is about accountability upwards. I say again to the noble Earl that I do not know why he will not take this point away. We have the Planning Act 2008; we have had a highly successful process of examining national policy statements, which must be of the same degree of importance as the mandate. It has been clearly set out how Parliament will scrutinise those: it allows in your Lordships’ House a process in Grand Committee and then in your Lordships’ Chamber if a Motion is moved. However, at the end of the day the Secretary of State can ignore what Parliament says because it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to set the national policy statement as he would the mandate. If the Government are claiming that this is an appreciable shift of power, I am puzzled as to why on earth Parliament is not allowed more involvement in scrutinising the mandate.
Earl Howe
Because it would get Parliament into the territory of micromanaging the health service, if it so chose. That is not the territory we would want to be in, any more than we wish the Secretary of State to micromanage the health service. That is the problem. The Secretary of State has to take responsibility for the objectives set for the health service. I think there is a general acceptance among those in the health service and indeed the public at large that the health service has to be judged on a different set of measures than it has been in the past—namely, on its outcomes and the cost effectiveness with which it approaches the use of the budget given to it.
We believe that undue political influence is undesirable. Parliament is capable of exercising that kind of interference every bit as much as a Secretary of State. We are saying, however, that Parliament has every right to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s proposals, to feed into those proposals, to be listened to and to be responded to. However, in our contention, it is undesirable for us to go beyond that because in the end, the health service has to know where it stands. If this is an endless process of Parliament second guessing the mandate and coming forward all the time with suggested changes, we will not have a workable system.
“( ) If, within 60 parliamentary days of the mandate having been laid—
(a) either House of Parliament makes a recommendation with regard to the proposal, or(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal,the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the resolution or recommendations.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the debate on the first group was instructive on the relationship between Parliament, the Secretary of State and the mandate that the Secretary of State sets for the NHS Commissioning Board. In our final exchange the noble Earl said that he was fearful of Parliament micromanaging the National Health Service. My fear is that that is shorthand for saying that Parliament may be told that it will no longer be able to ask detailed questions about the NHS because it is covered in the mandate. Whatever it may be, the mandate assumes critical importance since it lays out the objectives set for the NHS Commissioning Board by the Secretary of State. My amendment is not about micromanagement, it is about proper parliamentary scrutiny of what the Secretary of State has decided, and it sets out a well tried procedure. The final decision on the mandate will remain with the Secretary of State, but it will allow Parliament to undertake proper scrutiny. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I am not sure whether my intervention will complicate the debate further but I very much support the sentiments behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The idea of standardised management accounts could be very helpful. One of the questions I invite the Minister to address is connected to my concerns about how we ensure that the NHS as an environment for research and innovation and as an engine for our economy is properly promoted and understood. Can the Minister comment on what the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility might be in looking at the NHS spend—the billions of pounds that go into the NHS—and whether there is a role for the Office for Budget Responsibility in looking at how the economy is benefiting from the investment that we make as a country in the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment. I should like to start with the question about the scale of the financial challenge. As my noble friend suggested, the amount of money that has got to be taken out of the NHS through efficiency in the next four years is considerable. The indications are that while in the current financial year there will be some parts of the NHS that really struggle, by and large the service is going to get through. However, years two, three and four are going to be much more fundamental challenges. The need for the NHS to use its assets as effectively as possible, to get on with reconfiguration of services, and for all groups involved in the NHS to buy into that kind of change, is going to be essential. The more comparative information that can be provided the better, which is where I hope the Minister will be responsive to my noble friend.
The noble Lord Lord, Lord Owen, mentioned procurement. I should wear a hat as president of the Health Care Supply Association, and say that he is right to identify procurement as a potential area of much greater efficiency in the future. However, the Minister will know that two recent reports from the Public Accounts Committee have raised concerns about procurement and really are inviting the Minister in particular and the department specifically to take on a much greater leadership role in ensuring—it is rather like the Green report suggested—that the NHS makes the most of its potential buying power. I ask the Minister how, in the devolved structure that the Government are enunciating, we can ensure that on issues such as the use of our assets and procurement we still act as one national service making the most of our buying power? Unless we do that, there are going to be continuous PAC reports looking at the problem of national direction.
Finally, I endorse the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. What about clinical commissioning groups? The Bill is silent on how CCGs are to be accountable. One way would be the publication of comparative performance of how they use their resources—the more comparative performance, the better. I should also like to ask the Minister about primary medical services. As we know, this has always been a difficult area. We have had various efforts through the GP contract to have much more of a performance culture. I cannot say that has been uniformly successful. However, in these days of stringency, I do not think we can get away with that any longer. It would be good to hear how we can extend the whole concept of efficiency performance measurement into an area of the health service, such as GPs themselves, where I am sure there is much more efficiency to be gained.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I should probably say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I am not convinced by the amendment. That is not because I do not believe that the issues that he has raised are important—I certainly do. Good governance is absolutely dependent on having good data and on the financial control that that data enable the board of directors to exercise. It is very much about ensuring throughout the health service that the QIPP agenda is pursued effectively. The QIPP agenda is all about ensuring the more efficient and effective use of money. This could not be a more salient topic at the moment.
However, Amendment 102, which the noble Lord has proposed, would in my view introduce a new layer of bureaucracy. I hope to show that it is not required. My main reason for saying that is that accounting and disclosure requirements for the Department of Health and all NHS bodies are ultimately set by the Treasury. These are already based on independent advice.
I am conscious that that is rather a condensed answer, so, if I may, I should like to go into a little detail as to how this will work. Paragraph 15 of the new Schedule A1 to the NHS Act, inserted by Schedule 1 to the Bill, enables the Secretary of State, with the agreement of the Treasury, to specify the form and content of the board’s accounts and the methods and principles to be applied in their preparation. The Bill places an obligation on the board to produce annual accounts, as well as in-year accounts covering shorter periods if necessary.
In addition, the Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to require such other information as is considered necessary for the purpose of exercising his functions in relation to the health service. This is what one might term management information—data required by those controlling funding or setting policy alongside the financial returns in order to provide an accurate picture of issues such as staffing levels.
For clinical commissioning groups, it is the NHS Commissioning Board that sets the accounting and reporting requirements. It will do so in a way that is consistent with requirements set by the Secretary of State, and approved by the Treasury for the purposes of consolidation.
My noble friend Lady Williams expressed the fear that CCGs may not be well equipped to handle that kind of reporting. The board will set the accounting and reporting requirements for CCGs, as I indicated. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 1A to the NHS Act 2006, inserted by Schedule 2 to the Bill, allows the board, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to give directions to CCGs as to the methods and principles of accounting which they must use and the form and content of their accounts. That will provide a means whereby much greater control can be had over the form, content and consistency of those accounts.
These provisions are mirrored in relation to NHS foundation trusts, with Monitor or the Secretary of State specifying the form and content of the trusts' accounts, again with Treasury agreement.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would be delighted to have that conversation. I did not in the least mean to suggest that the ideas the noble Lord has put forward are in any way irrelevant. Indeed, quite the opposite, I am aware that there is a lot of work going on at the moment in the very areas that he has highlighted. I would be happy to write to him about that, if that would help as a precursor to a meeting.
I will just cover a couple of the questions that have been asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked to what extent the Office for Budget Responsibility would be involved. The OBR has a very specific role in terms of producing economic information. We would not see a role for the OBR itself in analysing the impact of NHS spending, but this is an area that is always under close scrutiny across the Government, in the Department of Health and beyond. I am leaving the possibility slightly open, if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked whether Sir David Nicholson would have sufficient financial expertise alongside him on the board. Sir David Nicholson has said in Developing the NHS Commissioning Board, published earlier this year, that the board will have a finance director as part of its leadership team. That is all I can tell him at the moment. However, it is clear that the board will have a major task in ensuring that sufficient financial control is maintained over the health service as a whole. If it fails to do so—as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly reminded us—we are all in trouble.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how we can achieve comparable performance measurement of CCGs. The board will be required to publish an assessment of CCG performance annually, including their financial functions. It must also publish a summary report of the performance of all CCGs.
The amendment is well intended; I have no difficulty with that. However, in practice, as framed, it would be onerous and cut across established government responsibilities. I know the noble Lord, Lord Warner, thinks I am just defending the status quo, but I am trying to say that I am not sure his formula would add much value, particularly as the underlying purpose of the amendment is already achieved under existing arrangements. For those reasons, I hope he will feel comfortable—for the time being—in withdrawing it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response on clinical commissioning groups, but I come back to the question of GPs. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I do not think I was seeking to look at their business arrangements, but I am seeking to find out how their performance as primary medical providers is going to be measured in the future. When the Secretary of State announced his reforms, shortly after coming into government, he emphasised that he wanted to put responsibility for budgets alongside responsibility for expenditure, on the basis that GPs, either through referral or through prescribing, were responsible for most expenditure in the NHS. I assume the intention was, essentially, to encourage GPs to be much more effective in what they did in primary medicine, as it would impact on their budgetary situation; but, given that, how do we get to a situation where we can start to measure the performance of GPs? I do not pretend that it is easy—as I said earlier, I think our own experience with the GP contract shows some of the challenges. However, I would have thought that for the future, some comparative information about GP performance, in addition to the prescribing information that is now available, would help. For instance, one issue would be how good they are at demand management. How good are they at preventing their patients from inappropriately going to hospital? I would have thought this was a rich gold seam.
Earl Howe
I could not agree more with the noble Lord. We want to get closer to the question of what represents value for money in primary care. There are perhaps two principal ingredients of that equation. The first is the money we put into primary care, which we will know through the resource allocation formula, with which the noble Lord is familiar; the second is through highlighting the results achieved through primary care. Primary care clinicians will be accountable as never before by reference to the outcomes that they achieve for their patients. The other ingredient, overarching all that, is transparency. The more measures of performance that we can devise and place into the public domain the better in my view, and in the next few weeks, we will be announcing measures that I hope will be welcome in that regard. However, we are starting from a low base—not much information is currently published. We want to change that, and ensure not only that clinical commissioning groups and the NHS board are aware of all this but that patients and the public are aware of how well or badly a practice is performing. All these things such as prescribing rates and referral rates are key measures of performance, which we have to get closer to. If we can ensure that practices themselves are more able to compare their own performance with those of their peers, that too will be an advance. I am sure that this is a rich seam, as the noble Lord put it, and we very much hope to advance on that front over the coming months.