Transforming Care Programme — House of Commons, 2018-07-05
Topic: Health
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Again, I entirely share the hon. Lady’s view. I work closely with Sir Stephen Bubb and we have exactly the same view about this. He and I attended a meeting about a year ago with NHS England to discuss progress, or the lack of it. The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a culture of looking at things again and again, and then doing nothing about the conclusions reached, which is wholly unacceptable At that time, three issues stood out, and they involved perverse incentives that acted to prevent change from happening. First—this is extraordinary—the person who was making the critical decision about whether an individual should stay in a bed or be discharged was, and still is, the clinician employed by the provider organisation that makes money out of the person staying in the bed. That total conflict of interest has never been confronted. As Minister, I kept asking NHS England to act to address that issue, but it has not yet been resolved. If a private sector organisation is earning £4,000 or £5,000 every week from someone being in a bed, there is a strong incentive to keep them in that bed. There is also an incentive for public sector organisations that want to maintain their existence, and that conflict of interest has never been confronted Secondly, there is a complete failure to invest properly in community provision. This is all about the need to shift resources from institutional care to community support; in other words, shifting money from NHS England to local authorities. The original transforming care concordat made it clear that there should be a pooling of resources between specialist commissioning, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, seven years on we are still waiting for a proper pooling of resources so that the money can actually shift and investment can be made in community resources The third insight I had at that time was the most extraordinary and wholly unacceptable exclusion of families and individuals from any decisions that were being made about their care. This, I am afraid, continues today. It is very far from the personalised care that the NHS and the Government say they are committed to. In the light of what I saw as our complete collective failure to deliver that change—this was the thing that caused me most distress as Minister—I decided that we had to come up with new proposals for new legal rights, so that families and individuals could challenge decisions that were being made behind their backs about where they would be cared for and treated Shortly before the 2015 general election, we published a Green Paper, I think in March 2015, called, "No Voice Unheard, No Right Ignored". It has an important title, but I am afraid that those rights and those voices are still unheard and ignored because it has never been implemented. Nothing proposed in the Green Paper has been taken forward by the Government. We now have a review of the Mental Health Act 1983, so there is another opportunity to address the scandalous lack of rights for individuals, but the time it will take before there is any legislation will be very long—I doubt whether it will be in this Parliament—and families will just be left waiting At that time I worked with Sara Ryan, a remarkable woman and the mother of Connor Sparrowhawk, known as Laughing Boy. He was a young man in the "care" of Southern Health who lost his life while he was within its institution. He drowned in a bath because of neglect. The Health and Safety Executive had decided not to investigate the case. I intervened and asked it to reconsider. It then decided that it could investigate and eventually, years later, prosecutions and convictions followed. The result of the tragedy that struck that family was that Sara Ryan and an amazing group of people worked together to produce a Bill that would have strengthened the rights of individuals. We worked closely with them in the production of that Green Paper Because no progress was being made following the 2015 general election, the Government and NHS England embarked on a new process. In October 2015, they published a document called "Building the Right Support". The plan was to close between 35% and 50% of in-patient beds and, critically, ensure that local areas developed the right community support by—this is the critical date—March next year. The plan involved the creation of 48 transforming care partnerships covering the whole country. These partnerships between NHS England specialist regional commissioners, local authorities and CCGs were to facilitate the shift of money from NHS England to local authorities, so that people could be cared for in the community There was a plan for people who had already been in in-patient care for more than five years at April 2016 to be given a dowry to facilitate their transfer into community support. When campaigners asked how many dowries had been provided, NHS England said it did not know because it did not have any records on that. What kind of implementation of a national programme is it when we do not even know, and have no way of telling, how many dowries have been delivered? And why was it just for that one cohort of people? Surely every person stuck in a hospital or institution has the right to have the money go with them on their journey back into the community. I want to know from the Government how many dowries have been delivered so far and whether they will become part of the programme in the future As I said, the programme ends in March next year, along with other work on learning disabilities which campaigners are concerned will continue—I will come back to that at the end—including the learning disabilities mortality review. There has already been a lot of concern expressed about how the annual report was slipped out the day after the local election at the beginning of May. The report contained pretty shocking findings, with life expectancy falling massively short of the rest of us—for men by about 22 years; for women, by 29 years—without any clear justification. Some 13% of the cohort of people looked at in the mortality review were cases where the person’s health had been adversely affected by delays in care or treatment, gaps in services or organisational dysfunction, neglect or abuse. Those findings are shocking and concerning. The question for the Government, which I will come back to, is what happens with the findings of mortality reviews. We can all express concern when they are published, but unless there is a plan of action to address the failings identified in them then nothing will change The nine principles in the "Building the Right Support" document are very good. They are all focused on personalised care and getting people into the community, which we all agree must happen.