Health Bill [HL]

Before I speak to the amendment, I would like to make a few general points and seek a bit of clarification on innovation prizes. Of course, everyone thinks that they are a good idea. They are one of those things that you could not possibly oppose, because we all want innovation in the health service. However, there is a slight worry among health professionals to ensure that the prizes cover everyone working in the health service, not just eminent consultants and leaders of clinical teams—that if it is to be an innovation prize, it should cover doctors, nurses, professions allied to medicine, managers and all other people working in the health service who want improvement in the way healthcare is delivered. There is also concern—I am certainly concerned—about what body will decide who gets innovation prizes, and who will decide on the composition of that body. It is important to make sure that there is a general membership that reflects the whole health service, not just the clinical side. Having worked in the health service—not as a consultant—I worried about and saw the competition and machinations that went on about the old merit awards in the past, and saw how unfair they were seen to be. Everyone was glad to see the back of them and to see the clinical excellence awards put in their place. However, there is still a nasty taste in people’s mouths about those things, so we need to make very sure that innovation prizes are separate from clinical excellence awards and that the two do not cross over. I would be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that point for me. It would be useful to know whether the prize will be a reward for work done, or an award in the form of a grant for a good idea that someone needs the money to implement. The subject of our amendment is that the money for innovation prizes must clearly not come out of existing research, training or education budgets.