Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 November 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.


Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, I wanted to intervene on this group of amendments because I have been trying, without success, to find out how to table an amendment relating to how the new architecture will deal with the most chronically excluded. Some of them will require alcohol services, which we shall come to later, but many of them will require other medical services. In addition, many of them will not have a fixed abode or will not have a fixed abode for very long. Therefore, they will be moving around. When I asked the chief executive of the Commissioning Board who would deal with these people, I was rather concerned to be told that it would be clinical commissioning groups. CCGs might do so, but I am not convinced that they necessarily will. First, CCGs may well not be very aware of the numbers involved, particularly if they are not inner-city commissioning groups, and they may well not be aware of the complexity of response that such people will require. These will be people who require some medical intervention as well as other forms of intervention and support. At the moment, much of the medical attention that these people receive is fragmented and is often not the appropriate intervention, and they can be a real nuisance in places such as A&E. The Government need to listen to those in the voluntary sector who say, ““We need a new approach to how we work with people with these multiple conditions and we need to make sure that we get it right””. However, the NHS has a responsibility—it does not stand outside this—and this matter will need to be looked at on a wider and more expansive level than simply that of the CCG. In this country we assume that, because we have GPs, people will automatically be registered with them and will be looked after. However, my experience of working with these most frequently disturbed and disadvantaged people has been that they fall through the net again and again, and somehow we have to make sure that that does not happen. Due to work that I have done in the past and because I am currently involved with a voluntary organisation, I have previously discussed with the Minister ways in which that can be achieved effectively. I do not pretend that it will be easy or that we can simply lay something down in legislation and it will all happen. However, somewhere in the middle of that there is a way forward. I hope that in considering the amendments—particularly those of my noble friend Lord Hunt—the Government will work on this issue and come back with clarification that this group of people will not fall through a net in the new architecture.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c702-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Disclosure of information Alcoholic drinks Armed forces Costs Advisory services Equality Health Hospitals Health services Finance Environmental health HIV/AIDS Homelessness Learning disability District councils Hepatitis Local government NHS Prisons Misuse Measurement Mental health services Mental health Obesity Maternity services Schools Reform Communication skills Risk assessment Secure psychiatric units Speech and language disorders NHS Commissioning Board Public Health England Health and wellbeing boards Veterans Clinical commissioning groups
Legislation
Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk