Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for giving us the benefit of his thoughts and considerations during the past few days. Clearly his opinion, and that of the department, has hardened against the amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and to the Minister that no one in the House has a monopoly of compassion for the individual patient. We clearly have a difference of opinion as to how the Bill will operate in respect of particular patients and whether by coercing local government into certain actions that will be to the benefit of the patient. It is a fundamental difference of opinion and I propose to seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 119.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 11:
Clause 6 [Liability to make delayed discharge payments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 12:
Clause 7 [Delayed discharge payments: supplementary]:
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 13:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to a crucial amendment in ensuring that the Bill is balanced when it leaves your Lordships' House. When the Bill arrived here from another place, it was not a balanced Bill. Your Lordships have rectified some of that imbalance. In particular, patients and carers who were marginalised by the Bill in the form that it arrived here will now get a better deal.
We now need to address the imbalance between the NHS and local government. The Minister may seek to deny that the Bill is heavily weighted against local government but denial of the Bill's consequences has been a consistent theme from Ministers throughout our deliberations. They blame local government for causing delays in discharging patientsespecially the elderlyfrom hospital. The Government have rightly encouraged local authorities and the NHS to work in partnership to solve the problems, which is exactly what has been happening. Not all parts of the country have been as effective as the best. Some local authorities are still struggling to overcome the decimation of the care home sector that is the result of government policiesbut real progress has been made. However, the Government have always acted as if Rome could indeed be built in a day and, before the new partnership agreements have had a chance to prove themselves, they have changed tack again and decided that a system of fines would sharpen the mind of local government.
Your Lordships will know that financial penalties indeed concentrate the mind; but also that unless penalties are carefully designed, they are likely to overwhelm other system drivers. In this case, they are likely to result in a complete failure of the partnerships that have so carefully been built up. Revealingly, the Minister spoke during our debate on the previous amendment of local authorities taking the maximum time to arrange discharges allowed under the Bill. It is clear from his comments that the Government now assume that partnership working will be killed by the Bill.
Putting that to one side, the system of fines is not even neutral for the NHS. The fines become a revenue stream for a hard-pressed NHS. Do not be fooled by government claims of large amounts of money going to the NHS. Most of the NHS is struggling to balance its books and is achieving precious little extra activity from the money. The fines will be a real financial incentive to the NHS to discharge patients as soon as possible.
So what is the problem with that? There is a major risk that discharges from hospitals will be premature and patients will end up as emergency readmissions. That is a thoroughly miserable prospect for elderly people. We may hear from the Minister another denial of the linkage between early discharge and emergency readmission, but he cannot deny that, following the Government's various initiatives to date on delayed discharge, readmission levels are at record levels and that rates are now as high as they have been since the Government came to power. We fear that the fines will lead to a rocketing readmission rate. That is simply not good enough for patients.
That is why the amendment mentions a system of incentives to prevent the NHS discharging patients inappropriately. At present, the Bill creates an adverse incentive. We need a positive incentive scheme in the NHS to encourage it to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. We need incentives not just to prevent
At various stages of the Bill's passage, the Minister has given us several versions of incentives that may or may not operate in the NHS. He began by relying on some technical financial flows incentives, possibly starting from 2005-06. But those have been unmasked as potentially illusory and certainly have no immediacy. He has also prayed in aid the system of star ratings, the performance management apparatus, the periodic reviews by the Commission for Health Improvement and even the £100 million promised for the Bill that has still not been handed out to local government. I doubt that any noble Lord who took part in earlier debate on the Bill was impressed by any of that.
Amendment No. 13 is simple. The fining aspect of the Billalthough, I stress, no otherwould be delayed until the Secretary of State had determined that a system of incentives within NHS bodies operated to discourage them from inappropriately discharging patients.
I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will understand that this is a reasonable, balancing measure, I beg to move.
"( ) Section 6 shall not come into force until 30 days after the Secretary of State has determined that the systems of incentives within NHS bodies operate to discourage NHS bodies from discharging patients inappropriately."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page