Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 176, the second amendment in this group, and two other amendments. I shall start with Amendment 176 which is concerned with the treatment of thyroid patients who continue to be denied liothyronine, otherwise known as T3, as the most appropriate treatment for them. For some patients, the standard treatment is not effective. T3 has proven to be a much better treatment, but tragically, a few years ago the manufacturers grossly inflated the cost of T3 by a massive 6,000%. Understandably, NHS England and its associated prescribing advising machinery strongly discouraged the use of the drug and, as a result, many patients had T3 withdrawn and suffered quite considerably or had to fund it privately or source it from abroad. Happily, the price of T3 has come down by 75%, although it could go down further, but I believe it is no longer categorised as a high-cost drug.

The problem is that clinical commissioning groups still treat it as a high-cost drug, so the situation is still very difficult for patients who need it—those for whom the standard treatment is not appropriate. The current guidance states that T3 can be prescribed to patients who have unresolved symptoms on the standard treatment if it is initiated or confirmed following a review by an NHS consultant endocrinologist. A statement in July 2021 restated NHSE guidance, but it has not been followed by clinical commissioning groups. A survey done recently by UK thyroid charities, to which I pay huge tribute, says that 44% of CCGs have not fully adopted the national guidelines or are wrongly interpreting them.

What are we to do? What is the situation here, where we have clear guidance that is not being followed? This goes back to our previous debates about the various mechanisms being brought in to ration treatments, against national guidance or technology appraisal advice from NICE. It is the same issue. I am not expecting the Minister to issue a direction but I am expecting him to tell CCGs and, in future, integrated care boards to get off their backsides, start implementing the guidance properly and realise that this is no longer such a high-cost drug. I appeal to him to do something about that.

I also hope that the Minister will do something about hospital catering. I confess to your Lordships that I am president of the Hospital Caterers Association, where I work very closely with some great professional staff who have to work with their hands tied behind their back. Often they do not have the resources to provide the high-quality food that everyone wants and expects.

During Covid we saw in many local NHS facilities a determination to do everything possible to improve nutrition for both patients and staff. Miraculously, hot food was made available to staff overnight, which, as noble Lords know, seems to have been beyond the capacity of the NHS for many years. I do not know why I am looking at the former Chief Nursing Officer as I say this; I think it is an appeal for support.

This clause is highly welcome as I believe it will lead to higher standards, but my amendments would enable the caterers to deliver on them. The first key point is this: they need the resources to be able to do it. The amount of money spent on hospital food per day at the moment is simply not sufficient. Secondly, we need more training for staff. The training programmes have disappeared, and we need to get them back in to give staff the opportunity to show what they can do. Thirdly, we need to make sure that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are fully on board with bringing forward these regulations. There is no doubt that the efficiency programmes have taken their toll on the budgets for hospital catering and that, equally, the old-style national training schemes fell away and have not been replaced. The pay grade of qualified chefs and cooks needs to be reviewed to reflect the importance of their role. This issue is important in terms of the standards of food and nutrition for our patients and for the well-being of our staff.

My final amendment in this group is Amendment 264. What links all these amendments is that we need more consultants appointed—a small effort to enable us to improve the efficiency of the system. I remind the Committee of my GMC connections in relation to this. The amendment would add the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, and their associated dental faculties, to the colleges that may be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants. My amendment was inspired by the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, which noble Lords might be surprised to learn has an office in Birmingham because many consultants who work in the English NHS are members of the Scottish colleges.

There seems to be a lacuna in the current regulations. According to the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and subsequent guidance issued by the department in 2005, only the Royal College of Surgeons in England is permitted to review surgical consultant job descriptions and send a royal college representative to the advisory appointment committees when it comes to the appointment of consultant surgeons. Other elements of my amendment apply to the appointment of physician clinicians, and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine are also supportive. Although the process and guidance apply only to NHS trusts, foundation trusts are encouraged to follow it.

The Minister has yet to accept any amendment to the Bill. The usual line from the Government is, “We will do this when legislation is available to do so.” Here is a great opportunity for the Minister, as we are here on day 6 of Committee, to get up and say that he is going to accept my amendment.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I declare an interest as the patron of the National Association of Care Catering, a position that I took over from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I admit that, when I had this great honour thrust upon me, I had little idea what I was getting into—and I have discovered a world of highly dedicated, professional people whose contribution to the health of the nation is very much overlooked. I managed to attend their national conference in Nottingham last October, and I have to say that it was one of the most harrowing afternoons I have spent, as they talked about what they had gone through as the people who supply catering not only in hospitals and acute hospitals but in care homes, as well as doing meals on wheels.

I will pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, on training. He is absolutely right that this area has suffered a great deal because of various changes not just to training in the NHS but to the training in higher education. We do not have a recognised qualification in care catering in this country, yet these are people who have to produce food for people who have dysphagia, multiple food intolerances and dementia, people who quite often are suffering from malnutrition when they come into hospital, and people who have allergies and often suffer from dehydration. The people who have worked in this field, and some of them have worked in it for many years, suffer a deep sense of frustration, which is that when young people in school or college show an aptitude for or a willingness to go into the world of catering, they are directed towards restaurant catering, because that is where the teachers and lecturers think the money is to be made. Actually, catering for people with difficult medical conditions is a lot more complicated.

I say to the Minister that I am also really impressed by the specialist companies that work in this field—those that produce specialist menus and enable people to order ingredients for complicated menus in complicated settings, as well as those that manufacture cutlery and crockery and vessels that can be used by people whose interaction with that sort of thing is hampered. These can bring a dignity and focus to something that is much overlooked—but talk to dieticians and you will increasingly understand the importance that food plays in maintenance of health and recovery.

I do not know whether or not this will make it into the Bill, but will the Minister go back to the department and ask whether his officials might meet some of the people who do a remarkable and much overlooked job, day in, day out, and who these last two years, perhaps more than anybody else in the NHS, deserved the clap, if only people knew what they had done?

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord and to speak to these regulations. They were laid two months ago and, once again, we are debating regulations that in a sense have been superseded by the various announcements made over the last 24 hours. I realise that this week we will probably debate at least two of the Statements, as well as looking forward to a lot of activity when we return.

I will focus on the instruments. At the time they were brought into force, the Government stated:

“The vaccine deployment programme continues successfully … Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated”


and that confidence in vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant has increased significantly. I hope the Minister can update us on that.

Can he confirm the number of adults who have not yet been vaccinated? I think there are figures in the winter plan that I have just seen. Does he agree that, while one should applaud all the efforts of those who have made the vaccination programme possible, it is still striking that so many adults have irresponsibly decided not to vaccinate? I know we will debate the issue of children aged 12 to 15 later this week, but I for one feel very uncomfortable that, even with just one jab, there will be a small risk to those taking it— particularly some boys—partly because of the selfishness of adults in not taking the vaccine. I personally think there are some ethical issues and am not surprised that the JCVI found this a very difficult decision. What else does the Minister think can be done to encourage adults to take up the vaccine?

Could the Minister also say a little about the unknown risks of vaccine effectiveness in high-prevalence environments where transmission pressures are high? I will also ask about the relationship between the booster jabs, which I think the Chief Medical Officer recently announced are to happen, and the flu vaccine programme. I understand that there is concern that immunity to the virus is low, leading to fear that flu, together with other winter viruses, could put the NHS under extreme pressure. Could he also comment on the likely effectiveness of the flu vaccine, which I gather is pretty low?

May I also ask about face coverings? These regulations remove the requirement for people to wear face coverings when using public transport services and in relevant indoor settings. The rationale for that was that the success of the vaccination programme meant we could move away from strict legal restrictions towards personal responsibility and informed judgment. Last week we debated this to an extent and the Minister pointed to data that his department had showing that this had not had much impact on people’s behaviour. From talking to noble Lords, I note that there is some surprise about this, because to the visible eye mask-wearing has dropped off considerably, particularly among men. I wonder about the extent to which this is being monitored and whether we need to step up some programmes about why it is still to be encouraged.

Finally, I will ask about local authority powers. These regulations enable local authorities to take action where an outbreak or risk of outbreak is linked to premises or an event, with local authorities retaining powers to respond to local serious and imminent public health threats. That is a very sensible provision. The Government then describe those regulations as continuing

“to act as an important public health tool for local authorities”.

Could he update me on the use of these regulations since they were passed?

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking in this debate because my noble friend Lady Brinton cannot be in her place to take part. We have the technology to enable remote participation in debates in the Moses Room, but the House authorities have not yet permitted that for contributions in Grand Committee, so virtual participation in these proceedings is unfortunately not possible, even though we have seen in this last week that the very few participants who need to take part remotely can be managed very effectively without recourse to extensive speakers’ lists.

It is also a loss to the Committee, because my noble friend Lady Brinton cannot take part for one very important reason, about which she has been quite public: she is clinically vulnerable, and one thing she cannot do is travel on public transport, which she cannot do because people are not wearing masks. Of all people, she should have been able to be here to make that point.

Yet again, these SIs were tabled very late. They came in just before the recess in late July, so yet again we are back to debating things that are long in the past. We have repeatedly asked the Government to respect the House and timetable SIs when they are not genuinely urgent. However, these are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, quite pertinent in view of the Statements being made this week.

This statutory instrument mostly deals with the revocation of statutory instruments on 21 July, which confirmed a number of the changes in the Prime Minister’s so-called freedom day. However, there is one extension, in Regulation 4, to the expiry date of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations, which are now to end on 27 September. The Explanatory Memorandum says that this

“will ensure that local authorities retain powers to respond to local serious and imminent public health threats as a result of the spread of coronavirus. The No. 3 Regulations will continue to act as an important public health tool for local authorities in their local coronavirus outbreak management, compliance and enforcement activities. This is particularly important in light of the revocation of the other restrictions mentioned above”.

As we have said all the way through this pandemic, it is important that local authorities have the power to manage local outbreaks. Simply extending that power in law, but not making sure that they have the resources, will not work. As epidemiologists have said to us in terms, there will inevitably be points when it is important to close all the pubs in a certain area, simply because an outbreak has to be contained. While we welcome that, it behoves the Minister to say something about local authorities such as Croydon, which is insolvent, and how it will have the resources to manage this significant and enduring public health problem.

We regret the removal of face coverings on public transport and other crowded venues. I can say, as somebody who travels on the London Underground every working day, that fewer and fewer people are wearing masks and, as more and more people are on the Tube, I am certain we will see a spike in infections as a result. I also point out to noble Lords that the bad messaging on this does not help. There is genuine confusion. One of my colleagues was on a train to Scotland in the summer and, when it got to the border, there was an announcement that the law now required everybody on that train to wear a mask, and they did, as they should have done all the way.

It is now clear that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, have been so desperate to place emphasis on the vaccination programme as our primary defence that they have forgotten to look at the role of other mitigations against the disease. Although we support the passing of these regulations, we need to make the messaging clearer as a matter of urgency, so we can avoid the confusion that is now prevalent among people in England.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister said that he was listening, and his amendments are important, particularly the one that makes the principle of the health and safety of the public the key consideration when making regulations under the parts of the Bill relating to human medicines and medical devices. He will be aware that concern was expressed by patient groups, in particular, about the Bill as originally drafted and the implication of the attractiveness provision. That concern takes us back to our first debate on “whither regulation in future”.

If we are not going to be aligned to the European Medicines Agency and are to plough it alone, the UK pharma industry will be at a huge disadvantage unless the Government offer an incentive. It may be a bung—the debate about state aid is very relevant to that—or much faster regulation. Otherwise, it is very difficult to see why the industry would continue to invest in R&D in this country. Its position could be as vulnerable as is the motor car industry as a result of the bumbling ineptitude of the Government in their Brexit so-called negotiation.

It is not far-fetched, it is a legitimate question to ask what on earth the Government really want from medicines and medical devices regulation. They may have issued all sorts of draft regulations, but we are clueless about what they are actually seeking to do. The MHRA is clearly not allowed to talk to anybody about this. I remember when the MHRA would talk to politicians and debate these things. It has clearly been given an instruction not to talk to anyone. We are absolutely clueless about the future direction of regulation. None the less, the amendments are clearly helpful, and no doubt we will consider them between Committee and Report.

I would, however, like to ask the Minister about Amendment 2 and its relevance to Northern Ireland. I understand that, exceptionally, it will be moved in Grand Committee because legislative consent takes three months to get through, which impacts on the Bill’s process. I understand that, but, as Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill affect Northern Ireland, does that similarly affect any amendment to Part 1 or 2 passed on Report? What is then the impact on Northern Ireland legislation?

Overall, however, most of the amendments are a constructive improvement, but we will obviously consider them further between now and Report.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, we must consider the whole Bill as building the foundations for the future of the medicines and pharmaceutical industry in this country. We do so in the knowledge that we have had a perhaps pre-eminent role in the world in pharmaceutical development because of the coming together of a number of factors—the European medicines regulations and all the conventions to which we are party, plus the existence of the NHS and the potential it offers for clinical research and our long tradition of working in the life sciences and biosciences sector.

The Minister definitely listened at Second Reading to the many voices of concern that perceived the Bill as it came to us as a weakening of the many factors that underpin our success in this area. He understood entirely, I think, that if we were to take away the pre-eminence of the health and safety of the industry, we would fatally undermine the whole basis of the construction of this very important sector for our economy.

The Minister has listened but not quite hard enough. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that Amendment 2 is an improvement, but it still leaves the decision-making on whether something promotes health and safety to the Secretary of State. I much prefer the construction in Amendment 5, to which my noble friend Lady Jolly has added her name.

My main concern in this group is with Amendment 51 on regulation for veterinary medicines. In his introduction, the Minister pointed to the fact that medicines for animals can work back into the food chain and to humans. I understand the interplay between taking into account things that are done to improve human well-being, animal well-being and the environment, but he will understand that, when people see the amendments, it will not be immediately apparent to them that human welfare is pre-eminent in the list. It says that the regulations must promote “one or more” of the three. I agree that the Minister has moved on the first set of amendments, but he has not gone anywhere near far enough on the regulations on veterinary medicines, so we may well need to come back to that at a later stage.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I realise that in the last group I mentioned general medical practitioners. I ought to inform the House of my forthcoming appointment to the General Medical Council.

We have had a lot to read in the last few days, and are clearly going to have to take a lot of this on trust, but the thrust of the amendments is welcome, and I am grateful to the Minister for tabling them. As he said, they strengthen the role of local authorities and give them a clear remit to intervene where they feel that, for one reason or another, the care home manager cannot discharge the responsibilities given in relation to the authorisation application appropriately.

In the letter that the Minister sent to a number of noble Lords, he set out factors that might be considered by the local authority as a responsible body. These would be:

“Whether the person has a care plan with the responsible body … local intelligence about a local provider of care homes”,


which would suggest that the responsible body takes over the process;

“insight from local commissioners or concerns about performance … sustained absence of a registered manager”—

or presumably when the turnover of managers is high, as it can be; and—

“an increase in concerns raised by residents, their carers or families … a new service or category of care provision, and/or … provision of poor or incomplete statements”.

To me that sounds very comprehensive and welcome.

What arises from this is that the responsible body will have to make a considerable judgment and, to make it, will need a very clear understanding of the care homes in its area. Could the Minister say a little about how he thinks that local authorities might be supported in that role? Clearly, they now have a major role which they have found it hard to discharge, for reasons that have been discussed. It is important they are able to do this in a consistent way.

The Minister mentioned the code of practice. It is a statutory code of practice, which I think means that it must be followed unless the local body has very good reason not to do so. It would be interesting to know what plans the department has for checking with the local authorities—not in a heavy-handed way—how well it is going after time and implementation, and seeing whether there is consistency across the country as a whole.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s change of mind. They started with a very different understanding from ours of the current roles of care home managers, local authorities, best-interests assessors and DoLS assessors. I think we still have a difference of opinion about how life works in practice, but these amendments show a considerable movement, if not complete agreement on that part, and therefore we welcome them. I feel it is right to remind the Minister that when the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House did the post-legislative scrutiny on the Mental Capacity Act and its workings five years after its implementation, there was an overwhelming lack of information and data both in local authorities and throughout the health service. I rather think that we have been perhaps unnecessarily preoccupied in this Bill with who carries out a particular function rather than looking at the way those functions could possibly be streamlined and better audited.

I do not think that the work of a local authority best-interests assessor or a DoLS lead, however they may be termed under the new scheme, is actually going to change that much, but I welcome the attempt here to meet us half way, and I thank the Minister for that. Well, perhaps it is more than half way in terms of our assessment that what was being asked of care home managers was beyond their capacity to deliver. Big questions still need to be asked about their role in the overall scheme. If we had not spent quite so much time on this, we might have been able to look more closely at greater efficiencies in terms of reporting and so on. For the moment, however, I welcome these amendments.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Committee: 3rd sitting - (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 78, but I should like to say a word in support for the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. These amendments concern the arrangements for the appointment of independent mental capacity advocates and they sensibly seek to ensure that an IMCA must be appointed if the appropriate person would have substantial difficulty helping the cared-for person to understand their rights, involving them in decisions and assisting them to exercise rights of challenge if they wish to do so without the support of an IMCA. I want to make it clear that relevant rights include the right to make an application to the court and the right to request a review of the arrangements. The responsible body must ensure that cases are referred to the court when a cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.

The concern is that at the moment, referral to advocacy is controlled by the relevant person, who is the responsible body or the care home manager. An advocate must be appointed if the person has capacity and requests an advocate, which is likely to be very rare, or the person lacks capacity and the relevant person is satisfied that being represented and supported by an IMCA would be in the person’s best interests. The problem, which we have now debated a number of times, is that the right to advocacy seems to be more limited than under DoLS, and it is at the discretion of the relevant person not to refer if it is not considered to be in the best interests. As has been commented on, there are only three references to best interests in the entire Bill, and two are used at the discretion of the care home manager or the responsible body to actually limit the right to an IMCA. We have to build in some more safeguards, including referral to the Court of Protection. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looked at the original Law Commission work, said that the responsible body should be under a clear statutory duty to refer cases where others fail to do so.

I was interested to receive over the weekend an email from the carers for HL in HL v UK ECHR 2004, otherwise known as the Bournewood case. They have always been critical when they observe bad practice and the failure to uphold a person’s rights. They say that reading the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill and following its passage through the parliamentary process so far has been depressing and leaves them feeling extremely frustrated and angry that the work they started in 1997 and the protections for the person that came about from that work are now being thrown away by this Bill. The lack of any of the protections they argued for individually and collectively, which at least had a fair hearing when they gave oral evidence to the JCHR and, they believe, were mostly reflected in its recent paper, appear to have been completely ignored, as has most of what the JCHR had to say. They say that anything less than the JCHR recommendations, along with nearly all of the proposals from the Law Commission, would be a reduction in the value of a person’s individual rights and against the concept of the MCA and even of the existing DoLS.

Interestingly, their acid test is this: if HL against Bournewood happened today under these proposals, would he be any better protected than in 1997 or under DoLS? They say that given the attitude of the professional employed by the hospital managing authority at the time, the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill places more control in the hands of those very professionals and shows less consideration of HL and those who were trying to get him out. In its current form, it is a monumental failure. I know that the Minister thinks that this is an exaggeration, but coming from the carers of HL, it suggests that there are real and genuine concerns about where the Government are going. My fear, as I said last week, is that essentially we are seeing a streamlining of the bureaucratic process and many of the safeguards are being reduced. That is why access to the Court of Protection is so important.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I have tabled one amendment in this group, Amendment 75. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had on the previous group but I want to put one question to the Minister. Why in paragraphs 36 and 37 do we suddenly see the term “relevant person” being introduced? It is quite confusing and I shall need to go back and look at Hansard. I do not want to make a wrong accusation, but I think there is confusion about the terms “relevant person” and “appropriate person”, when in fact they are two completely different things. My understanding is that a “relevant person” is either the responsible body or a care home manager, so why do we not talk about that? If that is what is meant, let us be up-front about it.

Amendment 75 asks why the appropriate person as we know them under the Mental Capacity Act has to have capacity to consent to being supported by an IMCA if the purpose is not just to put another hurdle in the way to make sure that these people—let us bear in mind that they do not have a right to be given information under this Bill—have to make a request of the care manager or the care home manager. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right to say that the Minister has talked about care home managers and care managers; they are different, but all of them have a potential vested interest in making sure that someone does not have access to an IMCA. That, I think, would be a gross dereliction.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to two of these amendments. We heard earlier that the Minister has agreed that the Bill at some point in the future will reflect the need to consult the cared-for person. This is clearly a great advance and sets the context for the debate on this group of amendments. I particularly commend the suggestion that the consultation should be not just about what the assessment has concluded should be done to the cared-for person—I fear that the sense of the Bill at the moment is “done to”—but what the alternatives are.

This is where I come back to one of our problems with the architecture of the Bill. So much responsibility is given to the care home manager who, inevitably it seems to me, must think about residence in a care home as being the only option because their job is to make sure that occupancy is of the highest level in order to maximise the viability of the home. It would be good to know how the Government think with this Bill and the new arrangements we are going to ensure that the alternatives are properly looked at before someone’s deprivation of liberty is actually authorised.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, can I take this opportunity to ask the noble Baroness some questions? Can she confirm my understanding that this duty to consult does not come under Article 4 of the Mental Capacity Act? As I read the Bill, the responsible body or the care home manager is under a duty to consult only in so far as they deem it to be practicable or appropriate to do so. They make that decision. Is that correct? Under DoLS, if somebody was “unbefriended” and if there was nobody to consult, that automatically triggered the right to an advocate. I do not believe that is the case under the Bill. Finally, this duty to consult is a stand-alone one. What happens as a result of that consultation? For example, it does not make it clear that if a family—like Mark Neary—objects to a placement, it does not trigger the need for an AMCP or another assessment. Yes, there is a long list of people but, as I understand it, there is no nearest-relative rule as there is under mental health legislation. There is no sequential order. My basic question is: what happens as a result of this duty to consult? It is not clear to me that anything necessarily happens.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the Minister, although I am reeling from the shock that he thinks that I called for a second Second Reading debate to take place on a Clause 1 stand part discussion.

I of course agree that the current system is not fit for purpose. I agree with the Minister and with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords. I agree with the need for a streamlined system, but it has to be the right system. I say to the noble Baroness that one of the briefings that I received was from 39 Essex Chambers, which is pretty expert in this area. It was a very interesting piece by Victoria Butler-Cole which sets out seven changes to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill that the courts are likely to make unless Parliament gets there first.

We have to be very careful that in wishing to support the Government to get a streamlined process through we do not build in mistakes and errors that, rather like the Cheshire West decision, will lead to the court, and then to further legislation. In her piece, Victoria Butler-Cole says that the Court of Protection has a record of rejecting capacity assessments conducted by consultant psychiatrists with years of training in mental health and specifically in relation to the MCA. The Bill permits care home managers to assess capacity in this context. There is no way that will withstand scrutiny by the court, and there are likely to be even more cases in which assessments of incapacity are overturned as care home managers with little or no relevant training are required to carry out what can be a complex task. That seems to me to be the problem.

I know that this has to be signed off by the local authority. The impact assessment makes it clear that in the vast majority of cases that will be a desktop exercise. That does not fill me with confidence that these assessments will be scrutinised effectively by local authorities which themselves are very hard pressed. That is why I think that, when it comes to the detailed amendments, this is a very important part of this legislation. We need to be very careful to ensure that this is going to work effectively.

On training, the noble Lord has made some very welcome comments, but I refer to the fact that there is an annual turnover of 27% in this sector among the people who are going to have to do this work. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that I was trying to be polite. This is a very vulnerable sector, with low-paid people who have low qualifications being asked to deal with issues to do with the fundamental liberty of people in this country.

My gut feeling is that it will not do. This cannot be left to care managers. The Government will have to look again at the Law Commission’s assumption that local authorities would do the work. I of course do not wish to prevent Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I hope that it is permissible for me to rise again. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that I understood him correctly? Is he saying that the role of the care home manager has not changed? I understand that, under the existing law, a care home manager may request that somebody’s capacity be assessed, but that assessment is not usually done by them. That assessment is done by somebody else. Is he saying that that is not going to change? I am sorry, but I think it very important that noble Lords understand what the Minister says.

NHS and Social Care: Winter Service Delivery

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Thursday 25th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for the opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, just said, to return again to this subject. I will not make a long speech as I would like to leave as much time as possible for the debate that will follow. On behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, all the very best and ask her colleagues to convey that to her.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is right: we have been back to this ground so many times. In preparing for this debate, I thought back to many of the debates that we have had in the past. The origins of the problem we are looking at go back to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. In that Act, for the very first time, welcome things happened: we began to break down procedures within the NHS and to cost and quantify them. But the problem was that we made them into individual units of activity, and to this day, within the NHS, the systems that join up those individual units are failing. They fail completely when they have to be matched up with the social care system, which is completely different.

Those problems were identified and partially addressed in 2003 with the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act, when the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was sitting there trying to answer questions from very talented opposition spokespeople such as me. We asked him a question that he never could answer, which was why the then Government thought that the answer to the problems in the NHS was to fine social services departments. I never understood that. We still have, within the whole system of discharge, a system of penalties.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Perhaps I can answer the noble Baroness. Surely the point is that both local government and the NHS were being properly funded at that point. Therefore it was entirely appropriate to have a system to encourage local authorities to do the right thing.

[Baroness Barker]

The issue that I think the Government were trying to solve was one for which we have never had any evidence: that of local authorities trying to game the system. It is correct that the overall amount of funding has gone down, but we have not had evidence of people gaming the system.

We have never had a system, or even part of a system, that incentivises GPs and those in charge of social care to prepare for winter pressures, invest in programmes that will see older people through the increased incidence of illness that we know happens in winter, and avoid unnecessary admissions to A&E. What has changed in that time is that we now have better data and better information systems, but in many ways we are still failing to take all that and improve those systems. At the moment we still have ambulance services being rated on completely different systems across the country so we cannot generate data.

The Government have done some things that are very welcome. Everyone agrees that the primary care streaming system, into which they put £100 million, is a worthwhile initiative. Unfortunately, the initial evidence is that it is failing simply because it takes people from another part of the system—GPs—and locates them in hospital. What are the Government going to do to properly monitor that system in its entirety as part of an overall approach to winter pressures, to see whether it is worth more investment or whether it simply takes resources from other parts of the system?

On the question of beds, we have a national system of monitoring general and acute beds and ways of measuring the overall occupancy rate. We do not have a method of assessing the number of beds in relation to need. For example, we can open up a load more beds, as the NHS always does at times of crisis, but if there are no more staff to look after the people in those beds then we are not really addressing the need. We need to refine the measurement of this so that we have a metric along the lines of “nurses per bed per day”. That is the point at which things become really bad. I remember talking to a nurse about a patient—actually my mother—and being told that she was far too good to be in hospital and would be going home. She died two days later, which was not a surprise to any of us. I say that because it is not an uncommon experience for patients.

We have been through this time and again. The one thing that we have failed to do is incentivise GPs to work with community organisations from the summer onwards to predict the people in their area who are going to be most at risk and to put in place very low-level, simple and low-cost packages of care for them that can be there very quickly when they are discharged. The biggest cause of delayed discharge is not the absence of social care but the absence of community nurses and NHS staff available to work in the community to ensure that we do not send people home only to see them return unnecessarily into acute care.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Opposition strongly support the thrust of the Francis report in its determination that the NHS be honest with patients who have been harmed. I very much echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in describing why we need an open culture. I welcome government Amendment 140. It is very important; we welcome the duty of candour being placed in the Bill. The amendment is less detailed than my own and will rely on regulations, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said. The important thing is to get this in the Bill.

I have a couple of questions for the noble Earl. First, can he confirm that the regulations will be affirmative? Secondly, in considering the regulations, will he look at the issue of the threshold? For instance, the regulations might restrict the statutory duty of candour to cases that could be described as of severe harm or fatal; or it might go wider. In his report, Robert Francis used the word “serious”. Clearly, there is a distinction between severe harm and seriousness, but most patients and their relatives, or anyone involved in anything that could be described as a serious case, would wish the organisation in the health service to be as open as possible about what had happened.

These are not easy issues; but it is noticeable that the being open guidance is clear that cases of moderate harm and above must be disclosed. The NHS constitution does not put any limit on the level of harm that would be disclosed. I do not expect the noble Earl to respond to the detail of those questions tonight, but in drafting the regulations it would be reassuring to know, first, that consultation will take place with patient groups on the contents of those regulations before they are published and, secondly, that the question of the threshold by which the seriousness of the case would come within the regulations will be given very great consideration.

I should—at the end of the day rather than the start—declare my interest. I remind noble Lords of the interest I declared two days ago.

[Baroness Barker]

I have a quick follow-up to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations were clear that the duty of candour should apply where death or serious harm “may have been caused” or were believed or suspected to have been caused. That is an important distinction; it is not merely playing with words. When the Minister comes to respond, perhaps in writing, will he say whether that point will be covered in regulations?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all aiming for the same effect and that there is little difference in the approach that we are taking. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is drafted as a stand-alone duty: it would place a duty of candour on providers, but it would operate outside of the CQC registration system. As such, it is not clear who would enforce the duty of candour or what would be the consequences for a provider who did not observe the duty.

Introducing the duty as a requirement for registration with the CQC comes with a ready-made enforcement vehicle, including the power to prosecute providers who do not meet the duty. In Committee, we explained why this is our preferred approach. It would give the flexibility to develop the duty in consultation with service users and carers. I can indeed confirm that patient groups will be included. The duty itself will have the same legal power in secondary legislation as it would in primary legislation.

We are making real progress in taking this forward. In the summer, the CQC consulted on plans to introduce a duty of candour set through its registration requirements. The CQC is due to publish the findings from the consultation shortly. The department plans to consult on a draft regulation later in the autumn. I assure noble Lords that both I and my officials would be pleased to discuss the content of the draft duty of candour regulation with them in detail as we develop the final regulation. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that these will be affirmative regulations.

On the threshold, both the Francis and the Berwick reports recommended that the statutory duty of candour for CQC-registered providers should apply in instances of death or serious injury/incident. There is a balance to be struck. We accept the Berwick report finding that an automatic duty of candour covering every single error could lead to defensive documentation and large bureaucratic overheads that would distract from care.

I hope that my amendment reassures noble Lords of our strong commitment to introducing a duty of candour and that they will feel able—

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for allowing this debate. This is an important question and I agree that ensuring that an assessment is made around the time of the admission of a patient to a hospital or other acute care setting would help the process of the appropriate discharge of that person when the time comes for them to leave. One has to say that the context in which we are debating this is one in which the health and social care system is under extreme strain. The Minister will know that the accident and emergency performance, and the issue of the four-hour target, is proving to be problematic for a number of trusts, including my own, in September and October. Clearly, if the health service is having difficulties in September or October, in pretty clement weather, it does leave one with some foreboding about what is going to happen later on in the winter.

The Government have injected a certain amount of resource into the system—I think it is £250 million—which is labelled on the tin “to A&E departments”. The Minister will know that the money has not gone to A&E departments; it has tended to go to the clinical commissioning groups. While limited amounts have gone to A&E departments, in the main, this has been dealt with through urgent care boards. My understanding is that in a lot of areas they still have not decided how to spend the resources. This is partly because CCGs seem to be slow to make hard decisions, and partly because some are not spending the money because they say that they have not received it yet. The problem is this: if by the middle of October you still have not spent or committed yourself to those additional resources, it could take another three months. If, for instance, it was a series of care packages or it was extra resource for employing more nurses, it could take an awfully long time from the decision to spend the money to it actually being in place, and then for the money to be spent.

I am really using this as an opportunity to say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there is a real issue at the local level of actually getting all the partners together and to agree the actions that need to be taken to ensure that we do not get the kind of discharge problems that we are seeing.

What is the cause of the issue of A&E performance? There has been some debate about whether it is partly due to the lack of accessibility and primary care. No doubt, there are serious issues involved which would suggest that that is a problem. However, the noble Earl may have seen some work undertaken by Matthew Cooke, who used to be the adviser to the Government on urgent care and was a consultant in my own trust at Heart of England. His work would suggest that the problem is discharge; that there is simply not the capacity in the community or among personal social services departments to provide the support that is required. However much the Government want to beat up A&E departments, unless we can sort out the capacity in the community, these problems will continue.

The noble Baroness’s amendment is really trying to get to the heart of this. She is saying that it is a real problem—not just for older and more vulnerable patients, but it is probably more directed at those patients—if the first time you start to worry about discharge procedures is when they have spent quite a few days in hospital. First, it takes a long time for the system to intervene; and secondly, it may mean that the patient stays in hospital too long. We know all the problems of institutionalisation, when people have greater difficulty in going back to their own home or into low-level community provision as opposed to having to go into care homes.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will no doubt say that this is not the stuff of legislation. However, because of the seriousness of the current problems in our health and social care system, it would send a very powerful signal to people working at local level about the absolute importance of starting discharge planning almost as soon as a person comes into A&E, and of the need to have an integrated approach. It would also give a signal to local authorities. At the moment there is a real problem because local authorities often play around with discharges by saying that they are not convinced that a person is ready for discharge. That is simply trying to ration expenditures. A signal to local authorities that that is also unacceptable would be very helpful.

I am glad that the noble Baroness raised this problem. It is a very important issue. I hope that the noble Earl may be able to help us with it.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I care passionately about hospital discharges. In 30 years of working with older people and older people’s organisations, we have never managed, under any structure or formulation of the National Health Service, to get right the system of discharging people from hospital. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right that the Minister will resist attempts such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to address the issue through legislation.

From my work with voluntary organisations, and some work that I have done over the summer, talking to CCGs, there are two things that could have a direct impact on this. The first is to work with people in the acute sector, to get them to understand that very often voluntary organisations are and can be the answer to managing people’s admission to A&E and their return from hospital. At the moment, many CCGs do not see that voluntary organisations have any role to play in their work. As long as they are of that opinion, frankly, the position is not going to change.

Secondly, there are examples of very good hospital discharge planning. A number of Age UK branches have take-home-and-settle schemes. There is a hospital, I think it is in the Midlands, where a housing association has taken over a ward and turned it into a discharge facility.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness has mentioned that. My own trust, the Heart of England, has an agreement with Midland Heart to do that. It shows that you can create capacity. My point is, that was negotiated four or five months ago. It is far too late for clinical commissioning groups to be messing around in mid-October, still pondering how they are going to spend the money. It will be January or February before they are going to be able to spend it.

Contracting Out (Local Authorities Social Services Functions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his full explanation of the order before us this afternoon. I find the contents to be unexceptional and it is right to avoid a hiatus in the pilots’ evaluation. The people affected should not have to go back to an old system before knowing whether the Government have decided that they should be extended, so the logic of the order is clear. I will ask the Minister about a couple of points. He mentioned evaluation. In relation to the trail-blazers pilots, he referred to the interim evaluation which, as he said, found the Right to Control had not been extended to a sufficient number of people to provide evidence to inform a decision about the future of the Right to Control approach. Will he say more about the emerging findings as to the impact on disabled people? He made a few comments about that and suggested that the signs so far are encouraging, with some positive outcomes. Could I tempt him into explaining a little more to the Committee?

I also ask the Minister about potential links between the Right to Control trail-blazers and initiatives taking place on public health. Following the debate when the order was first brought before your Lordships’ House in 2011, the noble Earl wrote to Members who had spoken to the order to say that the Right to Control trail-blazer pilot was intended to be run simultaneously with the public health budget pilots. In particular, he mentioned Manchester, where he said that there was one in-depth public health budget site—Manchester—alongside a Right to Control trail-blazer site. I wonder whether he could report anything on that. I also ask the noble Earl what feedback there has been from users of the service on Right to Control pilots.

On the adult social work practice pilots, I understand that the evaluation has been carried out by King’s College London. I have yet to track down any KCL publication on any emerging findings from those pilots. Perhaps the noble Earl could confirm whether anything has been published so far. I understand, however, that the Department for Education has published an evaluation report by King’s College London and the University of Central Lancashire on the original pilots for children and young people in care, in September 2012. That might be of interest in comparing those pilots with the pilots that are now being undertaken. That evaluation, I understand, found mixed views as to whether the pilots performed better than their local authority counterparts, or whether they represented good value for money. Would the noble Earl be prepared to comment on that? Overall, though, we of course support the extension of the pilots.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I very much welcome the extension of these pilots. I am not quite sure why the order has to come back to the House; that seems rather strange.

I say that I welcome the extension as somebody who has been consistently critical of the premature way in which the previous Government seized upon the then interim findings of the IBSEN report into personal budgets for social care and proceeded to extend that away from the original client group on the flimsiest of evidence. I am therefore extremely pleased that the present Government are going to take a lot more time and care over these pilots. A lot is changing. A great deal has changed since 2009 when these pilots began, but there is massive, rapid and in-depth change going on in social care. I was talking the other week to a colleague who works for a major national charity and who has done some forward projections of the funding of services of some of the organisations with which she works. Believe me, if people are worried about the American economy and the cliff edge that it is coming to, they really ought to look at voluntary sector funding for the next two years. That is important and relevant, because many of the generic sources of advice to which people in need of social care go are currently under threat. In addition, health and well-being boards are in the process of being set up. That is a major change in the health and social care landscape in which these pilots are taking place. It would be advantageous if the Government were to extend, at least until 2014, its analysis of how these are working.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Thursday 8th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, my noble friend has made a powerful case for having a champion for older people to look not just at the impact of decisions made in the NHS but going much wider. She is right to refer to pejorative remarks such as bed-blocking being very insensitive to old people. We face a considerable challenge within the health service to ensure that we are sensitive and reflect that there is huge demand from frail older people which is not being met as effectively as we would wish.

My noble friend said that the amendment may not be perfectly formed but that we have to start somewhere. I wonder whether the noble Earl, late on this Thursday afternoon, might give some comfort. After all, it would not be impossible within HealthWatch England to have a designated person with responsibility for overseeing—or, if you like, monitoring—services for older people. It could be well worth exploring whether the thought behind my noble friend's amendment is worth pursuing.

[Baroness Barker]

I just make two or three simple points. I have enormous sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. My party's policy is in favour of the establishment of an older people's commissioner in England, building on the interesting work that has been done in Wales. I have a great deal of sympathy with what she is trying to do. She made the argument that one has to start somewhere. I disagree with her that this is the right place to start. If one had to start somewhere, it should be in social care. The deficiencies in social care matter more to more older people than those in health.

Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right. Given that older people are by far the biggest users of NHS services, it would be remarkable if healthwatch were not to include people with the expertise to follow up older people's issues.

My deep resistance stems from two things. First, I think that the biggest challenge set out in the Bill, which has been overlooked, which is why I take the opportunity to mention it again, is the challenge for the NHS to get to grips with social care and enabling older people—all people, but, by definition, older people—to live healthier lives for longer and not to wait until they turn up in the NHS.

However, my fundamental point is that I have talked to lots of older people over the years and I believe that old age has to be about more than the health service. If the only government recognition that older people have is the right to have someone to complain about the health service, I think we will be in danger of medicalising old age and inadvertently removing the full experience, wealth creativity and knowledge that older people bring to many aspects of life. I know that, given her former role, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, would not intend that. Therefore, I hope that she will accept my support for what she is trying to do and my reservations about the way that she is trying to do it with this amendment.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will be aware of many occasions in this house—when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was Minister and some of us were in opposition—when we listened to Lord Weatherill speaking on behalf of Christian Scientists, who often wish to refuse treatment. I understand that this amendment originated from the Christian Scientists, who merely wish to draw again to the attention of the medical authorities the fact that they have a belief system that deserves the same amount of dignity and respect as any other. Perhaps he might view the amendment in that light.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I do indeed recall the debates that we had during one of the many health and social care Bills that have gone through your Lordships’ House in the past few years. It was indeed Lord Weatherill who raised the issue with me. Essentially, it was about standards in nursing homes where there was some concern that an insensitive regulator would take action against a home that was actually respecting the wishes of a member of the Christian Science religion. We were able to reach a satisfactory solution. An appropriate amendment was put forward and I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was also part of what I like to think of as the “second Weatherill agreement”. We may need another one in a couple of years’ time—who knows? I ask the Government for an assurance that the position that we then agreed will continue under the new Bill.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we return to one of the most important matters in the Bill: clinical commissioning groups and their effective corporate governance, or lack of it—specifically, the question of how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with. In his letter of 16 February to putative clinical commissioning groups, the Secretary of State spoke enthusiastically of the freedoms that they were to receive. There can be little doubt that they are one of the most important features of this Bill. They are to be given a huge amount of money. They are to be given freedom to commission services. They are to be given freedom to decide when and how competition should be used. Because clinical commissioning groups will exercise such important roles, I would have thought that public interest demands that the principles of good corporate governance should apply as much to them as to any other public body.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, drew attention to the seven principles of public life and asked whether they applied to clinical commissioning groups. I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whether independently appointed non-executives would be on the board of clinical commissioning groups. I also asked how conflicts of interest were to be dealt with. He said that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State,

“to publish a code of conduct for CCGs, incorporating the Nolan principles on public life”.—[Official Report, 14/11/11; col. 564.]

To my suggestion that each clinical commissioning group board should have on it a majority of non-executives and be independently appointed, he said—disappointingly—that each group must only have at least two lay members and that one must be either the chair or deputy chair of the governing body.

On the conflicts of interest, the noble Earl said that the Bill had three safeguards: statutory requirements on clinical commissioning groups to make arrangements to manage conflicts of interest, governance arrangements, and specific regulations on good practice in the procurement and commissioning of healthcare services. Is that sufficient? I do not think that it is. These groups are unique. In essence they represent groupings of small businesses which have had handed over to them billions of pounds, a proportion of which they can spend on primary care services. Sometimes these are to be provided in the surgeries of GPs who are members of the clinical commissioning group, or perhaps are to be provided by companies in which GPs within a clinical commissioning group may have a financial interest. The potential conflict of interest is so obvious that it surely begs the question as to why the Government are not putting safeguards on this matter in the Bill.

My amendment is a lengthy one, but I hope comprehensive. It sets up a register of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. It places an obligation on clinical commissioning groups to register. It prevents any arrangements being entered into between a clinical commissioning group and a party with whom a member has an interest. It provides for an exemption procedure whereby the board could approve the arrangement if it was open and transparent. It prohibits a member of a clinical commissioning group taking part in discussions with any business in which he or she has an interest. It also provides a process under which an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State can adjudicate on complaints about members of clinical commissioning groups breaching the code of conduct, which is provided for in my proposed new subsection (8C). The sanctions include removing the individual as a member of the clinical commissioning group and the termination of any contract which has been put in place between the group and anyone with whom the member has a registerable interest.

A clinical commissioning group board will have a majority of GPs sitting on it. They are involved in running businesses which are largely dependent on the NHS for their income. The role of a clinical commissioning group will be to commission services, some of which will be commissioned from those GPs who are members of that group or, as I said earlier, from companies in which some of those GPs may well have an interest. Independent lay members will be in a minority and we have yet to receive assurance that they will be independently appointed. We have not even been assured that the chairman of the clinical commissioning group will be an independent lay member. It will have the weakest corporate governance of any public body in this country.

We know that over the past 20 or 30 years any number of inquiries have shown the problems of poor corporate governance. After all, the Nolan commission was started because of such problems. This will explode in the Government’s face unless they strengthen the corporate governance of clinical commissioning groups. If you combine these weak corporate governance arrangements with the ability of a clinical commissioning group to make decisions that could be to the financial advantage of GPs who are members of that group, you are heading for trouble. We need robust safeguards and they ought to be in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I too highlighted the issue of conflicts of interest. I did so because, like many other noble Lords, I had listened to and read the briefings sent by the professional bodies, many of which raised fears and concerns about conflicts of interest. Like many other noble Lords, I believe it is important not only that members of the public have faith in the integrity of the decisions being made by CCGs but that members of the professions believe in those decision-making processes and feel able to participate in them. They should also have the protection of good governance and good conflict-of-interest policies to enable them to carry out what will be a difficult role.

Before we look at the detail of this, it is important to remind ourselves a little of the context. There are conflicts of interest in the National Health Service now. There always have been, as anyone who has ever sat around the table at a joint finance meeting at which every single person has an interest in the discussion will know. It may not be a direct financial interest; it could be about a post, a project or money. Managing conflicts of interest is something that the NHS and PCTs do now. That is not to say that we should not take the opportunity of the Bill to make the principles according to which the NHS should act more overt. They should be the highest of principles.

It is for that reason that my colleagues and I raised the matter in Committee. We then drafted a set of amendments that are in this group—Amendments 84, 89, 91, 92, 93 and 116. I am very grateful to several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who looked at those amendments with the seasoned eye of an ex-Health Minister. His response was, “Very good but an awful lot of this needs to be in regulation, not in the Bill”. I took his comments to heart, which is why my colleagues and I withdrew those amendments on Friday and noble Lords now have Amendments 79A, 82A, 86A and 86B before them on the Marshalled List.

It is also important that noble Lords understand one particular point about the interpretation of the Bill. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed by some of the professional bodies about the role of commissioning support organisations. Noble Lords may recall that I raised that in Committee. I have been in discussion with several members of the professions to try to understand the source of that concern. As far as I can understand, there is a view within some of the professional bodies that commissioning support and the commissioning of services are one and the same thing, whereas the Minister was at great pains in Committee to stress that they are two different processes that go side by side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Could she clarify what happens in the situation that she has laid out in these amendments if a member of a CCG does not do the right thing? Are there any sanctions in her amendment?

[Baroness Barker]

The noble Lord is quite right and I will come on to that.

These amendments also refer to the board publishing guidance and what that guidance would include. As I understand it, members of CCGs who are in material or consistent breach of a conflict-of-interest policy might be referred to their professional body. Amendment 86A is a regulation-making power. It is under that power that many of the important details could be included. They would, I imagine, include issues such as the ones which the noble Lord has just raised about the sorts of sanctions which CCGs should include in their guidance and policy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, she has withdrawn some amendments and put in some substitutes, so I think it is fair to ask her these questions. Without sanctions, this is not going to have any teeth. There is a major concern about corporate governance in CCGs. Surely it would be better to put it on the face of the Bill rather than, as it seems to me she is doing, leaving it up to CCGs to do the necessary.

[Baroness Barker]

Not entirely, my Lords. As I was coming on to say, an important piece of work is that the GMC is updating its guidance on how its members should work in the new setup. It is important that members of bodies such as the GMC, the BMA and other professional bodies are involved, should they wish to be, in setting out the detail of what those sanctions should be. We should end up with something that is effective and workable, as well as principled. The noble Lord’s argument does not therefore stand up. Nothing in these amendments would preclude that sort of sanction being put into regulations or guidance.

Our amendments are, admittedly, not as detailed as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, nor do they—as his amendment does—incorporate language from the world of commercial legislation. The terminology of conflicted arrangements and exemption procedures comes from commercial law, and I am not sure that that is appropriate for what we are seeking to do. At the end of this debate we should achieve the objective that all noble Lords are seeking—transparency and accountability around the decision-making processes of CCGs, and the legislation and regulations around them should be sufficiently robust so that not only can members of the public have faith in those procedures but the procedures should be workable. I accept that our previous amendments included provisions that were so draconian that they would not work in practice. We could have ended up in a position whereby the very people who should be making decisions on CCGs would not have been eligible to do so, particularly at the precise moment at which their expertise would be necessary.

Our amendments are not by any means the end of the matter; they are the beginning of a process that should move on further in the discussion on regulations and guidance. That is where much of the detail of this should come to the fore, but the principles that we have set out in these amendments are robust and workable, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will accept them.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Barker

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I cannot remember which legislation it was, but I know for a fact that I was sitting on the other side of the House and that the Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. If I could go back and trawl through Hansard, I would find the reference to the speech in which I started by saying that I feared that one day we would have a piece of primary legislation that consisted solely of regulations and that we were perilously close to it. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that whatever he may think about this legislation, he has form on this.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

There is one very big difference. In the legislation I was bringing forward, we retained the clear accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament which had clear direction powers over the National Health Service. Therefore, it was much more appropriate that regulations did not have to be affirmative because Parliament could demand the accountability of the Secretary of State. We are moving into a new situation where the Secretary of State is taking a much more hands-off approach, so the argument that the regulations be affirmative is much more persuasive. There is a real degree of difference between then and now.

[Baroness Barker]

That might have been the case, but I recall that under the Government of which he was a member, a fair amount of Henry VIII powers went through at the same time so, although his basic thesis might be different, I am not sure that Parliament was that much more able to question the intention of the Secretary of State at the point at which primary legislation was being debated in this House.

I want to speak up partly in support of the amendment moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey. I would perhaps differ slightly. I think that in this House there is a great deal of very high quality scrutiny of delegated powers and secondary legislation. It is one of the things that this House does extremely well. The additional point in the proposal he has made is to bring to the process of scrutiny of secondary legislation the involvement of people on the Health Select Committee in the House of Commons who, by dint of their membership of that committee, have a detailed and ongoing knowledge of the workings of the National Health Service in its entirety. I understand what he is trying to do, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. My only reservation about that is that I think the power of the Health Select Committee is that it sets its own agenda and holds the Government to account. I would not like an inadvertent effect of what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, is proposing to be to trammel the independence and power of that very important committee to scrutinise what the Government are doing. However having made that criticism, I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is trying to do, but I hesitantly suggest that perhaps this problem is not quite as new as some noble Lords might suggest.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps I might just come back to the noble Baroness. Would she agree that this is a point that deserves greater consideration when we come to the mandate itself? At the moment the Government are proposing to simply lay the mandate before Parliament before the start of each financial year. Would she agree that the mandate itself might be subject to more scrutiny by Parliament?

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I do not want to get into that debate, which I think we have not yet come to, but I thank the noble Lord—sorry, I am so tired tonight, I was about to call him “the noble Lord the Minister”; I am going back in time—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

In your dreams—in my dreams!

[Baroness Barker]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for drawing attention to a very important point that I think has been missed and in some cases distorted, which is that our debates so far have been about the powers of the Secretary of State and we have ignored a number of other elements that have a direct bearing on that, such as the mandate. That appears to have passed by people like 38 Degrees completely. I thank him for drawing it to our attention but I will resist the temptation to get into the detail of that this evening.