Health Bill

I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in part. The issue of information about medicines and prescribing comes into play quite often, particularly in the field in which I work, which is the care of older people. I have long been concerned that the way in which patient information about medication is dealt with is, in practice, very different from what is stipulated by the law. That is often for good reason. For example, people dealing with older people who have had an emergency episode and are taken off to hospital, say in an ambulance, can see the immediate and direct benefits to that person of sending with them a list of their medication. It saves hours of time in A&E. That is a practice which social care professionals see as beneficial to people but which horrifies medical professionals. Similarly, those dealing with people making the transition from secondary care to primary care know quite horrifying tales about the way in which their medicine information does not follow them. As NHS services move into different settings, I suspect that this is an area in which there is likely to be a great deal more scope for inventive pragmatists to get round the existing rules. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about patient consent being missing from the clause. It is entirely right that a range of different professionals should have access to information that makes care pathways quicker, but only if it is with patient consent. The noble Earl has touched on an important and bigger issue than can perhaps be dealt with now. We all know that the clause has been drafted as it has because of the Shipman case, where no one noticed the pattern of prescribing or what was happening to individuals. Somehow there has to be clarity, but there also has to be consent. I support the noble Earl up to a point.