Blog

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the open letter from the British Dental Association to the Chairman of the General Dental Council (GDC) of 1 April on the GDC’s spending on external legal advice, redundancy payments and related external PR services during the Professional Services Authority whistle-blowing inquiry, and what action they intend to take in the light of that assessment.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The General Dental Council (GDC) is an independent statutory body. Ministers take a keen interest in the performance of the GDC and its plans for improvement, particularly in light of the Professional Standards Authority’s (PSA) performance review and publication of its investigation into concerns raised by a whistleblower. A copy of the PSA’s report, A report on the investigation into the General Dental Council’s handling of a whistleblower’s disclosure about the Investigating Committee, is attached.

The GDC is required under the Dentist Act 1984 to prepare a statement of accounts and for those accounts to be audited. These accounts would cover all expenditure including that during the PSA investigation. The statement of accounts and auditor’s report are then published and properly scrutinised, including being certified and reported on by the Controller and Auditor General and being laid before Parliament and the Scottish Parliament by the Privy Council.

The Department has no plans to ask the National Audit Office to carry out a value for money examination of the GDC’s financial management.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will establish a public inquiry into care failings in the Liverpool Community NHS Trust in the light of findings that executive directors of the trust downgraded serious risks or incidents and kept information from non-executive board members.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are assured by NHS Improvement that it continues to work closely with the Trust following the support provided by the NHS Trust Development Authority (NTDA). Following the Care Quality Commission’s report of 2014, the NTDA took immediate steps to improve the skill set within the executive team, commissioned a board capability review and provided clinical and quality support in developing and delivering a quality improvement plan. As further issues came to light, the non-executive and the executive teams at the time of the failings were replaced.

A recent independent review made clear that the drive of the board to achieve foundation trust (FT) status was a dominant factor which contributed towards the failures of the trust. The report suggests that the board was managed in the way it was to ensure the FT application remained on track and that this led to downplaying of risks. A copy of this review, Quality, safety and management assurance review at Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust, is attached.

The Trust withdrew its application for FT status in January 2015. It is now actively working towards a transaction that is likely to see the trust’s services being delivered by alternative providers

In addition to a new leadership team in place, a number of other measures are being progressed. There is an ongoing improvement plan, the continued support of NHS Improvement, implementation of the independent review’s recommendations and a well-advanced transaction proposal that is likely to lead to the eventual disestablishment of the Trust. However we will consider the possibility of a further review with the leadership of NHS Improvement.

NHS Improvement is currently developing a new approach to authorising FTs. It will allow National Health Service trusts to demonstrate they meet the standards expected of FT status without the process becoming a serious distraction for them.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evaluation has been undertaken to ensure that the £200 million National Transformation Fund for 2015–16 provided value for money.

Lord Prior of Brampton

For the new care models programme, vanguards were selected based on a transparent and rigorous process, which considered the full range of value that they could deliver for their patients and for the wider National Health Service.

New care model vanguards were required to submit ‘value propositions’ making the case for investment from the transformation fund. Money was only released once these were assessed, and approved.

National support was designed based on what the vanguards said they needed to support them to deliver, and included work with them to develop a robust monitoring and evaluation framework. The national support helped ensure that vanguards are well positioned for success, and checks that money has been spent as planned, quarterly in arrears.

An independent, multi-year evaluation will examine the longer-term impact of the new care models programme and its cost effectiveness.

Other transformation programmes (for example, the Diabetes Prevention Scheme or the Healthy New Towns programme), not directly connected with the new care models programme, each have their own evaluation work-streams based on similar principles to those being used in the new care models programme. The results from these evaluations are not yet available as the implementation of these programmes has just begun.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to ensure that Clinical Commissioning Groups in the West Midlands abide by the guidance issued by the Royal College of Surgeons and accredited by NICE in their consultation on procedures of low clinical value”.”

Lord Prior of Brampton

It is for clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to determine how to use the resources available to meet the needs of their patients, taking account of national clinical guidance.

NHS England advises that CCGs across the West Midlands are jointly developing a policy on procedures of low clinical value. The CCGs have stated their decisions will consider all relevant national standards and take into account all proper and authoritative guidance. NHS England is ensuring an equality impact assessment will be undertaken and will be notified when this is completed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under which legislative provision the Secretary of State has the power to impose junior doctors’ contracts on (1) GP practices that are not public bodies and deliver services to patients under a General Medical Services contract; (2) GP practices that are not public bodies and deliver services to patients under an Alternative Personal Medical Services contract; (3) local authorities that employ junior doctors to deliver public health services; and (4) NHS Trusts otherwise than by way of directions.

Lord Prior of Brampton

In deciding that a new contract – which would be safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors – should be introduced without further negotiation with the British Medical Association, the Secretary of State was exercising his powers under the NHS Act 2006 (in particular sections 1, 1A, 1B, 1F, 1G and 2). To introduce the contract he is working with the National Health Service and other employers who, as they are employers of junior doctors, are using their employment powers. The Secretary of State has not announced, and does not state, that he has a power to direct all NHS bodies or non-NHS bodies providing healthcare services.