Skip to main content

Lords Chamber

Volume 733: debated on Monday 19 December 2011

House of Lords

Monday, 19 December 2011.

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Health and Social Care Bill

Committee (14th Day)

Relevant documents: 19th report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 18th report from the Constitution Committee.

Clause 187 : Scrutiny functions of local authorities

Amendment 327ZC

Moved by

327ZC: Clause 187, page 188, line 15, at end insert—

“( ) In subsection (5), for “this section, section 245 and section 246” substitute “this section and section 245”.”

My Lords, unusually, it falls to me to introduce this group of amendments. In moving Amendment 327ZC and speaking to Amendments 327ZD, 327ZE, 327ZF and 327ZG, I confine myself to saying that these are minor technical amendments to Clauses 187 and 188. For the most part, they ensure consistency between the scrutiny provisions in the Bill and in the Localism Act. I hope that they will receive the support of the Committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 330, 333 and 334 in this group. I draw attention to issues important for strengthening integrated working in children’s health and well-being. Of course, integration is important for all consumers of health, but services for children have often been fragmented and disconnected, sometimes with tragic results, as we all know. I spoke last week about the importance of listening to the voice of the child. If children had a voice, they would say—as they do when we speak to them—that integration of services is not good in many areas. It should be, for effectiveness and efficiency.

My amendments require all health and well-being boards to promote close, integrated working between health, social care, and health-related services in their area. Specifically, Amendment 330 requires that they “must,” rather than “may”, include in their joint health and well-being strategy,

“a statement of their views on how arrangements for the provision of health-related services in the area of the local authority could be more closely integrated with arrangements for the provision of health services and social care services in that area”.

Amendment 333 requires, again, that they “must,” rather than “may”,

“encourage persons who arrange for the provision of any health-related services in its area to work closely with the Health and Wellbeing Board”.

Amendment 334 requires that they “must,” rather than “may”,

“encourage persons who arrange for the provision of any health or social care services in its area … to work closely together”.

As the Bill stands, health and well-being boards’ role in bringing health and social care together with health-related services is optional. The National Children’s Bureau and its Every Disabled Child Matters campaign believe this role must be strengthened so that there is a clear duty on all health and well-being boards to promote joined-up commissioning and delivery of services in their area. This is particularly important for children and young people for three key reasons. One reason is that joint working across local agencies is crucial for children’s and young people’s health and well-being. Integrated planning is particularly important for children and young people, for whom some of the most effective interventions are those delivered through non-health settings and services, such as schools and colleges, children’s centres, and youth services. For example, the national evaluation of Sure Start found that a child with access to a children’s centre—formerly Sure Start local programmes—had more immunisations and fewer accidents than young children living in other areas. School health initiatives can have a positive impact on pupils’ health and behaviour—I am thinking of health-promoting schools, for example.

However, evidence suggests that health, social care, education, early childhood, youth and other services are not always working in partnership to secure good outcomes for children and young people. The Marmot review identified the lack of consistent partnership working between such bodies as the barrier to delivering services that reduce health inequalities. Similarly, the Kennedy review highlighted the fact that the requisite links between the NHS, social care, education and criminal justice services to support juvenile people are not always made. His report recommended that local partnerships covering all services for children should have,

“a duty to ensure that local organisations work together”.

Close working between local partners is particularly vital for children with complex needs, such as disabled children or looked-after children, who need co-ordinated interventions from a range of services. A recent report from the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign found that families of disabled children often report experiences of fragmented service delivery and have been caught between services that do not communicate well. One parent has said:

“As a parent, you just want a service, but it’s like health, education and social care are all separate and they don’t really like working together. What you need as a family is one system—not three”.

The Government have expressed aspirations for better partnership working across a broad range of children’s services. For example, Support and Aspiration, the special educational needs and disability Green Paper, states,

“we want to make it easier for professionals and services to work together, and we want to create the conditions that encourage innovative and collaborative ways of providing better support for children, young people and families”.

I believe that unless the Bill strengthens the framework for local integration, the ability of local areas to implement these aspirations will be undermined.

The Bill contains many key measures promoting joined-up working on health and social care, through relationships between local authorities and NHS commissioners. However, many of the services that promote the health of children and young people, such as schools and colleges, children’s centres and youth services, are or will be provided by bodies which are independent of the local authority or NHS. Health and well-being boards should have a mandatory and not an optional role in promoting the involvement of these health-related services in joined-up commissioning and delivery.

Schools need to be encouraged and enabled to play their part. Schools are key partners in securing the health and well-being of children. The public health White Paper, for example, recognises the role that schools can play, stating that:

“Good schools will be active promoters of health in childhood and adolescence”.

This is crucial for reducing health inequalities. The Marmot review, again, recommends that schools should take a “whole child” approach and they will be unable to do this without routine engagement with partners from other agencies.

Over 1 million children and young people now attend academies, which are independent of local authority oversight and will not be represented by health and well-being boards. According to the Department for Education, more than 40 per cent of all secondary schools are now open or are in the process of opening as academies. The Government have taken a step towards promoting joint working by dropping proposals in the Education Act to remove the duty to co-operate under the Children Act 2004. However, this Bill does not create the structural environment within which co-operation with education providers will be possible. Health and well-being boards have the potential to act as a forum for schools to fulfil this duty to co-operate. A clearer role for health and well-being boards in bringing a broader range of services together beyond health and social care, as provided by these amendments, should help to secure this.

Finally, health commissioners should be supported to meet their new duties on integration. Duties were introduced, following the listening exercise, for the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups and Monitor, whereby they are required to carry out their functions with a view to securing that the provision of health services is integrated with the provision of health-related services. As the Bill stands, the role of health and well-being boards in securing this integration remains an optional part of their remit and the scope of their local strategy. Health and well-being boards are expected to play a role in holding health commissioners to account for securing services that fulfil priorities set out in the joint health and well-being strategy. Furthermore, health commissioners will need a forum through which to drive forward better joint working and integration with health-related services. Without a guarantee that health and well-being boards would prioritise encouraging this close working across health, social care and health-related services, there is a serious risk that health commissioners’ new integration duties will be ineffective.

I hope that, in this Bill, the Government will take note of issues which will affect children. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is listening and I hope that on Report we can reach some agreement on children’s health and well-being.

My Lords, I speak to the amendment to which I have added my name in relation to children, but also speak to a raft of other amendments related to allied healthcare professions. Last week we had a debate about the need for the voice of children in the Bill to be strengthened. On reflecting on this and the debate that we had over other vulnerable groups, it struck me quite forcefully that children are the only group who do not have an independent voice en masse. In all other vulnerable groups, there will be a spectrum of people, some of whom can be outspoken and some who can be advocates for others, even among groups such as those with dementia, the very elderly and those who have come here to this country as asylum seekers. However, children under the age of 16 are completely dependent for consent and for other issues on those who have a legal parental role to act on their behalf and to consider their best interests.

We discussed last week the fragmented society in which some children are now brought up, and the difficulties that individual children face. We also discussed the need for health and social care services to reflect the needs of children. I urge the Minister, in looking at these amendments and those we debated before, to consider very carefully where our society will be heading if we do not strengthen the voice of children on the face of the Bill.

Amendment 330A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Low, has put his name and, I believe, will be speaking, will try to secure a change so that this Bill parallels the change in the Education Act.

I will now address my remarks to the need for representation and consultation of allied healthcare professionals, and in so doing declare my interest as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Physiotherapists are the largest part of the allied health professions’ workforce. The Bill needs to state that allied health professions as a group are consulted, because there is, sadly, great ignorance in medicine and nursing as to the full range of professional services that allied healthcare professionals can contribute. They contribute right across the range; innovative models of service provision now being developed are able to free up medical and nursing time and decrease the number of interventions needed, particularly on aspects such as orthopaedic surgery, where physiotherapists are running clinics and are able to intervene and completely obviate the need for some patients to progress to surgery.

Allied health professionals by and large, and physiotherapists in particular, are focused on re-enablement; on keeping people healthy; working with the parts of them that are healthy and helping them cope with the parts that are not; on preventing absence from work and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions and unnecessary interventions. We are already hearing of delayed discharges from hospital. The Health Service Journal of 27 October this year had a piece on this. Patients are having to wait for care packages, including physiotherapy services, that could enable them to be cared for in their own homes. Without the allied healthcare professional voice being involved at senior-level commissioning, acute services will not be joined up in the community, and that leads to fragmented care for patients and poorer health outcomes. Care in the community setting is viewed as key to the Government’s efficiency savings in relation to hospital admissions. Allied healthcare professionals enable patients to take control of their own care and resume living in their own homes, empowering them and easing the burden on front-line services. There are a whole group of amendments in my name which list allied healthcare professionals. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these.

My Lords, my Amendment 332A follows well from the previous two speakers. It would ensure that integrated working in health and social care delivery—particularly the latter, which we know from many noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is often very much the junior partner in these discussions—is given an explicit place on the face of the Bill, rather than simply being relegated to regulations and guidelines. In his report on Fairer Care Funding, Andrew Dilnot commented that when someone has a care or support need, they do not really know which part of the range of state funding is going to provide the services that they need. This particularly applies to people with multiple needs and co-morbidities, which is often the majority. We know that there are many different services delivered at national and local level—for example, the NHS, the adult social care system, social security benefits, public health services and housing services. They can all be critical in meeting people’s needs. The problem is that all these elements overlap and interact, sometimes positively but sometimes rather negatively. Dilnot noted forcefully that when services that are shaped around people work well together, outcomes are better; when they do not, people experience very disjointed services and their experiences are poor.

We need a care system that is more consistent, with less variability, and one in which people feel that services are working for them, not against them. In this context, I welcome the Department of Health’s commitment to breaking down the barriers between health and social care to improve the outcomes and experience of users. Having a National Health Service that is free at the point of need, but a shared-responsibility system of social care, means that difficult decisions will continue to be made if this carries on. For example, in response to the Nicholson challenge, how will clinical commissioning groups ensure that the focus stays on the patient and on integration of services and not on contracting and other arrangements? Do we know what type of support managers need to make integrated services a reality? How can staff be encouraged to work collaboratively? Through this process, how can the correct values and ethos concerning the dignity and respect of patients, which we all believe in, be developed and maintained within and across organisations? There are many examples of where the consequences of having different care streams can seem extremely unfair to people. But when streams have been integrated or a more co-ordinated approach is taken, there is evidence of improved outcomes, high-quality services and better value for money, as well as the fostering of innovation. In my view, the powers proposed in Clause 192 for the health and well-being boards to support integrated working should be extended to encourage explicit joint commissioning.

In support for innovation in Part 5, greater regard should be given to the role that service and technology solutions, for example, can have in breaking down traditional boundaries and in encouraging better integration of health and social care services. All generations, including older people, are having their lives transformed by the dramatic changes that we daily witness in communications technology, yet in the UK the adoption of telehealth into health and social care, particularly in prevention and intervention, has sometimes been much slower than in many countries in the industrialised world. In other parts of the world, we have clear evidence of the key role that these systems play in the prevention of ill health, in self-management, in the provision of improved outcomes and in dependence for service users and efficiency savings for the taxpayer. As part of the overall redesign of care, this represents a vital element in the shift towards more preventive care, reducing the imbalance between hospital and primary care spend and making better use of scarce clinical resources. Better integration should facilitate such innovations and would go a long way to making health and social care more self-directed and giving a boost to the personalisation agenda. Integration deserves to be more than a footnote in this Bill. It could be the cornerstone of better quality, value for money and patient-centred care.

I have put my name to Amendments 328B and 330ZAA. I send the apologies of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who is not well. She had hoped to be able to speak to these instead of me. First, I should like to make a few general points about health and well-being boards. It should go without saying that the Liberal Democrats really welcome local democracy in health and the far greater involvement of local authorities than is the case at the moment, as well as the use of scrutiny committees. We are somewhat saddened that in the legislation there is only one elected decision-maker on a health and well-being board. I understand the Government’s unwillingness to prescribe, but they have not quite got the balance right. There may be as many elected councillors as other voting stakeholders, with maybe a casting vote given to the chair. That feels much more like localism in action than what we currently have.

Linked with that is the role of district councils, which is not mentioned terribly clearly. Here I have another apology, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, had hoped to speak on this point. What we are losing in his eloquence we are probably making up for in brevity, but I still feel as strongly as I am sure he will. I can almost feel him behind me now, as I speak, but he is not well and is not able to be with us.

Where are district councils in this framework? I know that a lot of local authorities have now become unitary, but there are really key parts of England where strong county councils are well underpinned by district councils. They need to be there, because they provide planning, housing, leisure and environmental health—all these things that have to be well woven into the fabric of this Bill and the delivery of services. They are also part of the solution for the big public health issues. Three examples come to mind without even having to think very hard. Wearing their leisure hat, obesity is a very big issue. Some people prescribe exercise for obesity. On housing, in my neck of the woods, with the warm, wet westerlies, housing gets damp very easily. That brings with it chronic heart and lung problems, particularly if you cannot afford to heat. District councils also play a key role in housing on mental health issues. They are often providers for county councils and PCTs and I know that they would hope for a similar relationship with clinical commissioning groups, when things become established. They should be at the table of the health and well-being boards. I appreciate that you cannot have every district council having one representative. In Kent, where there are 16, or in Devon, where there are eight, you cannot bring those in, but there needs to be some arrangement for working together to ensure that district councils should be there.

My amendments relate to housing, in Clause 190 on joint health and well-being strategies. Their aim is to ensure that all health and social care needs are considered, alongside what might be called regular housing needs, in preparing planning strategies. Right up front, when councils are determining their planning, those few—or perhaps not so few—that do not have health on the list of things that they are considering should consider the impact that housing provision can make to health. Their planning strategies cover social housing, whether run by councils or outsourced, but housing should also play a role in putting together health and well-being strategies. It would be really good, where it does not currently happen, for the DPH to be working alongside planning departments to think about how this might pan out.

Housing associations have huge expertise to offer to health and well-being boards in planning for the elderly, the vulnerable and chaotic families. They see them and work with them. For the vulnerable and elderly, telecare, heating, dampness and appropriate aids are issues that have huge positive impact on health. They are currently not always seen in that context. They are seen as something that has to happen when these groups live in social housing, but they are not always necessarily seen as health-related, although they should be.

Earlier in the Committee we moved a couple of amendments that were aimed at strengthening health and well-being boards’ and clinical commissioning groups’ thoughts around children, so I really welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give the Committee some clarity on democratic representation—adding councillors to health and well-being boards, but also ensuring that there is explicit district council representation on the board—and on the involvement of planning departments and social housing providers in producing health and social care plans.

My Lords, I fully support the amendment just spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in relation to housing. I speak to Amendment 330A, which is down in my name and in those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Low. It is a probing amendment to ask the Minister to ensure that education providers, including academies, schools and colleges, are represented on the health and well-being boards, in order that there should be integrated planning for disabled children. The National Children’s Bureau, through the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, has raised concerns that the Bill does not provide equivalency with the Education Act, which has retained the duty to co-operate for schools. This Bill does not ensure that schools will be an integral part of the health and well-being boards, so, while education providers will have a clear duty to co-operate, there would be no equivalent duty on health and well-being boards to include education providers.

Integrated planning and commissioning is particularly vital for children with complex needs, such as disabled and looked-after children, who need co-ordinated interventions from a range of services. Many disabled children require health-related services at school, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy, as well as specific medical interventions. There are often problems with providing such services on the school site, or it is not properly co-ordinated with other activities at the school. As Adam, one young disabled person, said,

“I went to a mainstream secondary school. I did not get to see a physio or OT regularly. This is because I didn’t go to a special school for disabled people. I think health, education and social services need to work more closely together”.

This lack of co-ordination of support presents disabled children and young people with barriers to participation in education that their peers would take for granted. As Sir Ian Kennedy’s recent report, Getting it Right for Children and Young People, recognised:

“If children do not receive appropriate support from the school, at worst those with severe health problems receive a ‘double whammy’ as their ill-health damages their education by disrupting their schooling, either through being forced to stay at home or by long stays in hospital. Children with severe or long-term conditions receive enormous benefit from continuing their education during their treatment. And there are social as well as educational benefits. Continuing in education is a signal, to the child themselves, the parents or carers and the peer group, that a child with a severe or complex health condition continues to belong to the ‘community of children’ and does not become defined by their condition”.

When education providers and health services do not collaborate to meet the needs of children and young people, it also has a significant impact on their families. A study by Diabetes UK found, for example, that half—46 per cent—of primary school pupils with type 1 diabetes and one-third—29 per cent—of their secondary school counterparts report that their parents have had to reduce hours or give up work to help them administer life-saving insulin injections. It is clear that when children need such support during school hours, local services should work together to ensure that it is available.

As the Minister will know, the Department for Education’s recent Green Paper, Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability, proposed a more co-ordinated approach to the delivery of education, health and social care. These proposals included the delivery of a single assessment process, a joint education, health and care plan, and a local offer, which sets out all services available to disabled children in the area. EDCM is concerned that these proposals will not be deliverable if education providers, including academy schools and colleges, are not given a presence and a voice at health and well-being board level, which this amendment would provide.

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment, Amendment 330C, which relates to the fact that offender health is a public health—particularly prison health—issue. Since almost every prisoner will be released, their mental and physical state when they are is therefore a matter of public interest. I wish to speak to something related to imprisonment, rather than to imprisonment itself. There are two other activities associated with this part of the Bill which also affect activities of other ministries, the Ministry of Justice and of course the Home Office, to which I would like to draw attention.

As we all know, prisons are wells of psychiatric morbidity. At one end of the spectrum, some 500 prisoners have to be transferred to special hospitals each year. At the other end, some 70 per cent are suffering from at least two personality disorders which are bound to impact upon their behaviour. Prisons are also the unfortunate recipients of people who were in asylums, until these were abolished. To prevent that happening the previous Government initiated a report, conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on diverting people with mental health problems away from prison. This was a very, very comprehensive report, with recommendations which affected the courts and the police in particular. This Government, as I understand, have accepted the recommendations and are working towards them. However, they of course depend on there being proper mental health assessment and treatment available at the point where a person comes into contact with the criminal justice system. This is usually at a police station, to start with, and then at a court. I have been to see one of the pilot schemes in Brighton, where an extremely able psychiatric nurse in the court was able to divert people away from imprisonment, not least because they had taken enormous trouble to ensure that the necessary support for people with mental health problems was available from that moment on. Without that support being available, the scheme becomes worthless. However, before that, the first time that people come into contact with the system is in police stations. What worries me about progress in the future is that unless there is a police representative on health and well-being boards able to represent the needs of the people who make those assessments at the police station, the diversion scheme could fail at its start. The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to ask the Minister to consider very seriously the addition of a police representative on health and well-being boards, to make certain that the needs of police stations are represented at source, in every area of the country where diversion schemes will start.

I say this because when I started inspecting prisons, I discovered that prisons, alone in this country, were not part of the National Health Service. Indeed, they did not become part of the National Health Service until 2003. The result of that was that the needs of people from prisons were not built into National Health Service estimates, and so they were always competing for other requirements. To avoid that error being repeated, I therefore believe that it is essential to have police representation at the place where planning is carried out.

My second area is to do with probation. With regard to the plans—“Breaking the Cycle”, the rehabilitation revolution and all the noise that has come from the Ministry of Justice about reducing the prison population and providing alternatives to custody—most of that comes down to the probation service. There is absolutely no reason why the probation service should not carry out exactly the same programme as happens in prisons; that is, people are assessed, programmes are made and conducted, and then the person is transitioned into the community. There is no reason why the assessing, the programming and the supervision of mental and physical health treatment should not happen to somebody on probation in exactly the same way as it happens in prison. However, the probation service needs help and guidance in the provision of that assessment and programming. That is why I am asking the Minister to consider that a representative of the probation service should be included on the health and well-being board, in order to ensure that its needs are included in the plans, so that the probation service can make the delivery of community sentences more effective and more acceptable in the public eye, and is therefore able to contribute to what the Secretary of State for Justice is seeking; namely, a reduction in the prison population.

My Lords, I add my voice very briefly to those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Finlay, in support of Amendment 330A, which provides that health and well-being boards should include a representative of education providers in the area. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has spoken to the amendment very fully and ably; however, perhaps I can underline the point to which she has already alluded. When we considered the Education Bill in Grand Committee earlier in the year, there was great concern that the Government wished to remove the duty on schools which had only recently been laid on them, to co-operate with other services in pursuing the welfare of children. We were particularly concerned about this at the time of the riots, when people were emphasising the role that schools had to play in combating exclusion and disaffection among children. I am glad to say that the Government took the force of our point and withdrew the proposal to remove this duty from schools. I hope that the Minister will agree that a joined-up approach would suggest—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has argued—that there should be a reciprocal duty on health and well-being boards, at least to include a representative of education providers on the board.

My Lords, I rise to speak about the importance of the role of the police. I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House on the subject of care of mentally ill people taken into custody in police cells. I was struck at that stage—I declare a former interest as a member of a police authority and a visitor of police cells—that time after time, I was informed and became aware that people were being taken into custody, not because it was most appropriate, but because their problems were mental health related. They were being taken into police cells for their own protection or for the protection of other people, because there was nowhere else for custody officers to deal with this. I hope the Minister will take this carefully into account when looking at the role of the police, in particular at that initial point of contact. Sadly, many people who end up in custody and police cells have problems that are either mental health related or drug or alcohol related. It creates a problem for the police service, particularly at weekends. It also leads to a reaction to those people who have behaved in a way that causes them to be taken into custody so that they end up in prison, rather than receiving a course of treatment.

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which refer to allied health professionals, and I want to widen them to include the whole health team. We have been talking about structures, consultation, rights of representation, and roles and responsibility in the new structures, but we need to ensure that the service is delivered to the patients by the health team. Nowhere does the Bill appear to acknowledge the importance of the majority of staff in the health and care services: the invisible majority. I know from working in universities for 33 years that there are academics and students, and then all the rest who are often referred to in the negative as non-teaching staff. In the health service, there are doctors, sometimes nurses, and patients, while the rest are rarely referred to as people: they are back office or integrated services. I want to place on record the importance of the health team: the cleaners, caterers, maintenance staff, technicians, receptionists, secretaries, administrators, finance staff, and those involved with transport, as well the allied health professionals mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

When I was a non-executive director of a foundation trust, we had to deal with the issue of staff who were employed by PFI projects. It is not my intention to discuss the rights and wrongs of PFI, but to illustrate the huge efforts required to ensure that the PFI staff felt part of the health team, even though the foundation trust had no direct management responsibility. The same applies to contracted-out staff generally. Some, though not all, of the problems of hygiene in hospitals and failure to feed vulnerable patients were caused by the separation of these contracted-out staff from the health team. If transport is not co-ordinated, a patient can be in a ward for an extra day. An efficient receptionist can make the difference between an efficient department and a failing department. Those are only two examples. There has been a deafening silence about the health team, and I am seeking a statement of support for all the staff in the health service and an acknowledgement that the future of the service, whatever that is after this unnecessary Bill, will depend on the health team being able to work together in an integrated way.

My Lords, I address my remarks to Amendment 330ZAB and others that concern the composition of the health and well-being boards, and I would like to say a word in general about the boards.

To me, they are a spark of inspiration. In the next grouping we will have some specific amendments from noble Lords concerning integration, and we have heard a bit about it already today. I have been conscious that throughout the Committee debates the virtues of integration have often been referred to by my noble friend Lord Howe, and part of the integration he has cited is that very valuable tool, the health and well-being board, bringing together social services, health, and importantly, local healthwatch.

The Bill is gratifyingly lean in its suggested membership of the board: just six essential members. However, in Clause 191(2)(g) it gives flexibility in allowing the board to appoint:

“(g) such other persons, or representatives of such other persons, as the local authority thinks appropriate”.

However, in the same clause, 191(9), it must consult with the members of the board. That seems absolutely right and proper. The success of these boards will be in their balance. That is very important, and what we cannot afford is a single constituency trying to pack the board with its own colleagues. The board itself can put a brake on that, and keep the balance right.

The board itself can appoint additional members, and I can see that being invaluable if the board has chosen a subject which it wishes to target, such as obesity, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jolly. Poor housing was also mentioned, as well as alcohol, sexual health, prisons, probation, or children. There is nothing to stop the board giving the individual a short tenure, if the board so wishes. However, if we concede to all these additional, very persuasive arguments that are being put for adding more and more members—I had a quick count of all the amendments on the Marshalled List—we would have statutory boards in the order of 24 members. That is a nightmare for quick decision-making.

I chaired a joint finance committee years and years ago, when we were trying to do the same thing, and we had a board of that size. It became a talking shop. No one would take the decisions that were really necessary. With great respect to local government, where I spent 20 years, we do not want another committee of the council. These boards have to be different.

I said I thought the concept was a spark of inspiration, but I can see this spark extinguished very quickly if we end up with big, unwieldy, cumbersome talking shops. The health and well-being boards should be composed of the great innovators; people with unusual and challenging ideas; people who are prepared to think the unthinkable; imaginative people, fleet of foot, trying new ideas, and abandoning them if they do not work out. Above all, they should be the risk takers.

We know that innovation seldom comes from large, cumbersome committees. It very often comes from young people sparking off ideas. These are people who are probably quite difficult to work with. The Steve Jobs, the Bill Gates, the James Dysons of this world, determined to get their ideas from the drawing board into our homes, changing our lives for the better. They are the people who are not afraid of disruptive innovation.

The NHS thirsts for innovation, but it cannot face the disruption. One of the examples of successful disruptive innovation that I came across is Hairdressers for Health. In a very impoverished area south of Manchester, where you heard the crunch of broken glass under your feet when you walked, where graffiti was everywhere, where the school was protected by razor wire, the hairdressing salon was one oasis of peace and sanity. A junior director of public health, who was very anxious to increase the uptake of cervical screening, recruited the hairdressers to ask their clients—people will know that hairdressers always refer to their customers as clients—whether they had had a cervical screen and, if not, to give them the reason why they ought to go and have one. The hairdressers were given a book of difficult questions that they could answer and a phone number if they got stuck. The results were really impressive. When I asked the women why they went for cervical screening, they would say, “Tracy does my hair. She does it beautifully and I really trust Tracy”.

There are a million reasons why you should not go down that road. If you had a big, cumbersome committee, I can just hear the remarks, “The hairdressers aren’t up to it. The hairdressers really won’t have the information. The clients won’t believe the hairdressers”. No, here was a courageous young director of public health, not working through a huge board, thinking really laterally and doing something terrific. That is what we want from these health and well-being boards. We do not want large committees full of worthies shirking innovation because it is just too risky. Of course, there are always a million reasons why you should not do something. What started as an inspiration is quickly reduced to the boring status quo because that is safe. It takes an awful long time to get back to the boring, safe status quo.

When people decide for themselves, they are more likely to be successful. I applaud the flexibility of the Bill. I see merit in every case that is being put today. The case is being put extremely persuasively, but I urge your Lordships to resist the temptation to tie the hands and stamp on the autonomy of the new boards. We need them to be a success. I am working at the moment with some that are in shadow form. The good will that is in those boards is terrific. We should be enhancing and cherishing that and not directing exactly how they should work. If we do that, I regret that we will simply have just another committee of the council.

My Lords, childhood lasts a lifetime. Whatever happens to people during childhood, they will take with them long into adulthood. Sadly, many children’s early lives are broken by the relentless mental and physical suffering that they go through daily. Even children who suffer from lesser known conditions such as sickle cell, which is not widely recognised by teachers or schools, are made to feel inadequate and lose their confidence. We need to put in place a holistic provision of care for those children, for their voices to be heard and for them to know that society cares about their well-being. That will give them hope for the future.

As we have heard from noble Lords across the House, we need joined-up policies for everyone to work together. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will show compassion and understanding when he considers these amendments, which I believe put children first and show that we are a nation that cares about our children, our future.

My Lords, I want to say a few words about children in this group of amendments. I know and agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. We do not want this to become a huge talking shop. I sympathise with and support that idea, but I think that children are different in kind, in part for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. If we are serious about investing in the future, we need to pick up some of the issues around children much earlier. Diabetes and obesity are big issues facing our society. Many of our services are not very good at picking up the needs of children and responding to them in a comprehensive manner. There are lots of organisations that speak on behalf of them, just as there are lots of organisations that speak up for other interest groups, but I would say that the investment issue on children is much more significant than the investment issue on 80 to 85 year- olds, or even 70 year-olds. That is not to say that those people do not need a good or compassionate set of services responding to their needs, but if we as a society neglect the voice and needs of children, we are just bringing a lot of problems upon ourselves as a society—more so than if we have less good care at much older age groups.

From my time as a Minister, I thought that the voice of the child in the NHS was really quite muted. The working across boundaries in the needs of children is often far less good than it should be. We need to put in the Bill a stronger requirement to listen to the voice of children and to have their representatives fully focused in the health and well-being boards. They are different in kind and their voice has not been heard enough. Too often, public services operate through parents rather than going straight to the child. That is particularly an issue with young carers and with adolescents. We need a bit of a wake-up call on the needs of children in our NHS and social services and across the spectrum of their needs. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this issue in the particular circumstances of children.

My Lords, these few clauses relating to health and well-being boards are perhaps less politically exciting than many of those that we have spent days debating—days that are rapidly drawing to a close—but they are potentially highly significant and their importance will be realised over time. The purpose of these boards is to facilitate integration between local government and the National Health Service in the planning and provision of all services relevant to the health and well-being of the present and the future population. They should take a strategic view of a range of services—health in its conventional sense; public health, which is now effectively to be restored to local government; social care; children’s services; housing; environmental services; leisure; and the criminal justice system, all of which have been mentioned by various of your Lordships this morning.

In addition to that fundamental strategic role, these clauses provide for greater democratic accountability at local level and the engagement of the community and the voluntary sector. As we have heard, they also ought to provide for the engagement of staff with a range of professional skills to be brought to bear on the issues that communities face.

I listened with some care and, frankly, growing concern to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. If I may say so, she got it wrong about the purpose of the health and well-being boards. They are not operational boards. They are to produce a health and well-being strategy. They operate at that level. They will not be directly involved with implementing that strategy. They will not be responsible for the range of services which will be required both to work together and to work efficiently to impact on the health and well-being of an area.

The noble Baroness also perhaps misunderstands how influential bodies like local government can be. When I had responsibility in the area of social care in Newcastle, many years ago, I was able, with a committee of 15, to drive through a significant programme of change in our authority. We created one of the first welfare rights services, we trebled meals on wheels, we doubled the home help service and we made vast changes in the way that we provided for children’s services and adult services alike. It is perfectly possible to do that with a reasonably sized committee, provided that there are people on it with the kind of vision which is necessary, and people in the employ of whatever authority is providing those services who, equally, have drive, sensitivity and vision.

In looking at the role of the health and well-being boards, then, we have to have regard to that area of responsibility. Of course they will be working to an agenda which will actually be set rather separately, in a sense, because it is the local authority and the clinical commissioning groups which will be responsible for the preparation of the joint strategic needs assessment. That is the basis upon which matters will have to be carried forward.

I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, joins the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in possibly having slightly misunderstood the nature of one of the problems that she touched upon. She is absolutely right that housing has to be an integral part of the programme to deal with health, both for communities and individuals, but her amendment is the wrong way around. It is not that the health and well-being board has to take into account the views of the planning authority. It is the other way around—the planning authorities and housing authorities should be drawing up their plans on the basis of the strategic needs assessment and the health and well-being strategy that follows it. We are not at odds about that, really; it is perhaps simply the wording of the amendment. I will have to make a confession about the wording of my amendments later, so I might also plead guilty to the charge that I have levied at noble Baronesses opposite.

Before coming on to the amendments as such, there are two or three questions upon which I would like to hear the Minister’s views. The first is in relation to the relationship between the national Commissioning Board, and its local outposts in particular, and the health and well-being boards. The Bill refers to the position of the national Commissioning Board, but I am interested to learn how he sees the role of the local outposts—I think that is the phrase—which will be established, because part of the agenda which will remain with the national Commissioning Board will impinge pretty directly upon the local strategy and will have very significant and very specific local implications.

Going beyond that, perhaps the Minister would comment upon whether the Government intend to replicate at national level the kind of joint working across departments that they are, perfectly properly, looking to create at local level. Will we see some ministerial committee or some forum for relevant government departments? I go beyond even those that have so far been mentioned. I am thinking in particular of the Department for Work and Pensions and the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill, as well as its general responsibility for benefits; and, bearing in mind the observations of many noble Lords about having regard for the needs of children and young people, but also adults and people with learning disabilities and so on, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills clearly has a role. It would be interesting to learn whether the Government’s thinking has taken them beyond the local level to looking at how these matters might be addressed nationally.

In addition to that, there is the question of community budgeting, as the phrase now is: whether it is envisaged that it has a role in this context and whether some of the pilots being considered nationally could address those issues.

I will now speak to the amendments in my name and those of my colleagues, Amendments 330ZB, 330ZAB, 331A, 331AAA, 335A, 336A and 336AA. Amendment 330ZB requires the publication of an integrated commissioning plan to which all partners must have regard. That might go somewhat beyond the terms of the Bill as it stands at present, but it seems essential that there should be an integrated commissioning plan across the piece. We are, after all, talking about very considerable sums of public money being spent. Since most of the health budget as such is being devolved to clinical commissioning groups, we are talking about £80 billion nationally. That would be translated into smaller but nevertheless significant sums of money locally, to which would be added the local authority’s own contributions in any given area across its own responsibilities. For a large authority, we are probably talking of a budget of close to £1 billion —possibly more—which will be encompassed within, though not directly administered by, the health and well-being board.

Amendment 335A calls on the health and well-being board to have the responsibility of signing off the clinical commissioning group’s commissioning plan. This is to ensure consistency and a degree of accountability for the work undertaken by the clinical commissioning groups. That is backed up by another amendment which gives the health and well-being board the right to request information as to the progress in implementing the strategy, so that, in addition to the scrutiny committee of the local authority—it in any event has a wide range of possibilities to scrutinise what is happening—the board itself, having set the strategy, is able to see how it is being implemented.

We now come to the question of membership. This is certainly a somewhat difficult issue. There are a whole range of amendments, most of which I would agree with, setting out the wide range of organisations which should be included in membership of the board. They include representatives of education providers; pharmacies; the probation and police services, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham; allied health professionals, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke; and people from the field of alcohol and drug abuse and the field of safeguarding. It is a significant number.

The Bill at present constitutes the health and well-being board as a committee of the local authority, yet somewhat paradoxically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, pointed out, only requires a single member of a local authority to be appointed to a board. Admittedly, this is as a minimum, but it could hardly be less. Interestingly, my own authority in Newcastle recently agreed a shadow board, in my absence, which is 25 strong. That strikes me as slightly on the high side, but it includes two representatives from each of the two clinical commissioning groups in the city, from the three trusts that serve the city and from a range of other organisations —many of which reflect the bodies to which noble Lords have referred this morning in debate or in amendments—as well as just three councillors.

The Bill also provides for statutory appointments, mainly of directors of services within local government. I may have said this before in debate and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I am repeating remarks I have made earlier, but I have a difficulty about elected members voting alongside officers whom they appoint and with whom they have to work in a different context in the local authority. I do not think that is a satisfactory relationship. They should certainly be there. I include in that the director of public health, who would have to attend, and appropriate other officers, such as the directors of children’s services, environment and adult services. They absolutely should be there, but in my view it should be as advisers to the board.

There is an amendment, which is not well drafted—for which I accept responsibility—that suggests that only councillors should be voting on this board. That was really meant to say that, of the council appointees to the board, only councillors should vote. It was not meant to exclude others. It is obviously necessary for partner organisations, such as clinical commissioning groups and any trusts that might be represented, to have a vote on the board. I take the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that equality between the partners and the local authority might be sensible.

Another amendment directly addresses the issue to which the noble Baroness rightly referred—again, I have raised this before and on this occasion I make no apology for repeating myself—of district council representation in two-tier areas, because of the range of their responsibilities, covering not just housing, which is clearly one of them, but environmental health, leisure and other services to which she referred. To avoid making too large a meeting, particularly with too many voting members, the amendment refers to having a representative of district councils, but of course there could also be an officer from district councils in attendance in a given area. That seems to make a better balance in the arrangement of services.

We support most of the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey, Lady Finlay and Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others. At the table where strategy is being discussed, we think it is necessary to have capable, representative voices of those most interested in the outcomes, whether representing present and future clients or from the professional background, bringing their particular expertise to bear on the issues that the board has to address and take into account in preparing the strategies that, over time, should make a significant difference.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think he knows that I listen carefully to him when he is on his feet. The essence of a democracy is that people are elected to represent their community. I can see an argument for having some professionally trained people adding their expertise, because it might be a stretch to expect locally elected people to command the technicalities of a professional view, but given that commitment of democracy, why does the noble Lord think it necessary to have so many other people representing—in the best possible spirit, I hasten to add—specialist vocations or vested interests?

In the first place, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, for recognising when I am on my feet, given that there is not much of me to be seen. In relation to his question, I am not suggesting that they should be voting members. That is the point. There is a difference. The voting members—I do not mean executive members—should be confined to elected councillors and those representing the other partners, the clinical commissioning groups and the trusts. It is a partnership arrangement. You have this sort of arrangement in care trusts and the like. It is an acceptable one, but at the very least there should be equality of arms between the elected members and those from other organisations.

Can we be quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is asking for a health and well-being joint board on which the director of social services and the director of public health—two crucial people contributing to the board—have no vote?

That is exactly right. They do not have a vote in the council, which determines a budget of several hundred million pounds and deals with huge issues of social care and public health. They are paid officers. That is a distinct, separate role. On this, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and I are entirely at one.

There are ways in which the current positions can be improved. I hope that the Minister may be able to give an indication today that there is some scope for change. However, there may be issues that we need to address on Report if what is basically a good plan cannot be further improved today.

I do not really accept the noble Lord’s criticism of my thinking. Of course I understand that these health and well-being boards are essentially planning boards. I will read very carefully what he has said in Hansard, but I am sure he accepts that you cannot do the planning if you are totally ignorant of the implementation of what you are planning. Clearly, finance and other things come into this. The health and well-being boards that I have spoken to say that what is really important to the success of the board is the equality of members on it. If he is saying that only local government councillors have a vote, I think that people who also hold budgets—the clinical commissioning group people and the health people—would be very upset if decisions were made involving their finances without them having an opportunity to put their case in a vote, if it comes to that. Again, the boards that I have been speaking to and working with have said that they would always try very hard to avoid a vote.

When I came into the health service from local government, I found the whole culture very different. I enjoyed working as an equal partner with those who were advising me, such as the district or county medical officer and others. We really should leave this to the health and well-being boards to decide how they want to run their business. Why do we always think we know best? Every health and well-being board will be totally different, representing different areas of the country and all sorts of different interests. For once, let us have a light touch and trust the people who are going to be doing this business.

I think we need to set out a minimum requirement. That is all I am seeking to do. I am not seeking to circumscribe.

The minimum requirement in the Bill is the wrong requirement. That is the point for some of us, at any rate.

Rubbish is the responsibility of district councils, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would point out—at least its collection is.

We clearly do not agree about this. The Bill does not go sufficiently far to underpin democratic accountability. It goes too far to entrench professional and bureaucratic interests, whose voice should certainly be heard but who should not be able to vote on these decisions, just as they are not in central or local government.

My Lords, this group of amendments has prompted a very worthwhile debate. They all relate to health and well-being boards, and in particular their statutory minimum membership, their responsibility for preparing joint strategic needs assessments and joint health and well-being strategies, as well as their role in promoting integration. On the first of these issues, concern has been expressed about the membership of health and well-being boards. I am sympathetic to the very important points that several noble Lords have raised. We are all keen to ensure that health and well-being boards access the best expertise and professional advice on the myriad complex challenges facing the health and well-being of their local populations. However, taken together these amendments would significantly increase the minimum membership of each health and well-being board, making the requirements substantially more prescriptive. We want to preserve local discretion and flexibility in these arrangements and the ability of boards to shape wider membership in a way that reflects local priorities. These amendments would severely limit that flexibility and discretion. Their other big downside is that they could lead to larger and somewhat unwieldy boards, making meaningful dialogue and decision-making more difficult. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was absolutely right to sound the note of warning that she did.

In general, we want to avoid being too prescriptive. The Bill sets out a minimum membership for health and well-being boards, but members can be added by either the local authority or the health and well-being board. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in particular that following the Future Forum report, we made a commitment that it will be for local authorities to determine the precise number of elected representatives on their board. We fully recognise that health and well-being boards will want to draw from a range of expertise beyond the statutory membership, such as clinicians, allied health professionals, police, probation service and voluntary sector groups. However, in deciding who to invite, they will need to consider local needs and priorities and the delicate balance between having the right people and having too many to make it an effective board.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was quite right to emphasise that the right people needed to be there. It is perhaps worth highlighting in that context that we have retained the power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the preparation of joint strategic needs assessments, and there will be power to issue guidance on the preparation of joint health and well-being strategies, particularly when it comes to defining what best practice looks like.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked how the NHS Commissioning Board would fit in with health and well-being boards. The NHS Commissioning Board will be required to send a representative when asked by the health and well-being board and where the discussions touch on the proposed exercise of local commissioning functions of the commissioning board, for example when discussing primary care commissioning. It will also be required to send a representative to participate in the health and well-being board’s preparation of the JSNA and a health and well-being strategy. With the agreement of the health and well-being board, the Commissioning Board may appoint someone to represent it who is not its member or employee, such as a clinical commissioning group representative.

Does that mean that it will be the local outpost, if that is the correct phrase, of the national Commissioning Board that will have that relationship, or will this in effect be directed from London?

It will almost certainly be the local outpost that will have direct responsibility for those matters.

A number of amendments would introduce specific requirements in relation to the JSNA, but before I move on to that I have been informed of something that I think I probably implied, if not stated. It would be up to the board to decide who would be most appropriate to attend at a particular health and well-being board meeting.

I agree that the JSNA must be a full analysis that covers the current and future health and social care needs of the local population. It will be a framework to examine inequalities and the factors that impact on health and well-being. This could include aspects such as deprivation. Its scope will naturally include health and social care needs that are related to a wide range of areas, such as alcohol harm, disability or older people.

In preparing the JSNA and joint health and well-being strategies, local authorities and CCGs will be under a duty, which the health and well-being boards will discharge, to involve people who live or work in the area. In practice this could include allied health professionals, as proposed in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, Amendments 327A and 328A. A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised concerns about how health and well-being boards will operate in relation to children’s services. I fully agree that joining up health and social care services for children as well as adults is crucial. That is why the director of children’s services is a mandatory member of the board. It is also why the scope of the JSNA and joint strategy covers children’s services across health and social care. The duties to involve local people in the preparation of the JSNA and joint strategy do not distinguish between adults and children, so we expect the voice of children to be heard.

Section 10(1) of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on “relevant partners” to co-operate with the local authority. Relevant partners include maintained schools, including academy schools, and local health bodies such as the CCGs when they are formed. As I have said, directors of children’s services will be statutory members on the health and well-being boards. They will be well placed to promote the interests of children as they relate to education services.

My noble friend Lady Jolly raised the issue of district council involvement, as did other noble Lords. District councils have a crucial role to play in offering local insight and expertise. Health and well-being boards will have the flexibility to include district council representatives in their membership, where the district council is not the local authority that is required to establish the boards. There will also be duties on them to involve district councils in preparing the joint strategic needs assessment.

We know that a large number of local areas are already working with stakeholders to explore and agree how they can work together in the future to make the biggest difference to local people, so that everyone, whether they are district councils, clinicians, local providers or members of the voluntary sector, can contribute in the most appropriate way.

The joint health and well-being strategy will be a shared, overarching response addressing the health and social care needs of an area identified through the JSNA. A number of amendments highlight the desirability of integrated services. In the joint strategy, the board will be able to consider how the commissioning of wider health-related services could be more closely integrated with health and social care commissioning. For example, the board could consider whether and how housing or local authority leisure services affect health, and if they do, how commissioning could be more closely integrated with commissioning of health or social care services.

However, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in particular, that this is not something that we wish to be prescriptive about in the Bill. Instead, we are leaving these decisions to be taken locally; we believe that that is right. In response to a point made by the noble Baroness about the joining up of children’s services being in some way optional for health and well-being boards, that is certainly not right. The board’s duties cover both adults and children; it would not be open to a board to do nothing with respect to children’s services. The noble Baroness and I would agree that integration across health and social care is applicable in many situations and is to be regarded quite often as best practice. However, I suggest that as such it is much more the province of statutory guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked a number of highly relevant questions about how we ensure that integration happens on the ground. That is why we have asked the Future Forum to report on this topic. I can confirm that we will be responding to their latest work in January, so perhaps I can speak with the noble Baroness at that point.

We have also included in the Bill a duty for key health and social care commissioners to have regard to both the JSNA and the joint health and well-being strategy when exercising their functions. If their commissioning plans vary significantly from them, they will have to be able to justify why, or consider changing their plans.

However, I want to state my firm view that it is right that health and well-being boards do not have a right of veto over plans, as that would undermine commissioners’ autonomy and introduce additional complexity and uncertainty into a relationship that should in essence be built on trust and partnership working. It would also give health and well-being boards the ability to make commissioning decisions that could affect expenditure from the NHS, without them having to take responsibility for that expenditure. That would not be appropriate.

We must not forget that this policy is not primarily about setting up a board; it is about joining up the commissioning process at a local level by bringing key partners together in a strategic and coherent way. Those partners can then consider the total resource available and come to a joint understanding as to how the resources can be best invested to secure better health and well-being outcomes for their whole population.

Clause 192 supports that objective by placing a duty on health and well-being boards to encourage integrated working between commissioners of health and social care services, which is exactly what noble Lords have been urging. Alongside the integration duties throughout the Bill, health and well-being boards must also consider the use of partnership arrangements, such as lead commissioning and pooled budgets, when preparing the joint health and well-being strategy.

Amendment 336A, from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would place an additional function on health and well-being boards and give them powers to make referrals for investigation. In doing so it raises an important issue, which I know is of concern to the Government as well as the Committee, and on which we had a good debate in an earlier session on 22 November.

However, this amendment is unnecessary, as it would establish a referral process that would in many respects duplicate existing roles and responsibilities within the system, such as those of the Care Quality Commission and local healthwatch organisations, which will of course be able to make recommendations for service improvements and investigations.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about cross-government working. Government departments already enjoy close working relationships on health issues. These will continue, including through the Cabinet Committee that we now have on public health. The noble Lord also referred to community place-based budgets. We want to ensure that GPs and councils have the flexibility to pool and align funds locally where that will improve outcomes for people. The health and well-being boards provide the ideal forum for local application of community budgets, and we intend to explore any barriers to that happening.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred—very aptly I thought—to the health team. The Government, and the Bill, place a great deal of faith in professionals. We think that that is right, and we want the NHS of the future to be led by clinicians and professionals across the health service, so I hope I can reassure her that we are at one on the value of the whole health team, as she put it.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords of our good intentions in this area, and that I have answered the questions put to me. I hope, too, that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments as a result.

Could the Minister tease out for us the difference between the words “may” and “must”? Is he saying that the word “may” will refer to issues that will be in guidance and the word “must” will be in the Bill, or is it more complicated than that?

I hope the noble Baroness will have sensed from my remarks that we want to avoid being overprescriptive. On the other hand, we are clear about what best practice looks like, and in framing JSNAs and the health and well-being strategies we have provided for statutory guidance which can set out what best practice looks like.

I think that that is the appropriate balance, rather than putting “must” in the Bill all the time. Local authorities are autonomous bodies and we must hesitate before directing them too closely. I very much agreed with the points made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on this. It is not, of course, that we regard these as unimportant; it is a question of how much we mandate and how much we leave to local discretion.

My Lords, I will build slightly on that because I have my name on the same amendments. I understand the Minister’s response regarding the need not to be over-prescriptive, and not to have boards that are burdensome and cannot take decisions easily. He has referred to guidance. It would be very helpful if he could assure us that the contents of this debate and the trends and themes that have come through will inform that guidance, and that the health and well-being boards will be asked to particularly consider and consult with the broad range of professionals and prisoners, and the particular needs of children—which I emphasise. This will ensure that their strategy is broad and really meets the needs, so that there is not, inadvertently, a small board taking narrow decisions.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the substance of this debate will most certainly be fed in. We will be revising the statutory guidance on the joint strategic needs assessment in due course to reflect the changing system. As a result of the Future Forums recommendations, we will also be issuing statutory guidance on the joint health and well-being strategy. There is therefore plenty of scope to build in the very salient and important points that noble Lords have raised.

Amendment agreed.

Clause 187, as amended, agreed.

Clause 188 : Amendments consequential on section 187

Amendments 327ZD to 327ZG agreed.

Clause 188, as amended, agreed.

Clause 189 : Joint strategic needs assessments

Amendments 327A to 327C not moved.

Clause 189 agreed.

Clause 190 : Joint health and wellbeing strategies

Amendment 328 to 330ZAA not moved.

Clause 190 agreed.

Clause 191 : Establishment of Health and Wellbeing Boards

Amendments 330ZAB to 330D not moved.

Amendment 330E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 330F to 331AAA not moved.

Clause 191 agreed.

Clause 192 : Duty to encourage integrated working

Amendments 331AB to 331C not moved.

Clause 192 : Duty to encourage integrated working

Amendment 332

Moved by

332: Clause 192, page 193, line 31, leave out “an integrated manner” and insert “a manner that integrates the delivery of services to individuals”

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 335 and 336, which I degrouped from the previous grouping.

Amendments 332 and 335 provide an opportunity to press the Government again on securing more precision in this Bill about what we mean by integration. The integration that means most to patients and service users and their carers is the integration of service delivery. That is what Amendment 332 tries to bring out, by replacing reference to people working “in an integrated manner” with wording that ensures that they work in,

“a manner that integrates the delivery of services to individuals”.

Amendment 335 has another go at trying to persuade the Government to include in this Bill a definition of integration. I find it very odd that the Government go to all the trouble in Clause 192—as elsewhere in the Bill—of providing definitions of health services, health-related services and social care services, but will nowhere provide a definition of integration even though the term is liberally sprinkled throughout the Bill. I congratulate them on that liberal sprinkling, and I think that the intentions are very good. However, using the term “integration” in a variety of ways, without being clear what the important meaning of it is to patients, promises a lot but risks ensuring that there is a likelihood of delivering very little change that actually benefits individuals or helps break down the barriers between health and social care. My particular concern is that some people will take away from this Bill that they have met the needs of integration by organisational integration rather than focusing on the thing which matters to individuals, which is the integration of service delivery.

I hope that the Minister will think further about inserting a definition of integration in the Bill, to give it more precision. I would be happy, as I am sure other noble Lords across the Benches would be, to help him to try to secure a definition. I do not claim that getting that definition right is easy, but I think that while the Bill is in this House it is worth the trouble of trying to get a more precise definition of the integration that would really benefit individuals in the area of service delivery.

Amendment 336 also seeks to push integration, but in a very specific way. It proposes that a local authority with a health and well-being board may approach the national Commissioning Board about assuming,

“some or all of the functions (and associated funding) of a clinical commissioning group where such a group agrees that this is in the best interests of patients”,

particularly if it improves integration. The Government are very keen to argue that people at local level should be able to shape their local arrangements for commissioning and providing services. I have a great deal of sympathy with that approach. This amendment would enable clinical commissioning groups and health and well-being boards to come together to form a single body for commissioning services in accordance with a joint service needs assessment. Given the variation in the size of clinical commissioning groups, there may be some large ones that would like to share staff and reduce overheads by amalgamating their activities in the way that this amendment permits. In addition, some of us believe that it will not be possible to sustain 250 or more clinical commissioning groups, which might then raise the issue of merging those groups and possibly going further and merging the merged with a health and well-being board as well.

There is no compulsion or pressure in this amendment. It merely enables clinical commissioning groups and health and well-being boards to come together, integrate their activities, share priorities and work closely together in the way that public money is spent, particularly in relation to integrating services across the NHS and local government boundaries. I hope that, in the spirit of local decision-making, a permissive but non-mandatory power of this kind could be inserted into the Bill.

I would very much like to hear the Minister’s views on this probing amendment and whether he sees merit in it. I shall be returning to the issue of integration, and a definition of it, on Report. I think there is support for this across many parts of the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, we on these Benches have strongly supported the many references to integration that have been made in Committee, and it is obviously central to the whole of the attempt to deal with the major problems that confront us all over the next few years. However, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that it is not very clear what this is, other than a nice word. The more flesh that we can put on it, the better all round, and the clearer the position of local authorities will be.

Many local authorities have of course already delivered, on behalf of the primary care trusts, the kind of approach that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has been advocating, but the situation has to go a great deal further. We are particularly attracted by his Amendment 336 because it is very clear and precise in what it suggests about the relationship between CCGs, particularly those who wish to devolve some of their responsibilities, or in some cases are unable to deliver on those responsibilities.

I would like to say, from these Benches, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jolly and myself, is that it is crucial that at an early stage health and well-being boards are able to mount mechanisms for early decision-making. If a CCG is unable to meet part of its responsibilities—and that may happen at relatively short notice—it is critical that the health and well-being boards have structures within their own management which would enable them to deal with the issues rapidly. It would be no good at all if there is a long interregnum when services to patients are put at risk.

I would advocate, in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, that the new health and well-being boards should make an early approach to seeing how they would deal with what might be, if not an emergency, at least the beginnings of an emergency in the particular aspect of what the CCGs are proposing to deliver.

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I have come back time and again to this issue of what we really mean by integration, and what it will mean for patients, clients, and people living in the community. It must be a seamless service. They do not mind, of course, where the services come from, but it has to be utterly without gaps. It has to operate 365 days a year, year after year after year, if it is to work.

It seems to me that these health and well-being boards have two huge areas that they will have to work in: the public health and well-being functions around housing, the health of children, and the education of children, for example; and the delivery of services. These two arms are quite difficult to meld together in any joint planning arrangements. The joint strategic needs assessment will try to produce these two focused blocs, but it is actually quite difficult. I am sure I am not the only alumnus, or graduate, or perhaps I should say survivor, of joint planning arrangements. I am even a survivor of a health action zone. I know how difficult it is, and how many hours of work go into properly well-functioning joint planning arrangements, which can commit funds. It takes hours of time and extraordinary leadership from health and local authorities to make them work properly.

I am not sure that I think these health and well-being boards are an inspiration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, does. They are a bit of an improvement on what went before, but to work properly they are going to have to work very hard locally to get it right, and get the structures right. I think it would help enormously if they were working towards something real. For me the real thing would be the integration of the working of health and social care, both at the patient level and at the public health and well-being end of the population. Our Amendment 336 provides one option for a way of working together—an option that local organisations might want to take up. It is an idea, and I am sure that we can think of many others that would also fit the bill. I want these boards to be real and their functions to be made practically useful on the ground, so I support these amendments.

My Lords, I have my name on these amendments. Of course, we have had an opportunity to discuss integrated care at length at other times. However, I agree that integrated care and the delivery of it is one of the key challenges in the Bill. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said. To a patient, integrated care is the care they need: primary care, secondary care, social care and care in the community.

What leverages will there be for the commissioners to promote the integration of health and social care? They will have the budget, but what other incentives will they have? There is some evidence that contracting of provision of care to a population, particularly the elderly, the frail and those with complex diseases, will require much more care but also use more resources and services. It is not only value for money, but improved patient experience and patient outcomes. How will the commissioners be encouraged to do this? Does the Minister think that three separate outcomes frameworks in health, social care and prevention will help or hinder integration of care? There is also an issue about who will lead this change, if we think that this is the key challenge in the Bill. I agree that putting a clear definition of what we mean by integration, or what a patient means by integration, into the Bill will give a clear message to all those who commission and deliver the care, to know exactly what they have to do.

My Lords, my name is on Amendment 332. As other noble Lords have said, the Committee hardly needs reminding of our previous debates about the integration issue, or of the importance of health and well-being boards to the interests of patients. It is too easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has reminded us, for those delivering care to think that they are delivering an integrated service, because they are talking to each other—although it is not as common across services, in fact, as we might like to think—or because they are making joint plans, or they have made some kind of structural change, to give a nod to integration. What matters is how the services are received. Are they received by the patient in a way that is coherent and co-ordinated to the patient and to their family and carers?

The services will be delivered by a variety of providers—more, it seems to me, than the two arms the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, reminded us about; that is, not only by health and local authorities but also by third sector organisations, particularly for those with long-term and chronic illnesses; by charities, by social enterprises and of course across the private sector. However the health and well-being boards end up being constituted in a particular area, it seems to me that some of the members at least will be patient representatives. They will be in an ideal position to monitor the patient’s response to service delivery and that it is indeed being integrated across all those services. It is very good news that the Future Forum is now working on integration. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the report, which I think he said would be available in January, will be available to the House by the time of our Report stage?

My Lords, my name is not on these amendments, but I want to make a couple of points, partly because I have a longstanding interest in this and partly because in recent weeks it has been a very personal feature in my life.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is absolutely right to keep pressing the Government to come up with a definition of integration. Like him, I struggle to know what it is. I know the factors that should be focused on, which create or prevent integration. One is the overall sense of purpose in your work. For many of the health and well-being boards, the key role will be in the prevention of illness. The biggest challenge for hospitals and the acute sector, which perhaps they have not yet woken up to, in the way in which they are going to have to work with health and well-being boards is about discharge from hospital and ensuring that people who have been ill, particularly older people, have access to nursing care in the community that enables them to live with long-term conditions.

One of the most important factors is money. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, made me flash back to many a meeting that I have been involved with, but one in particular in a borough in south London where the local Age Concern had an excellent handyperson scheme. They worked with the OTs to dramatically speed up the process of older people being assessed and given aids and adaptations that enabled them to live with long-term conditions. I well remember sitting in the meeting when somebody from the health service announced that the health service were going to start their own rival service. Why? Because a pot of money had come along and they were going to use it. Patterns and flows of money have been the bedevilment of integration, very often.

Integration can work well, particularly when both parties take a strategic view of what they are supposed to be doing. I cite again the case in Islington, when my colleagues were running the council. The local authority took the decision that it would do everything related to children and the PCT decided that it would take responsibility for adults and long-term care. That is a very imaginative way to start addressing problems at a strategic level. If you address them properly at strategic level, the greater the chance that when it comes to individual cases, you will indeed get integration of services around a person.

I am therefore pleased to see Amendment 336, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I would just query one point with him on drafting. As drafted, there is a slight problem, because it seems to imply that any move towards integration has to be approved by the commissioning board. I know that is not what he intends. Small-scale schemes should just go ahead without reference up the line, so I think he needs to look at the wording, but that is very helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is absolutely right. Three different outcomes frameworks setting the agenda for the three different parts of what will make up a health and well-being board is wrong. It is only when people in the NHS understand that they have to help social care outcomes to happen that we are really going to move forward towards integration as a mindset for professionals and a reality for patients.

Could I just clarify for the noble Baroness that I do not claim that my wording is perfect? I brought the National Commissioning Board in—slightly against my better judgment, I have to admit—because it has the responsibility for, in a sense, approving the commissioning arrangements and spending the money. My instincts were that it would not support this unless it had been consulted and was satisfied with the commissioning arrangements.

My Lords, I will be very brief because my noble friend and other noble Lords have pretty much covered the territory here. This small group of amendments is rather important and significantly improves the Bill. I realise that they are probing amendments, but they do three things. The first amendment is about changing culture. It talks about the manner of the integration of services, not just an integrated manner. The second one says that we need to define integration. This must be perhaps the third or fourth debate that we have had on integration in the past however many weeks. It seems quite clear that there needs to be some definition of integration in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Warner explained that. Given that many parts of the Bill offer a list of different ways in which things can be described and done, I see no reason why the same list on integration cannot be included. The third point in the amendment to which I was pleased to be able to put my name is about encouraging co-operation across the piece. Having the national Commissioning Board mentioned in that is rather important.

Those three points about changing the culture, defining what you mean and encouraging co-operation seem to me to be the type of message that any health and well-being board will look to as it starts up its work. It will look to what is in the Bill, what is in guidance and what is in statutory instruments to help it to work out what to do. To have something that defines the kind of culture that is expected, defines integration and the way the bodies should work, lists the bodies that should work together, if not in the Bill then certainly in guidance, and explains the manner in which they are expected to work seems to me to be a very helpful way forward.

My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, are primarily concerned with strengthening the role of health and well-being boards in promoting integration between health and social care and wider aspects. I completely understand why noble Lords have felt moved to support these amendments. They are undoubtedly well intentioned, but I am afraid that I have a problem with them.

Amendment 336, which I will speak about more fully in a second, could be seen to enable changes to be made to the fundamental responsibility for functions, which we are clear would not be right. Amendments 332 and 335 would also introduce a prescriptive definition of integration. I resist that idea not just because it would be counter to the principles of localism, which we believe are very important, but because it could act as a diversion from effective integrated working between commissioners. I do not see the need for a definition beyond what the clause already says, which seems quite clear.

We have a shared intent on the importance of integration, but I cannot agree that this cause would be aided by pinning down a definition in primary legislation. I see no need for that. Apart from anything else, having a definition set in primary legislation would risk creating inflexibility as times and practices change. We should focus on removing barriers on the ground to ensure integration. That is where the Government’s response to the Future Forum’s work will, I hope, make a difference. We aim to publish our response to the Future Forum’s report before the Report stage of this Bill.

I am sure that Amendment 336 is intended to be helpful, but it might create confusion between the arrangements mentioned in the amendment and those made under Section 75 of the NHS Act, which would enable local authorities and CCGs to enter into partnership arrangements such as lead commissioning and pooled budgets. Existing provisions in the Bill are designed to encourage and enable the NHS and local government to improve patient outcomes through more effective co-ordinated working. The Bill provides the basis for better collaboration, partnership working and integration across local government and the NHS at all levels. I hope that that, in part at least, answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

Indeed, health and well-being boards will have a strong role in promoting joined-up commissioning between health, public health and social care. Through their duty to promote integrated working between commissioners, they will also be in a good position to promote more integrated provision for patients, social care service users and carers. They will also be able to encourage close working between the commissioning of social care, public health and NHS services and aspects of the wider local authority agenda that also influence health and well-being, such as housing, education and the environment. Through statutory guidance on preparing the joint health and well-being strategy, and the Government’s mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, we will be encouraging lead commissioning and integrated provision.

There are enough levers and mechanisms in the system to encourage every part of the system to look for ways of joining up services, and the commissioning of those services. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords of our intentions, and that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

If a new health and well-being board got in touch with the Minister, or perhaps with the Commissioning Board, and asked whether it would please say which form of integration it should be using or how it should be doing this, would he tell it to work it out for itself?

My Lords, we have to give credit to people on the ground to be the professionals that we know them to be. Integrated working can take many forms, as we have discussed quite often in Committee. I will not rehearse the various manifestations of integration. Once we have mandated the duties in the Bill and issued statutory guidance on what good practice looks like, I really think that it will be up to people on the ground to decide how best to set about fulfilling the duties and expectations placed on them.

I will pursue for a minute mechanisms for an early decision. I do so because the health and well-being boards will obviously be new and will be moving into a relatively new structure in their relationships with the medical and clinical CCGs, and they might not realise that this could happen rather quickly. No one is thinking of laying down the law, but a mechanism under which they are reminded that this could arise quite suddenly at an early stage and that they therefore need a structure that enables them to react quickly is an important feature of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was arguing.

This is exactly why we have established the early implementer health and well-being boards. These cover virtually the entire country; a very small number are not yet in existence. I can tell my noble friend that local authorities have seized this opportunity with alacrity and are getting to grips with just the kind of issues that she has in mind.

We have a lead-up time available to enable the boards to consolidate the learning that is undoubtedly going on and the dialogue that is taking place with the pathfinder clinical commissioning groups. We are supporting that process from the centre. I hope and believe that by the time the health and well-being boards go live they will be in a very good position to hit the ground running.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for the support that they have given, and indeed am gratified by it. I hear what the Minister says, but we have been talking about integration for 25 years. You have to be one of life’s supreme optimists to think that just because the Government have passed this Bill you are going to change the culture of 25 years. It is very important that we try to have a go at a definition in this Bill. I will read very carefully what the Minister has said but I can assure him, as a Christmas present, that I shall be returning to this subject on Report, after taking some soundings at the local level. He is quite right: we do need to be sure what people at the local level want, but I do not think that we can move away from trying to give a lead on what we mean by integration. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 332 withdrawn.

Amendments 332A to 335 not moved.

Clause 192 agreed.

Amendment 335A not moved.

Clause 193 : Other functions of Health and Wellbeing Boards

Amendments 336 to 336A not moved.

Clause 193 agreed.

Clauses 194 and 195 agreed.

Clause 196 : Supply of information to Health and Wellbeing Boards

Amendments 336AA to 336C not moved.

Clause 196 agreed.

Clauses 197 and 198 agreed.

Amendment 337

Moved by

337: After Clause 198, insert the following new Clause—

“Health Service Ombudsman for England and Health Service Ombudsman for Wales

All patients receiving care from an organisation that receives any funding from the NHS shall have the right of complaint to the relevant health service ombudsman.”

My Lords, this Bill in vast part concerns England only. This amendment concerns both England and Wales. I have tabled it to try to clarify an area in the role of the ombudsman which is currently not clear. Having spoken to the ombudsman in Wales at length about this, and discussed it with the ombudsman in England, with the emergence of any qualified provider and a range of licensed providers in this system, it seems that there is a need to clarify the role of the ombudsman, to make sure that patients have a final port of call when the complaints system has failed them.

I will quote from the Complaints and Litigation report of the House of Commons Health Committee from the previous Session. It states:

“Many people see the role of the Ombudsman as a general appeals process for the complaints system, but the remit under the Health Service Commissioners Act is much narrower than that. The Committee is of the view that a complainant whose complaint is rejected by the service provider should be able to seek independent review. The legal and operational framework of the Ombudsman’s office should be reviewed to make it effective for this wider purpose”.

The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 set out the principle that the ombudsman should be able to investigate an issue if the provider was providing services,

“under arrangements with health service bodies or family health service providers”.

The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales was established in 2005, and also has a responsibility for cross-border work. Last year, however, there was an investigation into a children’s hospice in Wales which revealed the ombudsman’s difficulty when investigating an organisation that provides services for and on behalf of, and receives funding for providing services to, patients in an area but which does not fall under the NHS jurisdiction in any way, and simply has a contractual service-level agreement. The report from the ombudsman in Wales states:

“The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction for the hospice and was unable to investigate Mr & Mrs A’s concerns about the hospice’s actions”.

It goes on to say:

“The Ombudsman commented on his lack of jurisdiction for the hospice, and that there was no other independent body able to investigate Mr & Mrs A’s concerns about the hospice. This is profoundly unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman asked the Welsh Assembly Government to consider what action it could take to bring the hospice into his jurisdiction”.

Hospices are just one area of provision. They are well known, and it is very unusual for there to be complaints in hospices. However, they do occur, and it seems that those using the services of any independent provider in such a way should have the same right of redress as if they were in an NHS facility. The purpose of the amendment is to simply clarify that wherever a patient is being treated, if the NHS has any interest whatever—if this patient is being treated as part of an NHS provision —it should come under the remit of the ombudsman to investigate should the ombudsman feel it is warranted.

I looked back through the report of the Health Service Ombudsman for England and noted that there were 325 complaints last year that did not fall into the remit because they were for privately funded healthcare. This amendment does not ask that the ombudsman’s report should necessarily cover privately funded healthcare. In all honesty, however, if somebody is receiving healthcare, however it is funded, and if that is part of our licensed, inspected and regulated system in this country, where it goes seriously wrong and those bringing a complaint feel it has not been handled satisfactorily, my own view is that we have a national duty to be able to investigate. In doing so, we may find that our inspection processes have failed and that our regulatory processes are not functioning as they should.

That is the background to what might seem a very simple amendment. I really hope the Government will look kindly on it, because having discussed it and its wording in detail with the ombudsman in Wales, I know that it is certainly supported there. I also know that it is not opposed by the ombudsman in England.

My Lords, the combination of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Wigley, is a pretty powerful triad by any standards. I express my support for what the noble Baroness said. We have seen some remarkable work done by the ombudsman for England—who I think is retiring from her post—particularly in respect of the care of elderly people. It has been very important in giving the public a sense that they have access to the highest levels when they have a complaint.

My only concern about this amendment is that it is very important indeed that as far as possible complaints are dealt with by health and well-being boards locally, because very often local knowledge is crucial in understanding why something has gone badly wrong. I always think it is significant that the ombudsman for England has been most effective when she has written reports that cover an area. When it comes to a personal complaint, very often it is the local level which is the appropriate one to deal with it. More than that, very much part of the education and understanding that a health and well-being board can bring to the whole issue of patient responses and patient care in the NHS is that people should at least see the local level as the first point of complaint. Having said that, it is obviously important that there is a final, as it were, court of appeal —I do not mean that in a legal sense of the word —and that is what the ombudsman ought to be. Clearly he or she should be independent of any particular interest in the health service, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that it should apply across the board to all providers whether private, voluntary or within the NHS structure.

With those few words, I support the amendment and think it is an important one. However, I emphasise that the starting point should always be, wherever possible, at the local level, and that the ombudsman should be seen as the last and final resort.

My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I am grateful to her for explaining its context and background so clearly. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is currently excluded from investigating complaints about the health service in Wales, so this amendment will ensure that the role of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, in investigating complaints against local health boards, NHS trusts, GP services and community health councils in Wales, is recognised and included in this Bill.

Ensuring that the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has the legal right to share complaints reports with people he or she considers appropriate is a minor but important amendment and safeguard. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, the amendment links to an important point of principle which we wholeheartedly support: that any patient or person who receives NHS-funded treatment or care, whether the treatment or care was provided by an NHS or private provider, should have recourse to the Health Service Ombudsman, should their complaint not be resolved through the NHS complaints arrangements at a local level. I assure my noble friend Lady Williams that that is the first stage.

I reassure noble Lords that these types of situation are already provided for in law. I wish to address directly what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised, which is the situation in Wales. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales recently called for his office to be given more power to independently investigate hospices. This follows complaints from the family of a teenage girl who died of leukaemia, about the way their concerns over her care were handled. The ombudsman pointed out that he had no power to investigate the family’s complaints against the hospice, although it received public funds, as it did not fall into the same category as a hospital or a council-run service.

In response to a report published by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales in 2011, we understand the Welsh Government are looking into extending the ombudsman’s remit, to enable him to investigate complaints about hospices and hospice services, as well as extending the existing complaints advocacy arrangements to cover complaints about hospices.

I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by what I have been able to say, in that regard.

I seek a little clarification. If I have understood right, the noble Baroness said that any provider is covered by the Health Service Ombudsman in England, and any cross-border provision would also be covered by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, irrespective of who that provider is. Therefore, the only change needed in primary legislation is to the remit of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, to make sure that the remit for non-NHS providers is extended within Wales; but that otherwise all patients, wherever they are in England, wherever they have come from and irrespective of the provider, have recourse to the NHS ombudsman. I suppose the same should apply to Scotland as well, though there is not the same cross-border flow.

To clarify, I say that all care paid for by the NHS in England is covered—that is the crucial thing. My noble friend Lady Williams also mentioned other care that might be covered. Whoever provides the care, the crucial thing is who pays for the care. Even if there is a private provider or a voluntary provider as well as an NHS provider, if the NHS is funding that care it comes under the ombudsman’s responsibility.

I do not want to detain the House much further, but I think this is something we need to discuss, and probably away from the Floor of the House. One of the issues about hospices is that their care is not fully funded by the NHS: it is only partly funded. Some providers receive grants to provide care because they are mostly charitably funded, partly NHS-subsidised and helped—but it is not that the NHS is paying for that complete package of care. That is where the confusion and the difficulty lie. It would be helpful if we could unpick this later and see whether we need to return on Report with a very small amendment, so that we can make quite sure that the system is watertight for all patients.

I am very happy to take up the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we discuss this further. I hope she will be reassured by what I can say about Wales. However, if there is a company, for example, that is providing care partly within the NHS funding, the ombudsman would not cover the rest of what they are doing. It could lead to confusion if that were the case. I mean the NHS-funded part of care. However, I am very happy that we should discuss this concern further. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. On the basis of that and of further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 337 withdrawn.

Clauses 199 to 202 agreed.

Amendment 337A

Moved by

337A: After Clause 202, insert the following new Clause—

“Power to regulate pharmacists

(1) The Medicines Act 1968 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 58(6) there is inserted—

“(7) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to the sale or supply of a medicinal product by a person lawfully conducting retail pharmacy business where the sale or supply is in accordance with a prescription and, having exercised all due diligence, believes on reasonable grounds that those requirements have been fulfilled.

(8) The activity under subsection (7) shall be regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council.

(9) The General Pharmaceutical Council may take what steps it considers necessary under section 6(1) of The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231) in relation to a person who performs an activity referred to in subsection (7).”

(3) After section 64(5)(b) there is inserted—

“(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to the sale or supply of a medicinal product by a person lawfully conducting retail pharmacy business where the sale or supply is in accordance with a prescription and that person selling or supplying the product, having exercised all due diligence, believes on reasonable grounds that those requirements have been fulfilled.

(7) The activity under subsection (6) shall be regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council.

(8) The General Pharmaceutical Council may take what steps it considers necessary under section 6(1) of The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231) in relation to a person who performs an activity referred to in subsection (6).”

(4) After section 85(5) there is inserted—

“(6) Subsection (1)(a) to (c) does not apply to the sale or supply of a medicinal product by a person lawfully conducting retail pharmacy business where the sale or supply is in accordance with a prescription and that person selling or supplying the product, having exercised all due diligence, believes on reasonable grounds that those requirements have been fulfilled.

(7) The activity under subsection (1) shall be regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council.

(8) The General Pharmaceutical Council may take what steps it considers necessary under section 6(1) of The Pharmacy Order 2010 (SI 2010/231) in relation to a person who performs an activity referred to in subsection (6).”.”

My Lords, the amendment has been tabled with the support and assistance of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and has been designed as a new clause that amends the Medicines Act 1968. It is also designed to increase patient safety by removing barriers to a learning culture across the prescription dispensing process, and to remove the injustice that pharmacists alone, among healthcare professionals, face through criminalisation. Single dispensing errors should be treated in a proportionate way that retains the ability to prosecute those who have been negligent or who have committed a deliberate act but that does not penalise pharmacists who wish to declare a dispensing error in the interests of patient safety.

The role of pharmacy continues to be vital to communities throughout England. Pharmacists are at the forefront of providing advice to patients in an increasingly high-pressure environment. In 2010 nearly 927 million prescription items were dispensed in England. This is a 4.6 per cent rise on 2009 and a 67.9 per cent rise on 2000. Despite this, the error rate of dispensing remains minuscule.

What is the background to the current state of the law? Sections 58, 64 and 85 were inserted into the Medicines Act 1968 to regulate the quality of medicinal products being manufactured in pharmacies across the country. There were concerns that the production of these items, primarily creams and solutions that could be prepared to suit to individual needs of patients, required a legal standard of purity. Nowadays, the practice of creating preparations in community pharmacies is practically non-existent. However, these sections of the Medicines Act have been used in a way that they were not originally intended for: to prosecute a pharmacist who makes a single error while dispensing a medicinal product. The law as it stands makes a single error an automatic criminal offence that is punishable by up to two years in prison.

Why should we support this amendment? Currently, pharmacists are expected to declare dispensing errors in the knowledge that they will face prosecution if they do not do so. Clearly, any person who is either wilfully negligent or deliberately acts in a way to harm a person must face prosecution under criminal laws. This amendment would allow that to continue but would also enable a proportionate response for those who make an error. Minor errors should be learnt of and dealt with through improved practice rather than through discouraging healthcare professionals from feeling able to report errors. Decriminalising dispensing errors will be beneficial to patients and the pharmacy profession through the creation of a culture of learning.

The current system goes against the spirit of openness in which pharmacists and other healthcare professionals should be allowed to work, so as to enhance patient safety. This amendment, or something similar, is the right way in which to tackle this important issue. The passage of the current Bill presents an opportunity to tackle this, and one that should not be missed. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment. It raises a very important issue, namely what happens when an error occurs. At the moment, there is an enormous disincentive for the pharmacist to do what one would say is the right thing, which is immediately to contact the patient, or their family, carer or nursing home, to try to put an immediate stop to the further use of that medication and to do all they can to correct the error. In the law as it is written at the moment there is an in-built incentive to a pharmacist to attempt a cover-up, to weigh up whether the error is a major or minor one or one which they might just get away with, or perhaps even to make a phone call that fudges the issue and tries to cover up the fact that they have made a dispensing error, and to reclaim the medication in another way.

In addition to the importance of a spirit of openness, there is an actual safety issue here. We know from looking at medicine and nursing that when you make it easier for people to admit immediately that they have made an error and to do all they can to correct that error, they are much more likely to handle things in an open and honest way and to learn from it. Certainly I say to all my junior staff, “I know that you will make mistakes. The only thing that I will hold against you for the whole of your career is if you do not immediately notify whoever is the consultant covering you at the time. Mistakes will happen, but you must let people know immediately and take every step to correct them”. I do not see why we should be treating pharmacists in law in a way that works against that type of principle and which is inappropriately punitive.

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I remind the Committee of my role as chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, which has an oversight role with the General Pharmaceutical Council. We believe that single dispensing errors should be treated in a proportionate way that still prosecutes those who have been negligent or have committed a deliberate act but does not penalise pharmacists who want to declare a dispensing error in the interests of patient safety—and I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is about patient safety.

In the interests of patient safety and public protection, we of course expect the regulator to be able to co-operate with other agencies if it is aware of a pattern of repeated single-dispensing errors that might reflect wilful and deliberate acts with the intention of harming patients. In those circumstances, there would of course still be recourse to criminal prosecution. With these exceptions, I very much support this amendment.

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I have some personal experience that I can bring to bear, and it was not until I was reading through the amendments a week or so in advance that I put these things together. Some years ago my mother became really ill with a very strange set of symptoms and no one could work out what the problem was. Eventually her GP came round. Like many people of that age, she takes several drugs. He sat down on her bed, took out her box of drugs from her bedside table drawer and went through them. There was one drug that she should not have been taking at all. It was completely wrong and should have been taken sparingly, not three times a day. My mother lives in a small town and the GP knows the pharmacist well, so he high-tailed down to him straightaway to find out what exactly the issue was. In this case, the dispensing pharmacist was unaware that there was a mistake.

It was really quite interesting to see how it had all happened. The medicines were all stored on a shelf in alphabetical order by drug name, not brand name. The drug in question was adjacent to my mother’s normal drug, and both were generics produced by the same pharmaceutical company. The narrow little rectangular boxes looked the same, so the pharmacist had picked the wrong one off the shelf, popped it into the bag with the rest and it had gone home. My mother, whose sight is not what it was, had taken them all out of their boxes and popped them all into her pill box. The deal was done, it was really very easy, and the whole thing was completely indistinguishable.

Fortunately my mother recovered once it was sorted out. It was a regular, well-known, high-street pharmacy, and it was absolutely excellent. It wrote a letter immediately saying that it was going to instigate a clinical governance review. It then wrote again to tell us exactly what it had done, including changing its methods of storage and ensuring that someone double-checked all drugs before they were bagged-up. This had been a mistake, but there is absolutely no doubt that it was completely negligent, and also avoidable. However, it was not criminal. There was no malicious intent. It could have been terrible, but mercifully it was not. The employer spoke to the pharmacist who admitted exactly what she had done once they had worked it all out. The pharmacy took proportionate discipline, and that is what we as a family wanted. We wanted something to happen, for it be arranged that the mistake could not happen to anyone again and for anything that happened to be professional and proportionate. That is what happened. As a result, I totally support the amendment that my noble friend has tabled with the support of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

My Lords, I shall add a few words because a pharmacist contacted me. Pharmacists are being encouraged to take on more and more, and the drugs are extremely difficult. Some drugs are the same but have different names. It is extremely difficult for patients too, and as they often go to pharmacies for advice it is really very important there this is openness and honesty when a mistake is made. However, I would not like this amendment to open a door for more mistakes to be made.

My Lords, I support the amendment. I would have put my name to it, had I had the opportunity. However, in Committee those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have tended to block up their own amendments and have not sought support from across the House, which is a great pity.

My experience in dealing with the many drugs that my mother takes is that in fact pharmacists are often those who spot the doctor’s mistake. Our local pharmacists do an excellent job. My wider interest in this Bill and in pharmacists is that they play the proper, important role they need to play at local level in the health and well-being boards and with the planning at a local level of both preventive medicine and their jobs at dispensing.

This is also about a level playing field in regulation, which is very important. This Bill offers probably the only opportunity that there will be in the next few years to put right this wrong. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will support this amendment—and if not this one, then one like it at a later stage in the Bill—and rectify this error.

My Lords, the amendment relates to an important issue: the concerns among pharmacists about the risk of prosecution where they normally follow good professional practice but make an inadvertent dispensing error. I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. I warmly welcome the opportunity to discuss it and have been listening carefully to the points made.

We are on the record as saying that we intend to take legislative action to address the issue. We want to see a learning culture that encourages the reporting of dispensing errors so that any helpful lessons can be learnt. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was quite right about that. However, we need to make any changes in ways that continue to protect patients under the law. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, drew our attention to that aspect.

Section 64 of the Medicines Act 1968 provides that,

“No person shall, to the prejudice of the purchaser, sell any medicinal product which is not of the nature or quality demanded by the purchaser”.

This is a strict liability offence, and contrary to what my noble friend stated it does not relate only to pharmacists. Various other healthcare professionals could be affected, as well as other parties who are not subject to professional regulation. Guidance issued to government prosecutors in 2010 has been helpful, but we recognise that it does not remove the underlying problem.

My noble friend is to be commended for raising this issue, but the terms of the proposed amendment present a number of problems that we would need to work through before an appropriate drafting solution could be found. It does not cover other healthcare professionals affected by the current legislation, and in relation to pharmacy it covers only a proportion of pharmacy activity—retail pharmacy—and only where a pharmacist is responding to a prescription. The amendment does not address the different arrangements for the professional regulation of pharmacists that apply in Northern Ireland. There is also some ambiguity as to how it would be determined in practice: that is, whether a pharmacist would be subject to the revised provisions in this amendment. The amendment extends beyond Section 64 and would also change Section 58, on prescription-only medicines, and Section 85, on the labelling of packages and containers of medicinal products, of the Medicines Act 1968.

The legislative ramifications of the issue are therefore quite complex, and I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that we need to get this right. However, let me assure him that we have listened very carefully to the debate and the representations made to us, and that we will continue to work with all relevant parties to find a solution. I also wish to reiterate our commitment to bring forward a suitable legislative change at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken in the debate. I should at the outset have declared an interest as chairman of the council of the School of Pharmacy. My noble friend the Minister has pointed out, quite rightly, that the amendment as drafted only covers the pharmacy profession. He has also pointed out a point picked up by almost all the speakers in the debate, namely that the essence of the provision is the ability to admit and correct error, which is vital in these circumstances.

I welcome very much the forensic way in which the Minister responded to the amendment. I did not think that it was the kind of amendment that would cause Ministers to throw their hands up in the air and say, “Wonderful! We will put this in the Bill”. It needs refining. One of the key issues is that it currently only relates to retail pharmacy. Obviously, it should cover hospital pharmacy as well. There are also issues about Sections 58 and 85 in Northern Ireland.

The Minister has assured us that he has listened very carefully and that he intends to legislate at the earliest possible opportunity. That phrase was very carefully chosen, I am sure, as my noble friend always chooses his words extremely carefully. If the Minister would indicate that, if humanly possible, this will be inserted either on Report or at Third Reading—as the Bill provides a very good opportunity to include reform—I think that the pharmacy profession and others which, as he said, are subject to this kind of disproportionate criminal liability will be extremely happy. I am sure that they would be very grateful to the noble Lord if he could make sure that that was the case. The Minister is not indicating that he is going to say anything further—but maybe he will.

My Lords, let me simply say that my noble friend’s exhortation has been very firmly registered.

My Lords, the Minister chooses an even more felicitous phrase. I thank him, and I look forward to further progress during the course of this Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 337A withdrawn.

Clauses 203 to 205 agreed.

Amendment 338

Moved by

338: After Clause 205, insert the following new Clause—

“Power to regulate health care support workers in England

(1) The Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (S.I. 2002/253) shall be amended to provide that all health care support workers in England shall be registered by the Nursing and Midwifery Council and regulated in accordance with the terms of that order.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a health care support worker shall be an individual whose work is routinely delegated to them by a registered nurse or midwife or has a qualification in health and social care at level one (or higher) of the Qualifications and Credit Framework, in England.”

My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment in my name on the power to regulate healthcare support workers, which is supported by the Royal College of Nursing. I begin by declaring an interest: I am a retired nurse, nurse tutor and manager; former chair of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting regulating body, the UKCC; and past chair of an NHS trust.

I start by looking back to the Bill’s beginning and its aim to improve the quality of patient care at every level of the NHS and to integrate social care, providing holistic care with clearly defined care pathways. The three constituents, as we know, to improving care are improving clinical outcomes, the safety of the patient and a good patient experience. The current situation is that, almost daily, a report is made of essential care being below an acceptable standard, or of poor hygiene, poor hydration, poor nutrition and poor personal care, with staff not even washing patients, making them comfortable or listening to their immediate anxieties. Where healthcare support workers move into areas of work beyond their competence, questions have to be asked about the safety of patients. For example, if a healthcare support worker is left to give drugs without supervision, this is an unsafe practice and a danger to the patient. The responsible person is the registered nurse, who is accountable for delegating any area of practice to the healthcare support worker.

However, the growth in numbers of healthcare support workers dates back a long way and those numbers continue to rise. Over time, there has been a variation of titles, roles and functions, and there have been calls for regulation by the Royal College of Nursing since 1999, when Project 2000 was introduced and the enrolled nurse training was phased out. The reason given for phasing out this training, and the case for change in moving nursing to higher education, was that the rapid developments in medicine and technology led to a need for registered nurses to have a more detailed knowledge to equip them to be fit to the level of practice required—that is, to have a degree qualification. Holistic care of patients demands a correlation of knowledge and practical application that meets the total physical, mental and spiritual needs of patients, their relatives and friends.

Degree courses contain 50 per cent theory and 50 per cent supervised practice. Enrolled nurses had played a very important part in the delivery of care, but they were being abused and misused by being placed in charge of acute wards at night, and taking on roles that their training had not equipped them for. We face the same situation today, where healthcare support workers are abused and misused by being expected to take on roles they have not been prepared for, and are left unsupervised.

This raises three important issues. First, there is the role of the registered nurse, who dedicates and supervises the healthcare support worker. The problem is that if there are not enough registered nurses to supervise, then they become unsupervised. We know from the recent inquiry into Mid Staffs that in order to change the finance situation there, the ratio of registered nurses to untrained nurses was reversed from 60 per cent trained to 40 per cent untrained, to 40 per cent trained and 60 per cent untrained, leaving the registered nurse with a much larger task in supervision.

The role parameters within which the healthcare support worker works, and the preparation they have had, need to be looked at. Who sets the code of conduct—the employer, or the profession of nursing, midwifery and social care? Recent inquiries into failing healthcare systems have pointed to a range of causes, from trust boards and their executive and non-executive members, to the bedside and the delivery of care—that is, registered nurses and unregistered healthcare support workers.

The most recent inquiry was at Mid Staffordshire, which I have already mentioned. Not only was an inquiry held to identify the failings; there was a further inquiry, on the demand of the public, to discover the root causes. Events this year at Winterbourne View, a unit for those with learning disabilities, resulted in a number of healthcare support workers being arrested, and a registered nurse went before the NMC for a hearing on fitness to practise. Inquiries in the 1960s at Ely, Farleigh, Whittingham, Normansfield, and more recently at Stoke Mandeville and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trusts, all demonstrated failing systems of care delivery, the involvement of all levels of care staff, and an overall lack of leadership from the board to the bed in maintaining delivery of high-quality care.

How can Her Majesty’s Government allow the NHS to continue a system that has been proven to fail? The public and patients deserve—and have the right to expect—high quality and safe delivery of care. The Royal College of Nursing has been pressing the Government since 1999 to address this issue, and it continues to do so, recognising the complexity of the issue and that there have been some attempts to rectify an unsatisfactory situation. The chairman of the Royal College of Nursing healthcare support workers group sat in on the debate on front-line nursing on 1 December in this Chamber, and pleaded with me afterwards to ensure that regulation of support workers would be taken on by Her Majesty’s Government.

The way in which the assistant nursing practitioner level 4 healthcare support worker has been introduced under Agenda for Change has identified and clearly set out the role parameters within which a healthcare support worker can work under the supervision of a registered practitioner, having reached a recognised but not regulated standard. However, this accounts for only a small number of the total healthcare support workers employed in the hospital and community setting. Further work could easily lead to mandatory training and registration by opening the second part of the Nursing and Midwifery Council register for this clearly identified group. That has been suggested in this House several times.

The Secretary of State, the right honourable Andrew Lansley, recently announced that Skills for Health and Skills for Care have been commissioned to develop a programme of training and code of conduct to set the standards and training for healthcare support workers. They are also to produce a voluntary register, not regulation. I welcome that the Government recognise that there is a problem which requires urgent addressing, but there are several factors that would need to be addressed if this proposal is to solve the problem.

A skill can be taught, but the deliverer of that skill will not necessarily have the background knowledge needed to take appropriate action. For example, only a few weeks ago a consultant who was visiting a patient asked the person who was taking and charting the blood pressure if she had been doing so all day. The answer was yes. The consultant then asked what the chart showed. She answered that the blood pressure was going down. Asked what that meant, she replied, “I don’t know. I’ve only been shown how to take blood pressure”. Asked if she had reported this to the registered nurse, she replied no. Asked if she had been asked to report any changes, she replied no. The consultant then explained that falling blood pressure in this particular patient indicated that her condition was deteriorating almost to the point of death. This illustrates that a skill without background knowledge is of no use in the delivery of high-quality care, and that supervision of this healthcare support worker by a registered nurse was missing. There are many more examples that could demonstrate this point.

Patients know that when they are approached by a doctor, he is a practitioner registered by the General Medical Council. Even if he is a junior doctor, he is accountable for his actions. However, there is no clarity as to whether the person carrying out a patient’s treatment is necessarily a registered nurse or a healthcare support worker. The colour of the uniforms is confusing, and healthcare support workers are often mistaken for registered nurses. Patients need to know by whom they are being treated. I welcome the invitation extended to the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s excellent chief executive officer, Professor Dickon Weir-Hughes, to participate in Skills for Health. He can bring to the table the statutory functions of the regulatory body, its responsibility towards fitness to practise of registrants and its leadership role.

This is a complex set of issues, but it is vital to the safety of patients. I refer to the research evidence on the ratios of trained to untrained staff that I gave in a debate on Amendment 138 on 29 November in Committee, and to a further reference in a debate on front-line nursing two days later. It demonstrates that the higher the ratio of registered practitioners to non-registered healthcare support workers, the higher the quality of holistic care, resulting in good clinical outcomes, quicker discharge and fewer readmissions with good patient experience. This in turn leads to lowered mortality and morbidity rates, and as a result a possible reduction in hospital beds. This should be taken into account.

I am most appreciative of the Minister for undertaking in his summing-up of that front-line nursing debate to take away the research findings for further study. The complexity of this whole situation, created by the proposed integration of health and social care in the Bill with more patients being cared for in the community, calls for urgent action to ensure that within the community setting there are sufficient registered nurses to maintain high-quality holistic care. The recent report of the Queen’s Nursing Institute contains figures showing that much needs to be done to raise the number of district nurses. The current work being undertaken to increase the number of health visitors and the Royal College of Midwives’ recent report on the number of midwives also have to be taken into account.

Working as a registered nurse in the community is very different from working as a registered nurse in the acute sector. Special training is required for working in patients’ homes, and is currently insufficient to take the huge influx of elderly, frail patients from hospital. I suggest that this requires an in-depth study of the workforce and training requirements, with a cost-benefit analysis, taking into account research evidence from this country, by Professor Anne Marie Rafferty, and from the USA, Canada and Australia. Meanwhile, during the course of the in-depth study, remedial action should continue to be taken to ensure that the healthcare support workers programme is in preparation. I would like to suggest that the issues surrounding the problems of integrating health and social care could be assisted by introducing a core programme as an induction to health and social care for healthcare support workers, followed by a branch for nursing and one for social care. This will not only equip healthcare support workers in the day-to-day delivery of care, but lead to a better understanding of the different cultures of NHS and social care working, both in the community and in secondary care, already discussed earlier this morning.

I find the proposal of a voluntary register totally unacceptable, unless it becomes a requirement for the employer to ensure that the employment of a healthcare support worker requires the evidence of satisfactory completion of the course, subject to the code of conduct. However, there would be nothing to prevent a healthcare support worker dismissed from his post going to another part of the country and being employed without having to go through a fitness-to-practise procedure. It has to be appreciated that the NHS is not the sole employer of healthcare support workers. In fact, a higher proportion is employed in the independent sector, nursing homes and residential homes, where the safety of patients and residents is just as important. It would also be important to ensure that there is an opportunity for the development of healthcare support workers, so that they can progress in one of the health and social care professions.

I hope that I have set out the complexity of this situation, and I would ask the Minister to respond to the amendment, which the Royal College of Nursing vigorously supports, and to look at the regulation of healthcare support workers. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 338, as I strongly agree with the Royal College of Nursing that mandatory regulation for all healthcare support workers, in order to ensure standardised training and therefore a suitable skilled workforce, is the best way forward.

As currently proposed, the health Bill provides for a voluntary register, which the RCN believes to be insufficient. A voluntary register will not protect patients from inadequate healthcare workers, who will be impossible to regulate. I am concerned that nurses who have been struck off the register can then take jobs as unregistered healthcare assistants. One only has to look at the dangers patients have been put in when patients died of insulin poisoning at Stepping Hill Hospital near Manchester and nurses were found to be stealing drugs, at the terrible suffering of patients at the Mid Staffordshire foundation trust and at the appalling treatment of residents at the Winterbourne View care home near Bristol. The latest reports from the Audit Commission, the Patients Association and the CQC highlight further problems with care of the frail and elderly. Is there not enough evidence to make the Government realise that something positive has to be done to make matters safer and better for patients?

I agree with the Royal College of Nursing that it is vital to quality patient services that anyone who is responsible for delivering care should be regulated and accountable for their actions. I received a letter recently from someone living in Malta, who said that in the state hospitals they have colour-coded uniforms for all the staff. Care assistants are clearly distinguishable in maroon and white. We have to get our house in order for the sake of patients, who seem to be becoming more and more vulnerable, rather than safer.

House resumed.

Sitting suspended.

Thames Tunnel


Asked By

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Thames Water about the increase in lorry traffic in London caused by the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

My Lords, we have regular contacts with Thames Water on all aspects of the tunnel proposal, including its strategic approach to transport. Details on lorry movements are a matter for the project sponsor, Thames Water, and are included in its current public consultation. Final proposals will be in its planning application, expected in autumn 2012. The planning process ensures that environmental factors such as transport impacts will be considered.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He is certainly right that, in its second consultation, Thames Water has reduced the volumes of lorry traffic by half by agreeing to transport the spoil by river, which is about half the total. However, is he aware that in Network Rail’s construction of Blackfriars station most of the materials, not just the spoil but other construction materials as well, are coming in by river? I am sure the Minister will agree that that is very commendable, given the traffic jams around there. What will he do to try to persuade Thames Water to do the same for that very much bigger project, including bringing in tunnel linings, concrete and things like that by river?

My Lords, the noble Lord has great experience in tunnelling and engineering, which I respect, and I share his view that the river is a great London resource that should be optimised and used for such occasions. It is important to emphasise, however, that at the moment the project is undergoing a consultative phase. There are guidelines on the use of rail and river for the movement of waste soil, for example, which are already laid down. I hope that any members of the public who have an interest in this matter will make their views known during the consultation period.

My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us whether he and Thames Water are aware of the great concern of local residents, many of whom I know, about the constant use of their streets in the area? Will there be limited hours of work? Will they have any respite during this work, which I must say is very important for the future of London?

My noble friend is right to emphasise that there are local neighbourhood implications in any project of this size. As I have emphasised, the project is at the moment in consultation and it is very important that people who feel they may be affected make their point of view clear. Thames Water has estimated that there will be around 4.6 million tonnes of excavated material generated in the lifespan of the tunnel’s construction. The management of that lies with the principal contractor, who will have to abide by the planning conditions laid down when planning permission is granted.

My Lords, while I recognise that the planning process is still under way, could the Minister, who is very popular in the House, not agree with the view of my noble friend Lord Berkeley that, in addition to spoil, efforts should be made by the contractors to use the river more than they are doing at the moment? Could he not just simply drop a little Christmas note to them to that effect?

I am of course grateful to add to the House’s Christmas cheer, and this is a great opportunity to do so. I think I made it pretty clear that I saw the river as a great resource and that it would indeed make sense to use it for the shipment of materials, but in the end the process really is that Thames Water has to make the application. I have given a pretty strong steer as to what we expect of Thames Water and, indeed, of the contractors.

Does the Minister agree that, in view of the large number of accidents to cyclists in London, including, unfortunately, a lot more deaths this year, he should ensure during the process that a proper risk assessment is conducted on the means of both supplying material and taking it away?

The use of roads is very important, as is the way that goods are shipped. That is a hazard that needs to be taken into account before planning permission can be given.

My Lords, given the importance of bringing in materials, would the Government perhaps ask the construction authorities and Thames Water to look at the use of Cornish china clay spoils materials? They could be brought to London so that we could have the benefit here, while removing some of the spoils from Cornwall.

My Lords, that is an unusual suggestion, which even in my wildest moments I had not anticipated being asked. I am sure that anything that makes my noble friend feel more at home must be a jolly good idea.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for suggesting the use of china clay waste—I live in Cornwall and it is dear to my heart. I wonder if I could press the Minister a little further, though. Half the materials may be transported by road, which would mean around 250 trucks a day. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has also mentioned the risk of accidents to cyclists and so on. Surely it would be a good idea for a planning condition to be put on this development saying that perhaps 90 per cent of all materials must come by river or rail.

As I have tried to emphasise, those terms ought to be set in the planning decision. It is not for us at this stage of the process. I have tried to make it clear that there will be consultation, planning and then the award of the contract.

Public Disorder: Uninsured Claimants


Asked By

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that police authorities speedily and fairly settle claims outstanding under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, particularly for uninsured claimants.

My Lords, the Government are committed to dealing with all claims where property was damaged in the August disturbances. We are working closely with the affected police authorities and the insurance industry to ensure that the processes that they have in place allow claims to be made as quickly as possible.

My Lords, thousands of households and businesses are still waiting for compensation from police authorities after all this time. Some £3,500 has been paid out, of the £200 million or so worth of claims, and many valid business interruption claims are being contested. Does the Minister agree, especially in the light of the Prime Minister’s assurances on 11 August, that this is quite unacceptable? Will the Home Office issue firm guidance to police authorities to speed up the processing of claims and stop them hiding behind technicalities—for instance, that in some areas the disturbances did not constitute a riot for the purposes of the Act?

My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, that things have not been as speedy as they should have been. We estimate that some 5,000 claims have been received, totalling in excess of £250 million, but we must remember that a lot of those claims will include claims for loss that are not covered by the Act. We have to ensure that we do not pay out for things that the Government are not responsible for. We will try to deal with—as the noble Lord implied in his original Question—the uninsured claimants first of all, but obviously we want to deal with the insured claimants as well. That is why I stress that we are working with both the police authorities and the insurance companies to ensure that that is the case.

My Lords, I am grateful to hear that the Minister has offered a figure. I put down a Written Question to ask him how many payments had been made under the Riot (Damages) Act, and the Answer was three sentences long. It told me that applications for compensation were made directly to police authorities, and:

“There is no requirement for them to provide this information to the Home Office. Therefore, the precise figures of payments that have already been made to claimants will be held locally by each police authority”.—[Official Report, 8/12/11; col. WA198.]

In other words, go and ask them. Does the Minister accept that the Government in fact bear responsibility for sorting this problem out? If so, will he be willing to report to the House what progress is being made?

My Lords, I gave an estimate of the number of claims but I cannot give an absolute figure. That is why I stress that it is only an estimate that 5,000 have been made. One has to accept that a lot of those claims will not be valid; in certain areas there have been many more claims than one would expect. I make no further comment on that.

I will certainly keep the House fully informed about how we are getting on with these matters. We want to ensure that all claims are settled as quickly and fairly as possible, and that when we are dealing with public money it is handed out in the appropriate manner.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Riot (Damages) Act, which was passed in 1886 for a different society from the one that we have today, is anachronistic, outdated and unfair? The police service has had its budget cut by 20 per cent this year. How can it afford up to £200 million in compensation? The Act has the connotation of blame. If we are looking for blame for the riots, should we look at the economic policies of successive Governments in failing to provide employment?

May I draw a picture of a single mother, living on the 13th floor of a block of council flats with three teenage children? She starts work at 5 am every morning as a cleaner, does another job in the afternoon and comes home to hungry and cold children, yet we blame her for not looking after them. They have never, in their whole lives, had a new pair of trainers but now have an opportunity. As far as the money is concerned—

What about the £200 million or so that the Government will spend on appointing political commissars in the police service next year?

My Lords, the noble Lord is making another point. I accept his remark that the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is possibly past its sell-by date. For example, it does not cover motor vehicles, which had not been invented at that time. However, the Government have made it clear that we stand ready to provide financial support to police authorities and we do not see any of them losing out as a result of these claims.

My Lords, it is four months since the riots occurred and very strong assurances were given by the Government that businesses would be helped. The official report and other reports indicate that very few businesses have received the help that they expected to be given—and that we expected them to be given. I asked in September whether the Government would monitor the situation. Will the Minister give tangible figures and update us on the situation?

My Lords, the Government have been monitoring the situation. My honourable friend the Minister for Policing has met representatives from the West Midlands police force, the Greater London Authority, the Met and the Greater Manchester police force. He has met the insurance companies, Kit Malthouse and a vast number of people. We are doing these things as quickly as possible. We extended the deadline by which people could make claims by 42 days. We have the whole subject under review, as I made clear in response to another question, and we will respond to those reviews in due course.

My Lords, the Minister has been asked for figures three times. He keeps saying that the situation is under review and is being monitored. It is not monitoring that is required—it is action. Will he do something about it?

My Lords, I totally reject that. I have made it clear that we estimate that there have been something of the order of 5,000 claims. We estimate that those claims total some £200 million to £250 million. That does not mean that all those claims are valid. Before we pay out public money, we want to make sure that they are valid and we will do that properly. We want to make sure that the uninsured are paid first and then deal with those who were insured, making sure that the insurance companies are repaid. That is why we are talking to the ABI.

My Lords, I give the fullest support to the Minister’s indication that the Government regard the Act as having passed its sell-by date. Taking the point of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, may I ask the Government to look very carefully into the whole philosophy of whether it is right, in the 21st century, that claims should be made against police authorities, as opposed to a more general claim, perhaps against the Government? I also make the point that the definition of “persons” in the Act is deeply flawed, as are the definitions of “property”. The Act should also be brought up to date to allow claims in respect of motor vehicles.

The noble Lord is right to quote me as saying that the Act is beyond its sell-by date and needs to be reviewed. That is why it is being reviewed. I do not believe that the police forces will lose out. That is why we have made it clear that the Home Office is ready to support them. We will make sure that that is the case where appropriate. However, the important thing is that we look at the result of those reviews of the Act and then make the appropriate decisions.

Energy: Winter Fuel Payment


Asked By

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make the winter fuel payment subject to basic and higher rate tax and limited to United Kingdom residents.

My Lords, the winter fuel payment is a simple to administer payment that ensures that older people can turn up their heating in the winter months without worrying about the cost. We have no plans to tax the payment. We are obliged under European law to continue paying the winter fuel payment to people who qualify for a payment in Great Britain and then move to another European Economic Area country or Switzerland.

I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am rather nervous about this Question because 674 noble Lords are entitled to receive the winter fuel payment. That is 81 per cent of us. Would I be right in guessing that the Minister, who is 61, is, like me, one of the half a million top-rate taxpayers who benefit from this farcical tax-free bung? Why cannot winter fuel payments at least be taxed like the old age pension? That would raise £220 million a year to help people in real need in our country.

Yes, my Lords, like the other 81 per cent in the Chamber I have to declare an interest in this matter, although I shall keep my tax arrangements between me and HMRC. One of the issues around taxation is that it is not straightforward to tax the winter fuel payment as it stands because it is a household payment whereas tax is done on an individual basis. It could be done but it is rather complicated.

Can the Minister confirm that there is nothing whatever to stop the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, giving away the money if he does not want it?

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, all money is fungible. This is a matter of psychology rather than funding. If people find it convenient to look at money as being in separate packets and give money in a particular packet to a particular charity, that is a very excellent thing to happen, particularly if it encourages charitable giving more generally.

My Lords, is it fair that this tax will be the same whether you live on the south coast of England or the north coast of Scotland?

My Lords, I think it depends on what side of the country you live. I understand that the Mull of Kintyre is rather warmer than East Anglia, so I think that what the noble Lord suggests would be a pretty complicated thing to do.

Would the noble Lord be kind enough to clarify his original Answer on overseas payments? Am I to believe that my Trinidadian born neighbour, who complained to me recently that a family member of hers who had returned to the West Indies was in receipt of the winter fuel payment, was incorrect?

Yes, you can keep your winter fuel payment only if you go to another European country, so if it is being obtained by someone in Trinidad, the noble Baroness might make a call to Crimestoppers or someone.

Does not my noble friend agree that it would be fairer to tax the winter fuel allowance and use the money to ease the burden of his housing benefit reforms?

My Lords, clearly, one can look at how one treats this, but essentially it is a simple payment. It is one of the universal payments to pensioners along with the state pension, additional pension and passported benefits such as NHS prescriptions. That is how it is designed. It would be rather complicated and expensive to tax it.

My Lords, the Minister appears to be very sympathetic to the idea of changing the system, and I am not taking into account the season of the year. Will he reconsider the possibility of a levy on higher-rate taxpayers? After all, what is good for King Wenceslas should be good enough for 81 per cent of us.

My Lords, I am grateful to be told where my sympathies are but the reality is that about 500,000 people would be affected and the saving would be about £40 million a year. It would be expensive and difficult to do and, therefore, on its own, it would not be a good idea. That does not suggest where my sympathies are at all.

No, I do not think so. This is just a universal benefit that is paid on a simple basis to households that need it. Older people above 80 receive rather more than those below that age.

My Lords, for the winter fuel allowance to be put to good effect, you have to have a home to heat. Sadly, we know that homelessness is on the increase in our country. The Minister is always keen to look at funding within fixed envelopes, but on what does he base his philosophy for supporting the retention of tax-free winter fuel allowances for higher-rate taxpayers, rather than providing more support for the homeless?

My Lords, I hope that I have made it quite clear that when you have a universal benefit you pay it out on a simplified basis. Because it is a household payment, it would be enormously complicated to change that. Clearly, it could be done. There has been a small increase in homelessness but it remains at historically low levels. We are watching the figures very closely and it is a priority for this Government that we do not see an excessive rise in homelessness.



Asked By

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider their curbs on immigration in the light of their effect on competitiveness and economic growth.

My Lords, we will not. We are clear that the United Kingdom remains open for business. Our changes mean that we will continue to welcome the brightest and best who have the most to contribute to this country. At the same time, we are putting an end to the unlimited migration of recent years that has created unacceptable pressures on our public services.

My Lords, I acknowledge that there is a need for some control, but the Government seem to have indicated that they will reduce the number of non-EU migrants who wish to settle here after they have completed their studies. Will the Government take note of a powerful letter, written about a month ago to the Financial Times, by a number of very eminent academics who came here as non-EU immigrants and who would not have come if they had been told at the start that they would not be allowed to stay?

My Lords, we will obviously listen to those academics but I have to say that the university sector as a whole is not complaining about what is happening. What we did was introduce a cap of just over 20,000 people, following the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, on the number of skilled workers who were coming in. So far, in the first six months of this year, some 6,000 of those places were taken up—there is obviously a lot of slack in the system. There is no danger that any skilled workers are being denied the opportunity to come in.

My Lords, on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, can we come back to the issue of universities and overseas students? The Minister has always maintained that the Government’s restrictions were aimed at bogus colleges. If we accept that, will he acknowledge that universities are now reporting that the policy is having an impact? First-class universities are being affected by the cap and first-class students are being turned away. Surely that part of the policy ought to be reviewed.

My Lords, obviously, we will keep all these matters under review as is appropriate, but the noble Lord will also accept that it is quite right that we should attack the bogus colleges, which his party took no trouble to attack over the years. That is why there was a dramatic rise in the number of people coming here allegedly to learn English or some other thing, who went to colleges where no courses were going on and virtually no one enrolled other than to get round immigration rules.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept, as my noble friend said, that about 60 per cent of the non-EU migrants to this country are students and that, of those doing a proper degree course at the sort of university that my noble friend talked about, 98 per cent are compliant with immigration controls and return to their country—98 per cent? So we are losing both the opportunity of their fees coming into the university sector and the possibility of helping DfID export their skills back to their home country.

My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Baroness says, but if she can provide proper evidence for that, we will certainly look at it in due course. We are not aware that universities are complaining; we are aware that a certain number of private colleges— the bogus colleges to which I referred earlier—are complaining. That is why we will want to deal with that. In the main, I think it is quite right that we should tighten up on people coming to university and that is why, for example, there are rules about family members coming in which, again, the party opposite failed to introduce. Those have been tightened up for undergraduates but not for postgraduates.

My Lords, has any consideration been given, or is consideration being given, to taking students out of the immigration system? Now that the business of bogus academies has been dealt with rather effectively—I welcome that—would it not be sensible to recognise that the university sector is the most rapidly growing invisible export that this country has? It is simply not good enough to say that universities are not complaining. There may be some vestige of a lack of complaint from some body or other, but I would suggest that, if the noble Lord goes round the universities carefully, he will not find that that is the case.

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has to say about universities being a very valuable export—we acknowledge that—but there should also be controls on students coming in. One area where we provided stricter controls is on undergraduate students bringing in families, which was seen as a form of abuse. We were quite right to tighten up on that and to keep more general matters under review, and that is what we will continue to do.

My Lords, of course my noble friend is right to maintain his attack on bogus colleges, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, deserves real consideration. At a recent dinner attended by the Minister for Universities and Science, Mr Willetts, at which there were eight or nine historians each from a different university, they were unanimous that this is having a deterrent and potentially disastrous effect. All we need is a little more sensitivity in the interpretation of the rules, or to put students in a separate category.

My Lords, I acknowledge what my noble friend says. I am fully aware of these problems, having been the spokesman on higher education in this House, but there have been abuses. I referred to the fact of family members coming in with undergraduates. We have tightened up on that. I remember, as can many other noble Lords, that back in the early 1980s, when we first brought in fees for overseas students, we thought that we would lose out dramatically. We did not; we saw an increase in the number of overseas students coming in. I am sure that if we get this right and listen appropriately, we will continue to see a great many overseas students coming to our world-class universities.

My Lords, why does not the Minister agree with the sensible report that came from the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee? That raised the very issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that students should not be treated as migrants. We are sending out a message to all overseas students who would otherwise have come to this country—some in the public sector, some in the private sector—that they are a troublesome group who need to be controlled.

The very simple reason is that some—particularly in the private sector, which is why I referred to private sector colleges—were involved in an abuse. If there is an abuse of the system, we have a duty to tackle it, and that is what we have done.

My Lords, the Minister may be aware of a recent report from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry entitled Migration Reform: Caps Don’t Fit. It concludes:

“Our research shows that one of the main reasons companies recruit from beyond the EU is their desire to explore and invest in new, overseas markets”.

It also says that, if the UK’s economic recovery is to be export led, this is a particularly important consideration. Does the Minister acknowledge that?

My Lords, I think that I have followed what my noble friend has said. Obviously, we recognise the importance of universities—as I said in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, they are a major part of our exports. However, I also see what my noble friend is getting at. I have not seen the research that she refers to, which talks about the need to bring in workers from outside the EU. However, the point that I was making in my first supplementary answer was that we have a cap on the number of skilled workers, and we have not got anywhere near that cap in the first six months of this year.

Open-Ended Investment Companies (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Motion to Approve

Moved By

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 November be approved.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.

Motion agreed.

Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011

Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011

Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Motion to Approve

Moved By

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14, 21 and 25 November be approved.

Relevant documents: 33rd, 34th and 35th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 December.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care Bill

Committee (14th Day) (Continued)

Debate on Amendment 338 resumed.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 338 and 340, to which I have added my name in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. For those of your Lordships not familiar with the amendments, they are to do with the regulation of healthcare support workers. As many noble Lords will know, these workers were introduced into the health service just over a decade ago, and they are untrained, unqualified and unregulated. There are 300,000-plus of them in the health service, with many more working in nursing homes.

Any debate about the regulation of healthcare support workers will need to take account of current workforce trends. In April 2011, the Royal College of Nursing reported that NHS trusts were increasingly looking to reassess nursing roles in order to deliver short-term reductions in the wage bill without a full clinical assessment of the impact of this action on patients’ safety and the quality of patient care. The RCN reported a notable change in the skill mix of teams, with an increased reliance on unregulated healthcare support workers.

The other workforce in nursing is trained and regulated. It is made up of registered general nurses and registered midwives, and we also used to have state-enrolled nurses. The view could be taken that it is the responsibility of employers to make sure that their workforce is adequately trained and has the skills to deliver the care, but many recent reports with which noble Lords are familiar highlight poor-quality nursing care. Some of them have appeared in the press and include the failings at Stafford Hospital, where hundreds died unnecessarily, and at Winterbourne View care home, where staff were filmed abusing vulnerable patients, as well as a series of critical reports, most recently from the Care Quality Commission, which has condemned NHS care for the elderly. Some, including regulatory authorities and particularly the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, favour the employer-led model of training of healthcare support workers or of those who are not trained yet provide nursing care. This model was introduced in Scotland. The important thing is that it has never been evaluated. That needs to be done first. Secondly, and more importantly, the ratio of trained nurses to untrained support workers is quite different in Scotland. Anyone who promotes this model needs to look at that first.

I return to some of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, made all the points in an excellent introductory speech. It is a pity that we did not have a continuation of the debate so that we could have heard her comments and responded to them. However, the Bill proposes that the regulators of healthcare professionals should have the ability to establish voluntary registers for currently unregulated workers and professionals who are, or have been, engaged in work that supports or otherwise relates to work engaged in by members of the profession that the body regulates.

In proposing voluntary registration, the Government have accepted that unregulated workers supporting healthcare professionals represent a risk to public protection that needs to be addressed. If they did not, why would they even consider voluntary registration? It must be because they think it is a risk. Voluntary registration for healthcare support workers carrying out tasks delegated by nurses or midwives is not sufficient to protect the public.

The other argument used is that it is the trained nurses—the registered nurses—who supervise these support workers who are not trained or regulated. How can a nurse, or two nurses, in a ward of 15 or 16 intensive care patients, supervise three or four unregulated, untrained workers, who then carry out nursing tasks? The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, cited a real case of such a worker measuring blood pressure who did not understand why she was doing it. If one is going to have people who look after ill, frail people, one needs to make sure that they are trained properly, that their training is assessed, and that they are regulated. I understand that this cannot be done overnight, particularly as we now have nearly 400,000 such people working in the health service, but there ought to be some mission to do this in a relatively short time, maybe even in two or three years. To go after voluntary registration is not the answer.

There is currently no consistent UK-wide training standard for healthcare support workers. Courses can range from an hour-long induction up to NVQ level 3. Assistant practitioners are experienced health support workers. They are different, and they may receive training up to NHS-level band 4, which is equivalent to the level of the previous state-enrolled nurses, but, again, there is no consistency across the UK. Clause 231 gives no indication that a voluntary system will be underpinned by consistent UK-wide standards of training that will assure the public that employers who employ health support workers have the knowledge and skills that they need to practise safely. I strongly support this amendment. Whenever the noble Baroness wishes to call a vote, I will join her.

My Lords, I have long been an advocate in the cause of statutory regulation and registration of healthcare support workers. When one has been around the health service for a long time, it is not unusual to see the wheels turn full circle. We went from support staff to auxiliary nurses, to nursing assistants, to state-enrolled assistant nurses. Then the word “assistant” was dropped and we had state-enrolled nurses. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, said earlier, the roles of the state-enrolled nurse and the registered nurse became very confused and the titles became interchangeable, which should never have happened. Then we moved to Project 2000 and the move from hospital-based training to higher education, and we are now moving from diploma to an all-degree profession, which is right and proper.

In 1999, my union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, supported Project 2000, but we foresaw a gap that would be left by the ending of enrolled nurse training, which would lead to there being many more auxiliaries or healthcare assistants, as they became. We called for support workers to have about a year’s training to an agreed national standard and statutory regulation by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, as the regulatory body was called. We did not get that. The idea was opposed because it was argued that it would replicate the then existing confusion between enrolled nurses and registered nurses.

Where are we now? We have an explosion in the number of support staff who have taken the place of enrolled nurses; there are far more than any of us ever envisaged at the time. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, more than 300,000 support workers are now employed in various roles with a number of job titles. One figure that I saw in research produced by UNISON said that there were more than 120 different job titles for healthcare support workers, which is astonishing.

We have a situation in which the patients do not know who is caring for them. It is not just a question of uniform, although that is important. Support staff carry out many duties that were previously the role of regulated nurses. Many of those roles, such as nasal gastric tubes, cannulation, catheterisation and blood pressure, are intimate and invasive, as we have heard. Almost uncannily, in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, spoke about, I spent some time in hospital a couple of years ago when I had my blood pressure taken sitting in a chair beside the bed and my diastolic pressure was down to 40. I said to the healthcare assistant who took that blood pressure, “I had better get back to bed and I think you’d better call a senior nurse and doctor”. She said, “No, you are going down for an MRCP scan; just sit where you are”. Fortunately, being a nurse, I knew what I was talking about and I was able to get a doctor and a nurse, and before very long I had massive amounts of fluid pumped into my veins to restore my blood pressure. Had I not understood the situation, that could have resulted in a serious condition. It is quite frightening. You can be trained to take blood pressure, but not trained in the skills of observation and in understanding the readings that are being taken.

With the drive to reduce costs, there is, and will be, more substitution of registered nurses by healthcare workers. In effect we have a new second level, but that new second level is not regulated and not registered and the staff are not professionally accountable for their practice. That is not good enough. That is not in the interests of patients’ safety or protection. Nor will assured voluntary registration deal with the matter. Voluntary registers already exist for other professions and there are very real concerns about their inadequacies. They have no teeth, and staff can leave a voluntary register, particularly if there is any investigation for possible discipline.

The registration and regulation of healthcare support workers is supported by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, by the Royal College of Nursing, and by UNISON, although in fairness I should say that UNISON would prefer registration by the Health Professions Council. Registration is supported by the Queen’s Nursing Institute, by the health committee in another place and, most importantly, by healthcare assistants themselves.

In the Nursing Times of 6 December, I was interested to see in a small article about the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry that Robert Francis QC spoke of 20 issues that he would consider when drawing up his recommendations, which are due to be published next year, and the regulation and training of healthcare assistants was to be first on the list. I hope that that does not mean that they will carry the can for all the problems in Mid Staffordshire because that is certainly not the case; they go to a much higher level than that. Counsel to the inquiry, Tom Kark QC, said that the lack of regulation of healthcare assistants appeared to be surprising and dangerous.

There is inexorable pressure for this matter to be dealt with—and dealt with soon. It is not something that can be put on the long finger. If there is a strong recommendation from the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, we cannot leave it to be dealt with in a future Bill because we will not be getting another health service Bill for some time. This Bill gives us the opportunity to do this and to get it right. I strongly support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. Healthcare assistants who have work delegated to them by nurses should be properly regulated and registered.

My Lords, I am very sorry to take issue with the opinions of noble Lords with whom I usually agree most heartily. I remind the Committee of my role as chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. I should make it clear that I am in no way taking issue with noble Lords' concerns about the practice of healthcare assistants, nor with the emphasis—given particularly by the noble Baroness—on the need for proper training. The only thing I take issue with is whether statutory regulation is the correct solution to the problem.

I am not aware of any body of evidence that demonstrates that the risks of future harm presented by the practice of healthcare assistants could not be successfully managed by the existing processes and governance systems if they were applied effectively. That is the point. Healthcare assistants are already supervised by other staff who have the professional responsibility to supervise them. As we have heard, they almost always work in supervised settings, with supervision usually being the responsibility of staff who are statutorily regulated. Statutorily regulated professionals have a responsibility to ensure that the staff whom they manage offer safe care, conduct themselves professionally and are delegated only tasks that are within their technical competence. For example, the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s code states:

“You must establish that anyone you delegate to is able to carry out your instructions … You must confirm that the outcome of any delegated task meets the required standards … You must make sure that everyone you are responsible for is supervised and supported”.

In other words, we already have in place a governance system to ensure that healthcare assistants work safely and with proper delegation, supervision and support from a statutorily regulated professional. Employers are required to ensure safe systems of work, which will include providing support in delegating and supervising effectively.

Creating a list of people is not in itself an effective safeguard. Effective regulatory conditions are often much closer to home. For example, in an environment that is poorly managed and distant from scrutiny, poor standards of care can become the norm, with staff being drawn into collusion with poor care. We have seen many examples of this recently, particularly of the process of collusion, with people working in a poorly managed environment unable to resist the downward spiral of standards. The most effective way to invert the spiral is by employers properly managing the specific environment, not by establishing another structure.

Winterbourne View was referred to several times in this short debate. Perhaps it is worth reminding noble Lords that registered professionals were involved in delivering poor care there. Statutory regulation did not prevent it. We should always bear that in mind. Regulation is not necessarily the answer. Further, we cannot ignore the fact that statutory regulation would be expensive and cumbersome for a large, low-paid workforce with a high annual turnover. It is not proportionate to the risk, which can be managed by effective training, delegation and supervision.

The recent announcement by the Secretary of State about improving standards of training and the potential to develop a voluntary register of healthcare assistants is encouraging. I also welcome the Nursing and Midwifery Council's announcement that it will fully engage with the project that the Secretary of State announced, and with any further developments around assured voluntary registration for this particularly valuable group in the healthcare workforce. It is important that we make sure that we value this group, who are of such importance in the front line of the nursing and patient care environment.

My Lords, I am speaking because my name is also on this amendment. We need to reflect on several aspects relating to the context of this issue. I do not think that there is much doubt that we have a problem of some significance, or any doubt that the problem has been growing over a long time. I also do not think that it is an easy fix simply to jump to statutory regulation. I went through the process when the whole issue of regulating social workers arose, and that proved extremely difficult to introduce. I do not doubt that we will end up with statutory regulation of some kind, but we might have to go through some processes before we get to that point.

I do not want to duplicate the history that other noble Lords have put forward most expertly. I came into this story as a very young civil servant at the end of the 1960s when the Salmon committee was set up. Some noble Lords may be old enough to remember the Salmon committee—I was assistant secretary to the committee. This was in the days when civil servants could not hold a job for long and were moved on at a tremendous rate. While doing this work we saw how things worked at the ward level. In those good old days of the 1960s and early 1970s there was a ward sister, state-registered staff nurses, nursing auxiliaries and state-enrolled nurses. We also had a set of arrangements in which oversight of cleaning was largely the duty of the ward sister. Furthermore, bank working was not that common.

What has happened since those “good old days” is that hospitals have become used more intensively. Bank working has meant that there is a higher flow of different people moving through the wards, and the profession, with good reason, has wanted to make itself a graduate profession. The context has changed a lot, so the dynamics of those wards has changed quite a lot.

Alongside that we have been growing another industry in the community: in nursing homes, residential care homes and—not quite as fast as one would like, within the health service—a district nursing service. One of the problems in both these areas, whether acute hospitals or the community, is that with the demand of patients for services, and the demography which has gone alongside that shift in time, the qualified and registered nursing profession has inevitably had to look for help from sub-professional groups to help carry the load. In the community there is not a strong management structure to oversee this, so to some extent it is difficult for district nurses to oversee any work done by unqualified personnel. Such oversight might be the theory but in practice it will often be difficult to achieve.

Community services are burgeoning, the hospital service has changed, and we have a problem of a growing need for more people who are not qualified and registered nurses to work alongside such nurses to provide some of the care. We are looking to the Government to produce a comprehensive review that examines the situation that we face now rather than the situation we faced 10 or 15 years ago and which was very different.

I suspect that we will have to move by interim steps towards statutory registration, and perhaps voluntary registration is an interim step. However, I am not convinced that we have a comprehensive set of answers to a continuing and serious problem. The Government need to think about how they will deal with this very serious problem.

My Lords, I also have some scepticism about assured voluntary registration, but I will come back to that when we debate the subsequent amendment. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s amendment. I had not intended to speak on this amendment until I heard a number of noble Lords speak, and I take a slightly different lesson from the history of the past number of years in the development of the nursing profession.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I remember sisters, state registered nurses, state enrolled nurses, nursing auxiliaries and so on, but one of the key things was that all those professionals described themselves as nurses. Indeed, I very well remember as a young doctor that nurses would not say, “I looked after that person”, or “I was on the ward when that patient came in before”, but said, “I nursed that patient”. There was a quality of compassion and relationship that was critical to the profession. I think that not only nursing as a profession, but many other professions went down the wrong road when they took the view that the future was in tighter registration and a graduate profession because that was not fundamentally the need. I heard my right honourable friend in another place being asked questions in the past few days about poor care of patients with dementia, and he made a very important point. He said that you can find two wards beside each other in a hospital with nurses with exactly the same level of training and qualifications but in one of those wards the patients are cared for with compassion and in the other ward they are not. When we move to healthcare support workers, it seems to me that whatever we move to, we do not move to a title that expresses compassion and care for the patients who are being nursed.

My gratitude to the noble Baroness is not for the specific terms of her amendment, and I do not think that they were the burden of her bringing the amendment forward. It is that we engage in a serious, proper debate about this issue, not just for nurses, but for other professions. There are some for whom I believe that statutory registration is the proper way ahead, but there are others for whom it does not seem to be the case that always moving to graduate professions with training and registration is the sole and most important way of dealing with these questions. It is quite clear that making nurses graduates and having registered nurses only has simply opened a door that has had to be filled with other, less qualified and, it has to be said, less expensive employees. Now we have a problem with them not measuring up to the professional standards of compassion that all of those—or at least, almost all of those—who aspired to be nurses at whatever level in the past aspired to in the best sense.

I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment; I am not quite sure it is the precise solution, but I hope we find ways to come back to the serious ongoing debate that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has pointed to because there is a crisis in this area. I remember saying this two, three, four years ago in your Lordships' House and noble Lords who are now on the Benches on the other side thought it was simply a party-political attack. It was not—it was a genuine sense of concern that things were deteriorating. They have continued to do so, and it will not be dealt with solely by registration, training and academic qualifications because a quality of care and compassion and a culture of compassion are necessary. That is not to take away from the question of assured voluntary registration, which I wish to explore in a further amendment.

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for her perseverance and determination in this very important area. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I am clear that the role of healthcare assistants has to be seen in the context of a much more general debate about nursing care, including the compassion that he talked so eloquently about.

As the noble Baroness said to us rather earlier this afternoon, we had an excellent debate on nursing on 1 December, and we are presented with something of a paradox: on the one hand, we should not ignore the huge advances in the nursing profession over the past 20 years. There has been the move to a graduate profession and nurses have taken on much greater responsibility, including for complex care and specialist care, and I think that, overall, the public have welcomed that increased responsibility. At the same time, there has been real and mounting concern about basic standards of care and issues to do with hygiene, feeding of patients, nutrition, dignity and even face-to-face contact—the kind of compassion that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has just spoken about. We have seen the reports from unannounced visits of various bodies. Recently, the CQC has undertaken important visits to many of our hospitals. There seems to be real evidence and concern about a falling of standards of basic care.

The reasons for that are not clear. It is possible that nurse training is now too focused on academic performance rather than on practical nurse training. It is also at least possible that the drive for specialist nurses and modern matrons has taken from the ward the many experienced nurses who, in retrospect, might be better placed in leading their ward as ward manager or senior sister. What is not in doubt is the need for serious thinking about how we can enhance the overall quality in standards of basic care that nurses give.

That brings us to the role of healthcare assistants. Again, in our debate on 1 December, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in responding, referred to the concerns that had been expressed about nursing in the acute sector in particular. He said he felt that that,

“related to inappropriate delegation by nurses to healthcare”,

assistants. He continued:

“Wherever there is a multidisciplinary team of regulated professionals and unregulated healthcare workers, appropriate delegation and supervision is vitally important. This is an area ripe for formal review”.

He also said that the Government welcomed,

“the NMC’s plans to update its guidance on delegation”,

and that they have,

“asked Skills for Health and Skills for Care to accelerate production of a code of conduct”.—[Official Report, 1/12/11; col. 419.]

I am sure that those actions by the Government are very generally welcomed. The question before us is whether they are sufficient. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has said, it is clear that she does not think that they are. Powerful support for that argument has been received from the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which argues that a system of regulation for healthcare support workers should contain provisions for consistent UK-wide standards of training and practice that would assure the public and employers that they have the knowledge and skills to practice safely. It further suggests a mandatory register to ensure that workers who have been struck off the nursing and midwifery register are not re-employed in a healthcare support role, which has been the subject of some concerns. It is also notable that the House of Commons Health Committee supports mandatory statutory regulation of healthcare assistants, which it believes is the only approach that would maximise public protection.

However, we have heard from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, who has put a different view. It will be interesting to hear the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, on why she thinks that a voluntary register for healthcare assistants is the way forward. I should like to ask her whether she would support NHS bodies which require healthcare assistants to be voluntarily registered as a condition of employment. If that were the case, what safeguards does she think could be put in place as regards a worker who was dismissed because of poor conduct towards a patient? How could we ensure that in those circumstances that person could not then work in another part of the care sector? That seems to me to go to the heart of the issue of whether a voluntary register could work.

I have no doubt that NHS employers could be encouraged to make it mandatory but the problem with that is that too many people could slip through the net. I would also ask the noble Baroness to respond to my noble friend Lord Warner. I share his view that, clearly, we are crying out for a fundamental review of these issues around nursing quality and care, compassion, and dignity of care being given to patients, and that relationship to healthcare assistants. If the Government are not prepared to move on this and on the point about only going as far as a voluntary register, can they at least give some comfort and assurance that they recognise that this matter needs close attention?

I am not a great believer in royal commissions—I think it was Harold Wilson who said that they could be established in a minute but take years—but there is a strong case for a fundamental review of the nursing profession, embracing healthcare assistants. Would the Government be prepared to give us some comfort on this?

My Lords, these amendments seek to extend compulsory statutory regulation to healthcare support workers. I thank noble Lords for the amendments because they raise important issues about the ways in which we assure the quality and safety of those who work in support of our regulated health professionals. The Government are publishing a fact sheet on this issue that will contain further details about their proposals, which I hope will be helpful to noble Lords.

There are more than 200,000 nursing assistants and approximately a further 1 million people working in similar jobs in adult social care in England alone. The majority of support workers give the highest quality of care. However, a minority let patients down. This is rightly a cause for concern, although as a former historian I have to say that I do not fully recognise the notion of everything having been perfect in earlier periods but everything breaking down at this point. One needs only to look at what has been said from Florence Nightingale onwards about what happened during the interwar periods, during times of war and so on. This has always been more varied than perhaps noble Lords are allowing for. Nevertheless, it is extremely important that we try to drive up quality and ensure that quality holds good right across the health service and social care. It is right that there is discussion and debate about the best way of ensuring that high standards of care are delivered at all times.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, pointed out, there are already existing tiers of regulation that protect patients and service users. Professionals struck off by their regulator or sacked by an employer who pose a risk to vulnerable adults or children should be referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which has been very clear that it expects this to happen. In the same way, employers should make referrals about individuals from unregulated groups where they pose a risk of harm to vulnerable adults or children. Providers and employers also play a key role in ensuring safe, high quality care that patients and service users can be confident in, being both responsible and accountable for the staff they employ. Under the registration requirements of the Care Quality Commission, providers must take steps to ensure that at all times there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced persons employed for the purpose of carrying on any regulated activity.

An individual being on a list does not alter this and would not remove employers’ responsibility to undertake a range of checks on the suitability of any persons who they appoint, including qualifications, relevant registrations, employment history and reference checks to ensure that an individual is competent for a specific role. Equally, appropriate delegation and supervision is a necessity within teams made up of both regulated and unregulated professionals and workers. Guidance by the Nursing and Midwifery Council is being updated so that nursing staff know how to delegate appropriately and safely.

We are not ruling out compulsory statutory regulation for healthcare support workers, but our view is that the case has not yet been made for imposing further compulsory statutory regulation, given the tiers of existing regulation and the duties on regulated professionals. There is no solid evidence that demonstrates that healthcare support workers and adult social care workers should be subject to compulsory statutory regulation. Research by King’s College London concluded that little evidence could be deployed to show that regulation of healthcare support workers would reduce the risk to the public, although it was clear that some healthcare workers were undertaking roles that had traditionally been done by nurses. The point is that quality is not always what is delivered. Therefore, we have to try to tackle that concern and not simply assume that regulation will deal with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned, there are regulated professions which are in some instances letting us down. We must focus on the real problem and figure out ways of tackling it.

The Government’s view is that high standards for healthcare support workers and other professional occupational groups can be assured without imposing compulsory statutory regulation. That is why, in the wider context of supporting providers, we are creating through the Bill a system of external quality assurance for voluntary registers. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, there are various examples of voluntary registration for groups of professionals. We are proposing a quality-assured voluntary approach, looking at how those registers are set up and operated and what training is offered and so on. A quality-assured voluntary register will set standards for training, conduct, competence and ethics that all registrants must meet.

My Lords, if the Government are putting so much faith in the quality-assured voluntary register, surely the evidence from King’s College would show that that was not necessary. They cannot have it both ways. Either regulation, and what comes with it, provides advantages or it does not.

Regulation and training are often put as two words in one sentence. Regulation may indeed include training; assured voluntary registers may also include training. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, talked about that. Perhaps I may come on to it, because it is potentially relevant here.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution to this debate, not only today but throughout her time in the House of Lords. We agree that common standards of training are needed for those working in both health and social care, as well as more role-specific training, and that this will lead to a more capable and flexible group of support workers. As we seek to integrate health and social care more effectively, this area deserves a lot of scrutiny.

We expect work on the standards to begin by April 2012 in terms of training, and for them to be agreed ahead of the establishment of voluntary registers for healthcare support workers and adult social care workers, which could be operational from 2013. This will allow unregulated workers to demonstrate that they meet a set of minimum standards for training and are committed to a code of conduct.

My Lords, I still do not understand this. If it is so important that the voluntary registers are established, for the reasons that the Minister has given, why on earth not go the full hog and make registration compulsory? If the Government do not think that it is important, they would not be pursuing the voluntary register approach. However, by taking that approach, they will leave lots of people outside the net.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and others have indicated, one has to be proportionate about this and not think that simply going down the route of regulation is going to crack it. Nevertheless, training and making sure that people are well prepared for the work that they are doing is clearly of great importance. We would expect a voluntary register, quality assured in the way that I have described, to provide a way for employers to assure what they are offering in terms of staff. There will therefore be greater take-up. Those who are on the quality-assured register will find themselves more employable, which will move things forward. Meanwhile, if, as we continue to debate this, voluntary registration does not seem sufficient and regulation seems the route to go down, the Government do not rule that out. However, it is extremely important to focus on the end point, which is to try to drive up quality, and not simply be deflected by thinking that this would crack it.

I assure noble Lords that we will keep this issue under constant review. We are well aware of people’s concerns and that standards need to be driven up in a much more even way across the board. As I say, we are developing the education and training which I hope will go some way towards this.

I wish to pick up on one point. Can the noble Baroness reassure us on what it is she will keep under constant review? I understood her to say that the Government will rely on employers to ensure that these support workers have some kind of training. There will be no national training standards and, once the employers are satisfied that these people have some kind of training, they will be entitled to go on a voluntary register. As I understand it, the logical thing here is first to establish a national standard of training; then to ensure that those national standards are implemented; and then to allow people to register. If they register, the next step would be regulation. The first step is not immediate regulation but national standards of training and assessment that those standards are being met, before people can go through any kind of registration. What is the noble Baroness agreeing to keep under review?

I should perhaps explain that more precisely. This issue will be constantly under review so that if there are concerns in this area they will be flagged up. The Government will of course continually consider how best to respond and make sure that standards are of the quality that we need. The noble Lord is right: national standards of training are indeed the start. Then people are admitted to a register and so on. A voluntary-assured register would demand that kind of national level of standards in training. I hope that in that regard I can at least reassure the noble Lord.

One question has puzzled me more and more as the noble Baroness has progressed. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley laid great stress on the position of the regulated nurses and the fact that they will have to ensure that people working in the healthcare assistant type of roles under their supervision do not take on roles that they are not competent to fulfil. Going back to my description of the way the NHS works in reality, particularly in acute hospitals, there is a constant flow of different people on these wards—regulated and registered staff, agency or bank staff, are there particularly in the evenings, for unsocial hours and at weekends. We have heard a lot about employers. I am still puzzled about how the statutory regulated nurses satisfy themselves about the competence of the healthcare assistants working under their direction. They seem to be the people most exposed—at least theoretically—to cop it from their regulatory body if they have not made extensive inquiries about the competence of these healthcare assistants. How does the noble Baroness square that particular circle if we do not have much knowledge of the training of these people and they have not even registered on a voluntary basis?

The noble Lord will be familiar with being on wards at changeover time and when there is a pooling of information about who is on the ward and what the problems are. Issues are flagged up and one team passes information on to the next.

I have seen many, many changeovers. The proposal is being brought forward so that registered, regulated nurses have a better idea of when and how to delegate, and that is extremely important for the reasons that the noble Lord has just indicated. As I have indicated, the training and national standards of healthcare workers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred, are also important—as is taking that forward so that the registered nurses are aware of the kind of training that those healthcare workers have had. I want to pick up on the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, mentioned about the healthcare worker who was taking a patient’s blood pressure but did not know what the reading meant. Surely, it was for the person to whom that was reported to take action on the significance of that. That information was to be passed on to somebody else to read, understand and interpret.

But if that healthcare assistant does not have the basic training or an understanding of the reading that she or he has just taken, they may not see the importance of reporting it to another nurse.

I am not suggesting that they would. What I am suggesting is that the registered nurse might go and check the chart.

My Lords, perhaps I could be helpful at this stage. I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. A large number of issues have been brought forward; I shall start with the title “nurse”. As noble Lords have mentioned, a person who is nursed—and feels that they have been nursed—experiences care, compassion, respect and dignity. There has been a lot of discussion among the public, and indeed in this House, about registered nurses becoming graduates and whether they will be too posh to wash, to put it colloquially. To me, a nurse who is a graduate would be only too grateful to be able to attend to the basic needs of patients, because that is part of holistic care. When you do various intimate things for patients, you learn a great deal about their condition.

The point that has been raised about the nurse is very important. We talk about support workers but we cannot talk about support nurses, because the term “nurse” is completely left for the statutory requirement of a regulated nurse. We are looking for a support worker who is able to do tasks which they understand, with the skills of the graduate nurse—because by 2013, we will be producing all-graduate nurses—within holistic care. That is the point I was trying to make this morning: it is the holistic care we are looking for in the delivery of care. However, it is not only holistic care in the acute sector; we are looking at the holistic care which is integrated with social care, because we are now looking at patients going into the community. Indeed, people working in the acute sector need to understand that the patients they are discharging are going into the community, which is a different scene and which may require not only a nurse but social care support. Therefore, somewhere in our education we need to bring together a basic core of understanding healthcare, nursing care and social care.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made is very important. We need to conduct this review. On the other hand, the research evidence shows us that as regards highly qualified registered staff, the higher the proportion, the less likely it is that patients will have a longer stay in hospital. They will have a better clinical outcome. I hope that the Government are not going to ignore that research. If possible, we should carry out a truly safe cost-benefit analysis into increasing the number of trained staff, seeing where they are needed, rather than having a higher proportion of support workers.

The Royal College of Nursing has been resolute in putting forward the regulation of healthcare support workers because it feels that that is the way to ensure that they are answerable to a registered nurse. We talk about employers but I am not sure who the employers are going to be—social workers, managers or the nursing profession. This whole issue needs to be taken away and looked at, and perhaps we could return to it. I do not know whether these comments are helpful but I feel strongly about this issue, as noble Lords may have gathered. I pass it back to the Minister.

I hear what the noble Baroness says. She is extremely well informed, as ever, and I hope that she will continue to engage as we take this forward, as she has done up to now. However, at this point I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I am prepared to withdraw but we will probably come back to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 338 withdrawn.

Amendment 338ZA

Moved by

338ZA: After Clause 205, insert the following new Clause—

“Power to regulate clinical physiologists in England

(1) Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 (regulation of health care professions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) regulating the clinical physiology profession in England,”.(3) In that section, after paragraph (bb) insert—

“(bc) regulating clinical physiologists in England who appear to require regulation in pursuance of this section,”.”

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 338ZB, 338F and 339ZB. We return to a regulatory issue. Amendments 338ZA and 339ZB are new clauses relating to the power to regulate clinical physiologists in England. Amendment 338ZB is a new clause requiring clinical physiologists to be registered by the Health Professions Council. Amendment 338F says that the Health Professions Council, in exercising its functions, shall co-operate with the regulation of clinical physiology in England and with the provision, supervision or management of services of people engaging in clinical physiology in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has an amendment in this group and we support what she is proposing.

I am sure that other noble Lords have received the helpful briefing note from the Registration Council for Clinical Physiologists, which highlights that the Government’s current approach—a preference for voluntary registration, as the Minister outlined in the previous debate—has been applied to clinical physiologists, despite a recommendation from the Health Professions Council in 2004 for statutory regulation. The RCCP has a substantial amount of evidence suggesting that, in the case of clinical physiologists, voluntary self-regulation is not as effective as statutory regulation.

In the Command Paper Enabling Excellence: Autonomy and Accountability for Health and Social Care Staff, the Government stated that statutory regulation would be considered for those professions where a compelling patient safety case could be made and be supported by an evidence-based cost-benefit risk analysis. Ten months later, though, no such risk assessment has been undertaken, and the RCCP continues to believe that clinical physiologists should be statutorily regulated.

The disciplines that are covered by clinical physiology are audiology, cardiology, gastrointestinal physiology, neurophysiology and respiratory physiology. Clinical physiologists work directly with patients, performing sensitive procedures such as assessments of pacemakers, testing lung function and assessing and diagnosing hearing loss. Many of the procedures performed by clinical physiologists in the UK are performed by statutorily regulated professionals in much of western Europe and by clinicians in the United States.

A body that I have mentioned, the Registration Council for Clinical Physiologists, maintains a voluntary register of clinical physiologists in the UK and Northern Ireland. It has more than 5,000 registrants across a number of different disciplines in clinical physiology. These professionals play an integral part in the process of diagnosis and treatment, undertaking procedures such as ECGs, which pose significant risks to patients. That, really, is the point here.

While the profession as a whole enjoys an excellent reputation and high standards of working practice, the continued lack of statutory regulation for its registrants means that there will continue to be gaps in its oversight, which comes with inherent risks to patients. Therefore, we believe that the Government’s preference for regulation through assured voluntary registration is not sufficient for this particular group of healthcare workers. They need to be statutorily protected; a voluntary scheme is not sufficient and there is a threat to patient safety. I hope that the Government will consider this a reasonable request on the profession’s part. I have to say that I fail to understand why this has not been taken forward and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to the Committee why clinical physiology cannot have statutory regulation in the context of patient protection. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should just like to add my support for this amendment. Clinical physiologists, who perform some very invasive procedures, feel that they need statutory regulation. They have had a voluntary scheme, which they say is not adequate.

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister to clarify a point of some importance. Many years ago, in the early stages of my neurological career, I was involved in interpreting electroence- phalograms. Subsequently, I was heavily involved in the pursuit of electromyography—a technique for measuring the electrical activity of the muscles in health and disease—and in measuring nerve conduction velocity. I also looked at evoked nerve potentials. A group of individuals grew up in that field originally; it was called the EEG Society. Then there was the Electrophysiological Technologists’ Association—the EPTA—of which I was briefly president. Eventually they came together to form the association of clinical neurophysiologists.

The Health Professions Council regulates 15 health professions, including biomedical scientists and clinical scientists. My understanding is that clinical neurophysiologists, like other clinical physiologists, are not included in or embraced by the term “clinical scientist”. However, I wish to know whether they are covered by the Health Professions Council. If they are not, it is important that they should be regulated. For that reason, if they are not included at present under the terms of the Health Professions Council, I strongly support this amendment.

My Lords, in supporting this amendment I declare an interest. Not only my former patients but I, as a patient, have received skilled help from clinical physiologists. The pacing unit at St Mary’s Hospital, which is run by clinical physiologists, has monitored my pacemaker since it was fitted four and a half years ago. My life has literally been in their hands while they periodically adjust my heartbeat to get the best setting.

The Registration Council for Clinical Physiologists, which has been described, has been trying to persuade the Department of Health to include the profession in the mandatory regulatory framework for health professionals for the best part of a decade. The Health Professions Council recommended in 2004 that clinical physiologists should be included in its regulatory regime, as well as other clinical scientists whose work involves a potential impact on patient safety. The then Secretary of State accepted this recommendation but still no action was taken and has since not been taken despite frequent reminders from me, among others. On my count, 30 parliamentary Questions have been tabled on this issue. It has also been raised in your Lordships' House in a debate on an order to do with the Health Professions Council. I hope that this amendment will serve to speed up the process by focusing the Government’s attention on an overdue step that we feel needs to be taken.

My Lords, this group of amendments is very interesting as it reveals the enormous number of people involved in healthcare who literally hold the lives of others in their hands and are not subject to any statutory regulation but are voluntarily registered. I have an amendment in this group which seeks to establish,

“a statutory register of Physicians’ Assistants (Anaesthesia)”

and of other healthcare professionals. I will speak about that in a moment in relation to clinical perfusion scientists.

Physicians’ assistants in anaesthesia already have a voluntary register in place and they applied to the Health Professions Council for registration and had their application accepted. However, that all went on hold with the emergence of this Bill. The Royal College of Anaesthetists does not allow physicians’ assistants in anaesthesia to become associates as they are not registered with the General Medical Council, but it permits them to have affiliate membership. However, the college does not have a regulatory role as such; it is tied up with education and standards.

Physicians’ assistants in anaesthesia urgently need statutory regulation, given the range of invasive, and potentially life-threatening, procedures that they perform and the knowledge and autonomy of practice required in the roles that they carry out. These practitioners perform tasks that, in the UK, were previously carried out only by doctors. They cannot get indemnity insurance for their practice or apply for prescribing rights, even though they sometimes have to be able to respond in a matter of seconds, not minutes, if something goes catastrophically wrong with an anaesthetised patient while the anaesthetist is outside the theatre for whatever reason. They are on a voluntary register, which provides some reassurance for patients and employers, but that cannot realistically be seen as an alternative to statutory regulation. I think that in 2009 they were identified by the Department of Health as being urgently in need of registration. The Health Professions Council felt that these assistants fulfilled sufficient of its criteria to warrant the recommendation for statutory regulation being accepted.

Irrespective of whether Members of this House have undergone a procedure requiring anaesthesia, would they consent to being rendered unconscious by an individual who was neither bound by a stringent professional code of conduct nor properly registered to practise? After all, we would not get into an aeroplane if we did not know that both the pilot and the co-pilot were appropriately qualified to a very high degree, with ongoing continuing professional registration. We trust them just as we trust these physicians’ assistants, but if something goes wrong in theatre it does so with catastrophic rapidity. When I did my training in anaesthesia, on more than one occasion I saw these physicians’ assistants recognise problems arising before the trainee anaesthetists had done so. They carry enormous responsibility during complex procedures.

I have included other healthcare professionals in my amendment as I am well aware that the Government do not like to have enormous lists in a Bill. My amendment would therefore leave the door open to include clinical perfusion scientists—the other group involved in theatre—whose role is primarily to maintain a patient’s circulation during open-heart surgery, during a period of surgical repair when the heart has been stopped. They were recommended in 2003 for statutory regulation.

There have been two high-profile cases involving clinical perfusion scientists. The first fatality, in 1999, led the Southwark coroner to recommend the immediate statutory regulation of clinical perfusion scientists. The second fatality, in 2005, was attributed to inappropriate drug administration by a clinical perfusion scientist during an operation on a five-month-old baby at Bristol Royal Infirmary. That led to the publication of the Gritten report, which concluded that:

“The incident occurred because of latent weakness that lay dormant for years hidden by healthcare professionals compensating for inadequacies within national and local systems”.

The report recommended that action at national level should include,

“regulation and guidance on perfusion practice in cardiopulmonary bypass”.

More recently, there have been fatalities that have led to clinical perfusion scientists’ actions being questioned by coroners—the most recent of these incidents occurring in 2010 at Nottingham City Hospital.

I do not want to scare people from going in for surgery and I do not want to scare Members of this House who may be going in for surgery, but in the current climate people need to know that these very critical roles are being undertaken by people who are on a voluntary register but do not enjoy indemnity, as they would if they were on a statutory register and subject to the rigours of being statutorily regulated.

My Lords, I do not want to sound like a broken record in always resisting more statutory regulation or in disagreeing with colleagues with whom I normally agree, but I want to emphasise the application of light-touch regulation. We should use only the minimum regulatory force to achieve the desired result. Therefore, we should be considering extending regulation only where the risks to patient safety and public protection are such that other mechanisms such as those I previously mentioned—employer’s guidance, clinical governance, appropriate delegation and multidisciplinary teamworking—are unable to manage those risks.

When the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence becomes the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, it will be accrediting voluntary registers as a more proportionate and targeted approach to developing high standards of care for people working in health and social care who are not statutorily regulated. I remind your Lordships that statutory regulation can be expensive and it is important that we explore and develop a range of options for maintaining and improving the quality of care delivered by people working in health and social care. It may be more proportionate, for instance, to promote greater co-operation and sharing of good practice. We seek to find the most efficient and common-sense solutions to the kind of problems that your Lordships have identified.

What proportion of voluntary persons employed in operating theatres are expected to be affected? Is it not the case that the great proportion of them are specialists who are subject to statutory regulation?

Currently, a great proportion are in statutory regulation, given that voluntary regulation is being developed. The CHRE is currently working on that.

My Lords, I should like to press this question in the context of the amendments in this group. What is the Government’s rationale for making a difference between statutory registration and quality-assured voluntary registration? The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has used terms such as “light-touch”, “proportionate”, “appropriate”, “not so expensive” and so on. However, I have difficulty in seeing consistency here.

On the one hand, we can see that there are very small groups such as clinical perfusion scientists who are employed in only a few centres where open-heart surgery is being done. One could see that there may be a degree of expense in setting up a whole scheme of statutory registration. However, when it comes to groups such as clinical scientists and physiologists, there is a much larger number, but almost all of them are employed in the National Health Service. I understand the argument that they are all, or almost all, operating under the supervision of people who are statutorily registered and are operating in the context of the NHS, which deals with financial claims and so on.

However, as noble Lords will know, I have raised repeatedly—perhaps even tiresomely—the question of statutory registration of psychotherapists and counsellors. When I raised it again not so long ago with the Minister, he responded that, no, the Government did not want to go ahead on that front; they wanted quality-assured voluntary registers. The same kind of rules do not apply. Why? First, there is a huge number of these people—certainly enough for it not to be a financial question, as small contributions from all of them would be enough to set up a statutory registration scheme. Secondly, the majority of psychotherapists and counsellors work outside of, and therefore are not subject to the kind of regulation that takes place in, the National Health Service. On top of that, a large proportion of them work on their own, so they are not supervised by statutorily registered colleagues and they are not employed by employers who, Ministers have assured us, would consider their qualifications and supervision.

Although, in the context of the current crop of amendments, the argument has been made on the basis of expense and on the basis that these people operate within and are employed by the health service—and are therefore under the supervision of statutorily registered senior colleagues—none of those arguments applies to those who are working in the private sector on their own account. Such people are employed only by the patients who are consulting them, and there is a large number of them.

What requirements help Her Majesty's Government to judge whether a profession has statutory registration or quality-assured voluntary registration? None of the arguments that have been adduced is applied consistently.

What is troubling me about this whole exercise is that, under the Health Professions Council, statutory regulation applies to art therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists, clinical scientists, dieticians, hearing-aid dispensers, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, paramedics, physiotherapists, practitioner psychologists —in what way do practitioner psychologists differ from the psychologists to whom the noble Lord referred?—and many others. A lot of these people are already regulated. Where the statutorily regulated bodies end and the voluntarily regulated bodies begin is very unclear.

It may seem a little unclear to the noble Lord, but it is not so unclear. Psychologists are qualified as psychologists, not as psychotherapists or as counsellors—they belong to a different professional body and have different qualifications and requirements. Psychologists themselves campaigned for many years for statutory regulation and finally got it through the Health Professions Council. Arts therapists and so on went through the HPC because many of them were occupational therapists, but try as I might—and I have been doing so for well over a decade—I cannot get successive Governments to address the question of psychotherapists and counsellors, despite the fact that they constitute a far larger number of people.

My dilemma with the current set of propositions is that, of the arguments adduced to try to persuade noble Lords that a quality-assured voluntary registration scheme is appropriate because the people referred to—the physiologists, the perfusion scientists and so on—are operating within the health service under supervision, are employed there and are smallish in number, none of them applies to this other group of people, for whom I have had precisely the same reply from the Minister. Therefore, I am keen to hear from the Government what the set of criteria is. Is it simply that this Government are not keen to pursue anything in the way of regulation except at the most modest level? If so, that is a legitimate argument but it needs to be made. If not, then I do not quite see the consistency of the current application.

Perhaps I may add a small point. I do not know how many physicians in anaesthesia are employed in operating theatres in private hospitals, where an enormous amount of private surgery is done. One of the main reasons for people going to a private hospital is for surgery—particularly elective orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, although I cannot put any figures on this, I do not think that it is correct to assume that these people are necessarily operating only in the NHS and are subject to current NHS structures.

In the new world where we will have a broad range of providers, it will become even more important to know that there is a minimum standard and that all the people at each step of the way will be answerable. The patient may well choose to go to an organisation where these people are employed but the patient will not know that. No one gives him a list and says, “Of all these people looking after you, these will be statutorily registered but these may or may not be on a voluntary register”. If we are thinking about patients taking informed decisions regarding their future, I suggest that the coroners’ reports that we have had to date should already be sounding alarm bells.

My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I want to make just a couple of points, as I think that most of the others have already been covered.

I am looking at some information sent in an open letter from the Registration Council for Clinical Physiologists to Anne Milton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place. Interestingly, in that open letter the registration council, which operates a voluntary register, takes the view that the council is rather toothless. It says that the professions covered by clinical physiologists will continue to be,

“saddled with a toothless system of voluntary registration, in which those managing the registers are exposed to unacceptable legal risk when attempting to enforce the meagre sanctions at their disposal and maintain professional standards”.

It says it is evident that those administering the current inadequate voluntary registration process are being threatened with civil action by those whom they are forced to reprimand. It is a pretty poor state of affairs when those who are trying to enforce professional standards are themselves threatened with legal action.

I know from talking to people involved with the registration council that people leave the register when disciplinary issues come to the fore. I gather that in one instance a person left the register when faced with discipline, emigrated to Australia, continued to practise and got in trouble there. As I understand it, the Australian statutory body that exists for clinical physiologists was astonished to discover that there was no statutory regulation in force in this country.

I do not think that we can continue with this so-called voluntary system and light touch. We need to do what other countries do and have statutory responsibilities and statutory training and registration for these very important groups of staff.

My Lords, these amendments seek to extend compulsory statutory regulation to physicians’ assistants in anaesthesia and clinical physiologists and to make changes to legislation to further provide for the compulsory statutory regulation of clinical physiologists.

I make it clear at the start that healthcare scientists such as clinical physiologists play an important and highly valued role as part of clinical teams, and this is also true of physicians’ assistants. It is a testament to their professionalism that the Department of Health is not aware of any general concerns about the standards of practice of either group. Furthermore, we need to be absolutely clear that the purpose of regulation is to protect the public, not to support the development of a profession.

Given the wider systems of assurance in place such as the Care Quality Commission’s registration requirements, and the vetting and barring scheme, the Government do not consider that the case for compulsory statutory regulation of these groups of healthcare scientists not already subject to regulation, and physicians’ assistants, has been made. However, we agree that there need to be processes to ensure high standards of care, and assured voluntary registration overseen by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care has the potential to provide this. It will ensure that there are robust standards of conduct and training. It will be open to employers and commissioners to insist on only recruiting staff on voluntary registers. Those doing so would secure many of the benefits of compulsory regulation. Both healthcare scientists and physicians’ assistants already have established voluntary registers and would be well placed to seek accreditation from the authority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked why we were not taking forward the regulation of clinical physiologists as recommended by the Health Professions Council. The recommendations of the Health Professions Council were not based on an assessment of the risk presented by a profession, but rather on whether that profession had already developed processes of assurance which prepared them for professional regulation. There is therefore no evidence that compulsory statutory regulation is necessary to mitigate the risks posed by the professions recommended for such regulation by the Health Professions Council. This is probably why the previous Government did not decide to regulate, although this is an issue that has been flagged up for a number of years. The professions recommended by the Health Professions Council for compulsory statutory regulation will be well placed to join the system of assured voluntary registration that we are proposing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about research in terms of regulating clinical physiologists. We are not planning on commissioning research into the case for regulating them, but we will review the case for introducing compulsory statutory regulation for clinical physiologists and, obviously, others in the light of experience of assured voluntary registration, and the evidence about risks available.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us what sort of timescale she envisages for this, or whether it will have to wait until an accident happens like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, recorded and then the Government will deal with it.

The noble Baroness will be fully aware, because she was a health Minister, that if there is no evidence of there being a risk then you do not choose to regulate. That is presumably why the previous Government chose not to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, flagged up the position of anaesthetists’ assistants. I had interesting discussions yesterday with an anaesthetist and an anaesthetist’s assistant, and it was very enlightening. As the noble Baroness will know, the anaesthetist is of course ultimately responsible. Assistants must always be supervised by a consultant who needs to be available within two minutes. The issue that the noble Baroness raises is one of quality assurance. As she knows, the Royal College of Anaesthetists runs the training and the registration for those assistants. After they have done a science degree, generally it is 27 months of practice. If the Royal College of Anaesthetists judges that that is inadequate, on the basis of the kind of concerns that the noble Baroness raises, then it is clearly for it to say that there are risks, it has encountered risks, and that needs to be addressed. If this system comes under the quality assurance system that I mentioned earlier, there will be another body looking at whether that kind of training, assurance and registration is adequate. However, there have not been cases flagged up as causing concern. I also point out that there are few anaesthetists’ assistants. They are more generally used in other countries, I gather, but not so much in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked why there is not more statutory regulation. In some ways I think I have addressed that. Although compulsory statutory regulation is sometimes necessary, one has to look at the risks and at what is proportionate.

The health Minister Anne Milton said that those professions in which a patient safety case can be made, including that of clinical physiologists, will be considered for statutory regulation subject to a cost-benefit risk analysis. Will the Government carry out that analysis and, if so, when and in what time? I do not particularly want an answer about what my Government may or may not have done or may or may not have decided. The noble Baroness’s own Minister has pronounced on this matter since the general election so it seems to me that she needs to answer the question: when will they do the risk analysis?

I have already mentioned to the noble Baroness—she is probably totally familiar with this—that the Department of Health does not have evidence of there being a risk in this regard. Clearly, as I mentioned on the earlier group, these issues will always be kept under review. If the concerns that she has flagged up and if the association, which is particularly encouraging the regulation of clinical physiologists—that is fine; it is all part of professionalisation—flags up particular concerns that emerge from other evidence, then of course the department will take that very seriously. However, things need to be proportionate.