The Mid-Staffordshire inquiry: where there’s a political will, there’s a way

There are interesting parallels between the Francis report and the Macpherson inquiry report into the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

We hope and expect that implementation of our Recommendations will ensure that the opportunity for radical thinking and root and branch action is seized. Nothing less will satisfy us and all those who so passionately spoke to us during our hearings

These words are not taken from the long-awaited Francis report, but rather from the Macpherson inquiry report (1999) into the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence on a south London street in 1993.  

There are a number of interesting parallels between the Francis and Macpherson reports. Both followed lengthy inquiries into specific incidents involving local "branches" of much wider public services - the Metropolitan Police and Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Each inquiry team was exhaustive in the way it examined the evidence presented to it. Both reports provide a damning analysis of unjustifiable operational, management and systems failings.

Arguably, the real significance of both reports is not simply what they told us about the individual public services concerned, but rather what they revealed about society and our expectations of key public services.  The true relevance of the Francis report is not simply limited to the relatively small number of NHS hospitals; rather, its findings will impact across the whole health and social care system. Just as the Macpherson inquiry report led to systemic changes within the Metropolitan Police and all other police forces, so Francis must trigger a recalibration of all health and social care services, regardless of location, size or the type of organisation providing the service.

All organisations which deliver health and social care services would be wise to spend the next few days and weeks determining what the report’s 290 recommendations mean for their services and the people they care for. Just as it is not possible to read Francis’ weighty report in a single sitting, so it will take a significant period of time for all of us to get our heads around what we need to do as a result.  

The thing which ultimately determines whether such a report sinks or floats; whether its recommendations are fully implemented or gather dust on the shelves alongside so many other reports down the years is political will. The primary reason why people remember the Macpherson report is because the government of the day took its lessons and not only ensured that they triggered change in the Metropolitan Police and the wider police service, but also legislated to ensure that, through the Race Relations Act 2000 (Amendment) and the Race Equality Duty, it led to more wholesale changes to the way all public authorities addressed the issues it raised.

The proposals set out in the Francis report are wide-ranging and ambitious. They include a shift to more patient centred services, an emphasis on zero harm, renewed stress on transparency, fundamental challenges to professional practice and priorities and a wholesale rebalancing of regulation across the health and social care system. The sheer number of recommendations means that it cannot possibly succeed without robust political backing. Day one, at least, suggests that such political will might just exist. The Prime Minister’s decision to deliver the government’s formal response underlined the importance of this issue and hopefully underscores the degree of political commitment to implementing its recommendations.  The Prime Minister’s response made clear that the government is pushing ahead to deal with a number of issues raised by the report.  He has asked Don Berwick to examine how the NHS can implement a "zero harm" approach and Sir Bruce Keogh is reviewing the five NHS Trusts with the highest mortality rates; small steps, but a start nonetheless. The real work and the true test will come over the coming months. Change will require major decisions about the introduction of a statutory Duty of Candour, a fundamental rebalancing of priorities, major shifts in nursing and other care services and a reorganisation of the regulatory landscape with a likely shift in powers between Monitor and the Care Quality Commission and other regulatory bodies.  

The next few months will determine whether there is the political will required to push through the raft of changes to attitudes, perceptions, responses, professional norms and working practices set out by the Francis report. It will also help determine whether, like Macpherson before it, the Francis report is destined to be cited for years to come as a real agent of change, or whether it has more in common with other authoritative reports which have been delayed or simply disappeared from view because of a lack of political will or the absence of a cross-party consensus.     

Dr Phil McCarvill is Head of Policy at Marie Curie Cancer Care
 

Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.